Misunderstandings about theology

[Thomas]

As ever, with @Longfellow, the argument takes a strange and inexplicable turn ...

Here's how I see the situation around Arius. The people he served were dockworkers, sailors and laborers. There was resentment against the aristocrats ...

There is absolutely not one shred of evidence for this – so unless you can evidence the resentment, it's baseless, and you're spinning a fictitious scenario.

... Some poetry or songs allegedly written by Arius ...

No scholar disputes Arius' authorship of the Thalia, yet you seem to doubt. Have you any reason for this, or is it simply that your scenario differs?

... and one theme of the verses was a denial of the aristocratic belief in the Son as God himself, and the bishops as inheriting the authority he gave to his twelve.

This is simply, factually, wrong.

So, thus far we have a imagined scenario with no supporting evidence – and the actual evidence refutes it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Add to my post above for clarification: "unless 'dharma' demands it".

 

[Thomas]

I might have found the real reason why Arius was deposed. The bishop says in a letter: "they drag us before the tribunals of the judges ..."
So Arius's heresy was dragging church aristocrats before judges when they tried to steal from his charity networks.

What tribunals were these if, as you suppose, Alexander represents the 'aristocracy' in your scenario?
And what, pray tell, were Arius' 'charity networks'?

I had to trawl a bit for answers (And there's none for your imaginary 'charity networks').

I've done a bit of digging, but not so deep, nor do I intend to.

 

[Thomas]

Maybe what you need is for someone to explain what harm anyone could have thought it would do for people to have false beliefs about the Trinity. My answer is that the reason for calling people heretics was *not* because of their beliefs. It was because they were making trouble for the aristocracy, Then the divergent beliefs that they were promoting were used as reasons for deposing them.

Only because you don't understand Christianity, or how Christians understood the implications of true and false teachings, so you leap to suppositions which only indicate how little you understand what's going on.

You would do better to ask questions, rather that create fictional scenarios founded on imagined narratives, and then argue in favour of those ...

 

[Thomas]

Can you think of any other harm besides that ...

There's no other harm that comes anywhere near that.

 

[Thomas]

How do you define “the church,” when the highest church authorities disagree with each other?

In the early 4th century?

I'd say a confederation of episcopal sees headed by a bishop, who came together in synods to discuss and determine issues arising. Not all bishops necessarily agreed with each other, nor were relations always cordial.

But when a presbyter stepped out of line, a bishop had the authority to shut him down, and all bishops agreed that.

 

[Thomas]

What I mean is, how do you define false beliefs when the highest church authorities are accusing each other of promoting false beliefs, and the only reason they appear to agree is because at the emperor’s bidding they found a way of writing a statement that they can each interpret as what they already thought, and then go back home and keep fighting about it?

But that's not quite the way it happened though, is it ...

 

[Thomas]

Your major failing in your argument, which began here:

I don’t think the problem was actually anybody’s beliefs. I think that the problem was when people started using some beliefs as reasons for massive disruptive actions. The leaders responded by denouncing the beliefs. Misguided, maybe, but it’s what people often do.

Well that idea has to applied on a case-by-case basis, it doesn't work as a 'one size fits all' argument, and fails on just about every point as presented here.

 

[EricPH]

it even creates confusion and misunderstandings. Trinity theology is one example.

My 2c on the Trinity!!!

Jesus prayed that we should be ‘One’ in exactly the same way that he is ‘One with the Father’. Could the greatest commandments possibly describe how Christ is one with the Father, and how we should be ‘One’.

The Father loves Jesus as he loves himself.

Jesus loves the Father as he loves himself.

Could the spirit be the power of God’s love; working through the perfection of the greatest commandments?

1 Samuel 18-1, NIV version

Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself.

Jesus loves us as he loves himself, he died for us, rose again and sent the Holy Spirit. Thank you Lord

I am Catholic and could walk in a Catholic Church anywhere in the world, and possibly as one with them. But they aren't my real neighbours, people of many faiths and no faith are my real neighbours, how do I become as one with them?

 

[Thomas]

I am Catholic and could walk in a Catholic Church anywhere in the world, and possibly as one with them. But they aren't my real neighbours, people of many faiths and no faith are my real neighbours, how do I become as one with them?

Open your heart to them.

I have shared moments with Hindus and Muslims, not because we believe in the same way, but because we believe.

 

[RJM]

End of the day it comes around to the fact that the Arian dispute is not evidence -- as some folks want it to be -- that the early church was divided about whether "Jesus is God" and that Constantine forced "Jesus is God" upon the church as a tool for conquest. This is the most common reason the Arian issue comes up. The "Jesus is not God" and anti-trinitarian Arianism around Constantine forcing his edicts upon Roman Christianity, is actually a fantasy that does not reflect the actual dispute or its outcome, imo