Reconciling Arius...

In the early forth century the orthodox church sought to define the nature of God once and for all...

Arius was the main component to the losing side of this debate within the early church...

I believe the events that took place during this time that to this day defined the church and its creeds were "suspicious" to say the least... not to mention unbiblical according to the texts of the New testament...

The end result of these early councils was of course "the trinity"... which is also not biblical and in fact a fabrication of the early orthodox church in my humble opinion

I personally believe Arius was correct in his arguments but was pressured by the majority of the church leaders to conform to their version of God which was made "official" by Constantine soon after the Council of Nicaea... Arius was excommunicated numerous times and readmitted during this time, but in the end his life ended (also suspiciously) and his writing was destroyed... Yet more suspicious behaviour... Personally I believe any time in the past where a persons writing was destroyed it was because it was a threat to someone or a group agenda.... similar to the gnostic writings

"In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death. As soon as he is discovered in this offense, he shall be submitted for capital punishment....."

— Edict by Emperor Constantine against the Arians

And his Death... which was called "divine retribution"... Sounds suspicious to me

It was then Saturday, and Arius was expecting to assemble with the church on the day following: but divine retribution overtook his daring criminalities. For going out of the imperial palace, attended by a crowd of Eusebian partisans like guards, he paraded proudly through the midst of the city, attracting the notice of all the people. As he approached the place called Constantine’s Forum, where the column of porphyry is erected, a terror arising from the remorse of conscience seized Arius, and with the terror a violent relaxation of the bowels: he therefore enquired whether there was a convenient place near, and being directed to the back of Constantine’s Forum, he hastened thither. Soon after a faintness came over him, and together with the evacuations his bowels protruded, followed by a copious hemorrhage, and the descent of the smaller intestines: moreover portions of his spleen and liver were brought off in the effusion of blood, so that he almost immediately died. The scene of this catastrophe still is shown at Constantinople, as I have said, behind the shambles in the colonnade: and by persons going by pointing the finger at the place, there is a perpetual remembrance preserved of this extraordinary kind of death.

— Socrates Scholasticus

The argument Arius believed was that God was the Highest entity and Jesus was subordinate to his will... And thus Not Equal to the Father which is exactly what Jesus said in the gospels... He existed before time, yet there was a time in the past where Jesus did not exist... Created by the Father... yet before all creation that currently exists

In this letter attributed to Arius he explains...

Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia

Since Eusebius, your brother in Caesarea, and Theodotus, and Paulinus, and Athanasius, and Gregory, and Aetius and all those in the East say that God pre-exists the Son without a beginning, they have been condemned, except for Philogonius and Hellenicus and Macarius, unlearned heretics some of whom say that the Son was “spewed out”, others that he was an “emanation”, still others that he was “jointly unbegotten.” (4.) We are not able to listen to these kinds of impieties, even if the heretics threaten us with ten thousand deaths. But what do we say and think and what have we previously taught and do we presently teach? — that the Son is not unbegotten, nor a part of an unbegotten entity in any way, nor from anything in existence, but that he is subsisting in will and intention before time and before the ages, full God, the only-begotten, unchangeable. (5.) Before he was begotten, or created, or defined, or established, he did not exist. For he was not unbegotten. But we are persecuted because we have said the Son has a beginning but God has no beginning. We are persecuted because of that and for saying he came from non-being. But we said this since he is not a portion of God nor of anything in existence. That is why we are persecuted

He also reiterates in his other letters that The Father could not be a Father just as the Son could not be a son IF he was not created by the Father, who is the ONE and only True God... And there is nothing equal to him...

But he teaches that that one [the Father] is alone true when he says, “that they may know you, the only true God” [John 17:3], not as if one only is God, but that one is the (only) true God, with the very necessary addition of true. For also he himself is Son of God, but not true, as God is. For there is but one true God, the one before whom nothing existed. But if the Son himself is true, it is simply as an image of the true God, and he is God, for [Scripture says] “and the Word was God” [John 1:1], but not as the only true God.

It is written that this debate in the church became so heated at one point that one of the members of this Council in Nicaea actually struck Arius... How ironic... Im sure he "turned the other cheek"

According to some accounts in the hagiography of Nicholas of Myra, debate at the council became so heated that at one point, Nicholas struck Arius across the face

en.wikipedia.org...

I urge the reader to look over the documents of those days and see who you feel had the correct argument...

www.fourthcentury.com...

And while i know Christians will not agree with this "heretic"... Perhaps some will see the truth behind the veil...

The Father who sent me is greater than me” [John 14:28]

I look forward to this conversation in this thread... Lets keep it civil please

Thanks for reading

a reply to: Akragon

And his Death... which was called "divine retribution"... Sounds suspicious to me

It was then Saturday, and Arius was expecting to assemble with the church on the day following: but divine retribution overtook his daring criminalities. For going out of the imperial palace, attended by a crowd of Eusebian partisans like guards, he paraded proudly through the midst of the city, attracting the notice of all the people. As he approached the place called Constantine’s Forum, where the column of porphyry is erected, a terror arising from the remorse of conscience seized Arius, and with the terror a violent relaxation of the bowels: he therefore enquired whether there was a convenient place near, and being directed to the back of Constantine’s Forum, he hastened thither. Soon after a faintness came over him, and together with the evacuations his bowels protruded, followed by a copious hemorrhage, and the descent of the smaller intestines: moreover portions of his spleen and liver were brought off in the effusion of blood, so that he almost immediately died. The scene of this catastrophe still is shown at Constantinople, as I have said, behind the shambles in the colonnade: and by persons going by pointing the finger at the place, there is a perpetual remembrance preserved of this extraordinary kind of death.

— Socrates Scholasticus

Now that is some kind of scary catastrophic organ failure ... which reminds me of the organist's organ playing last week in church ... if I had gone to church that is ... oh the bells the BELLS!

[swings amongst the rafters]

It reminds me of a line from one of Metallica's songs ... "bursting with fear"!

Remind me to never dine with Constantine ... as it seems obvious that Arius was poisoned for him to have such a violent and explosive bowel movement!

As for Arius's train of logic visavis the Father, Son, holy ghost and the question of the trinity's accuracy ... I find no reason to fault it.

There is only ONE God ... they ARE the Father ... the Father is Omnipresent in all things and beings and hence Jesus was also God ... but was he the only begotten son?

I think the bible itself contradicts itself here as there are many sons of god [aka the angels that fell and took human wives before the flood].

However I am quite aware of the issues surrounding Jesus claim to kingship over the hebrew's via his family history tying him into the house of King David and via his linage to the root of Jessie and that being conceived out of wedlock threw a spanner into the claim to royal bloodline side of things.

Now if the promised savior/messiah has to be of certain clean genetic and cultural stock heritage, and the families carrying these bloodlines all act as if this savior will spring up literally out of the wombs of one of their women, then one could say that that savior was planned and prepared for long before they ever arrive and it is maybe this that is what Jesus meant by saying that he was with God long before he ever materialized.

From what I have read of the bible it seems to me that Jesus did a whole lot of stuff just to fulfill prophecy as if it was some huge PR campaign OR some massive magic ritual that just had to be carried out.

The crux of the matter is that Jesus didn't only state that he was with God in Gods plans way before creation, which sorta implies all this stuff ... all the bad ... that God knew before he even created things that it was going to be bad ... but that Jesus also stated that the only way to God was through him.

The question then still remains .. is Jesus the ONLY saving grace that God has sent

a reply to: DietJoke

As for Arius's train of logic visavis the Father, Son, holy ghost and the question of the trinity's accuracy ... I find no reason to fault it. There is only ONE God ... they ARE the Father ... the Father is Omnipresent in all things and beings and hence Jesus was also God ... but was he the only begotten son?

His thoughts on the matter were that Jesus was in fact created at one point in time... And that God his Father is the one God yet Jesus was also divine but not God...At least not on the same level as the Father... This is also confirmed by Jesus in the gospels... He states specifically he is the "Son of God" not equal to the Father, and not God as Christianity teaches...

Also the absence of the teaching of a Trinity within the NT and the OT also confirms this ideal... None of the apostles taught a trinity, Nor does Judaic belief... Or Jesus himself...

Thanks for your reply

If Jesus was not equal to God then why did he claim that he and the Father were One?

I believe the Tripartite Tractate from the Nag Hammadi library explains this supposed contradiction perfectly.

The Father is greater than the Son but the Son is also equal to the Father in a way. The Father is within every one of us, he is the Spirit that gives life to all things, think of him as the force that regulates your heartbeat and breathing. The Son is the mind, it is the thing that interprets and gathers information from the world around us.

The Son is said to fully exist within "parts" according to the TT, these "parts" are what make up the Church, or dwelling place of the Father and Son, a.k.a. the physical universe or "Mother".

The Mother or Church can be defined as our bodies, which includes everything within the physical universe, it is the Temple of the Spirit of God. The Mother or Church is the physical manifestation of the Father or Spirit while the Son is where the physical and spiritual become One.

We are the Son or image of the invisible Spirit of God. Jesus put himself on equal ground with all of us, he is no more the "first" than we all are.

John 14
20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.

John 17
20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

We can all become the Son, in fact we already are, we just have to recognize it.

S&F

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

ONE in essence... which is what Arius was saying...

Not ONE and the "same" as some sects of Christianity teaches

IF Jesus were one and the same as the Father he would not have had to learn from the Father... which he specifically says... HE learned from his Father... HE was not equal to his Father, which he also says in three separate passages in John

a reply to: Akragon

Jesus learned from the Father just as we all learn from the Father. Without the Spirit within us we would not have life, if we do not have life within us then there is no way to attain knowledge.

But just because we learn from the Father does not mean we are not One with him, just as we learn from the Mother and are One with her as well. We are not separate from the universe, we are part of it meaning we are One with both the physical and spiritual.

Heaven is within us, it is the Spirit of God or Father. The Kingdom of Heaven is "outside" of us, it is the Church or Mother, it is the dwelling place of the Spirit.

We are all One with God because we are both physical and spiritual beings. There is no separation, only unity just as Jesus says.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I like the train of thought brother but im not entirely sure I agree with you...

My thoughts on God are that nothing can be equal to him... Even Jesus...

Which is why I wrote this thread.... Understanding the Indescribable

So I could refer back to it when needed...

Comprehending the shear size of all that has been created is impossible for our puny little brain... Its hard to even consider US as humans or even spiritual beings being equal to an entity that created it all

a reply to: Akragon

In my opinion we as observers create the universe, only passively. What happens when a phenomena isn't observed? It acts erratically as the double-slit experiment has proven. Without we the observer (Son), nothing would exist as we know it.

To know that the universe cannot be fully understood is the greatest form of understanding in my opinion. There's nothing more to be known except that the rabbit hole never ends, kind of like a fractal. No matter how much we learn or how deep down we go, there will always be further to go.

To know yourself is to know everything in a sense because we are everything. Self-awareness and self-realization are the keys to understanding in my opinion, and that understanding is that it cannot be fully understood.

Self-realization is kind of like seeing a painting but not knowing in what order the brush strokes were taken. You don't need to know all the details to understand what has been painted.

ETA: 11:11, make a wish.

a reply to: Akragon

Paul said this first before Arius. I'm not sure why The Church didn't believe him.

Colossians 1:15
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

If they would have believed Paul, they would have believed that The Holy Spirit is associated with this:

Galatianas 5:22-23
love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control;

and not whatever feels 'good' or whatever you 'want it to be'.


They would have also known that The Holy Spirit is within but most do not know because they worship The Temple (The Flesh/The Body) instead of The Spirit (God/The Holy Spirit)

1 Corinthians 6:19
Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own

a reply to: arpgme

Ironically Eusebius uses that same argument referring to Colossians

www.fourthcentury.com...

a reply to: arpgme

If we are not our own as Paul suggests, there is no free will. This is my problem with Paul, he mixed lies with truth as is shown with Colossians 1:15 and 1 Corinthians 6:19. Colossians 1:15 is fully true, 1 Corinthians 6:19 is only half truth.

Paul understood but was selfish and hid that understanding through human doctrine and dogma. Paul is the anti-christ, he is the one who claimed to speak for Jesus.

Matthew 24
5 For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Messiah,' and will deceive many.

Many people haven't gotten the hint yet apparently. There is no need for a middle man such as Paul, all we need are the words of Jesus himself (at least when it comes to the bible), they are truth.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Man I agree with you so much and disagree with you so much

Yes on everything except Paul. Though I think you see the dichotomy as you see he has these truths, but that his selfishness he hides it. I see it as an example of mens connection with God. There is a mixture in his message, which is the filter of his mind. He even says sometimes that he is giving his own opinion. Much of what he says is Chaff, he says I wish I didn't do the things I do and don't do the things I want. He admits to his failures, and gives us a frail model. A broken one who is not to be deified like men do to "holy men". He is Saul the chaff and Paul the seed. The flesh and Spirit. The Veil and Son. Sometimes he speaks as an unveiled one, and others through the veil. He understands the unity but affirms the reality of the duality that we live in. I think he is teaching what you are saying.

With that there may be a control motive there, I'm pretty positive that the pastoral epistles are not authentic, and I think that his theology changed as he came into contact with John the one who laid on the breast/heart of Jesus in Ephesus, and was also changed in his 3rd heaven experiences that unveiled the mystery to him. (These events may have happened in concert with each other).

I see the book of Revelation much the same way. It is the Unveiling of Jesus Christ. Hidden in a mystery of overlapping images of the good and evil god (duality, Janus, YHWH), but ultimately revealing the Lamb Slain as the image of God the one who can unseal the chakras, and bring us into the unity of the Corporate body of the Son of God, which is seen as the New Jerusalem, the Bride/new spotless glorious body(1 for 15) being filled with the Sun/Son, no light from the Sun is needed. This all is the fulfillment of the feast of Booths/Tabernacles (the word became flesh and tabernacled amongst us).

My two cents

Btw I don't see Paul as saying he is a middle man, in fact he says the opposite. His saying to imitate him is just in weakness, humility as Jesus was. Though I think the thorn in his side was the temptation to accept worship, or veneration as he was called Hermes, and was seen as a God. So much of what you are saying I see as his fight, which is the point, we all have the fight, we have to carry around that old man the dead man adam that is like a millstone around our neck, or the stoney law that accuses us, and keeps us in the ground.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
If we are not our own as Paul suggests, there is no free will.

This letter was sent to The early Church. He is speaking to those who have already chosen to give up their free-will from following selfishness and the ways of materialism to follow The Spirit within.

You can choose The Flesh and selfishness or The Spirit which brings fruits of Love, Peace, Joy, Self-Control and all things good as Galatians says.

You say there is no need for a middle man. Paul said The Spirit is within by telling people that The Body is The Temple of The Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19 ) Jesus said The Kingdom of Heaven is within (Luke 17:21). They both agree that a piece of The Divine (Heaven/The Spirit) is within us. They are reminding us of this.

Jeeze do you believe in unicorns too? this is a moot and unproductive argument considering the Council of Nicea was Constantines rubber stamp committee.....80 canonical works taken out of the "bible" at the time...even some of the books jesus preached from (jasher for one....)
Its all just part of the control paradigm.....if you actually knew how mANY SHARED THE SAME STORY LINE AS JESUS YOUD PUKE.

a reply to: stirling

The point of this thread is to recognize the False teaching of the trinity...

What Arius wrote In these letters are confirmed fully by the texts within the New Testament, but the trinity is no where to be found... The few mentions of it like 1 John 5:7, and Matt 28 are not within any of the earliest texts

Even Paul does not recognize a triune God... Now I personally am not a fan of Paul, but one thing I know for a fact... Paul does not ever use the formula God, Son and spirit...

Arius was silenced...and likely murdered because he was correct!

a reply to: Akragon

Arius was silenced...and likely murdered because he was correct!

Right, and the myth about an agreement against him at the council was fabricated to create the sense that he had been condemned righteously beforehand.
The likely reality was that, by his force of argument, it was impossible to have the desired Imperial version of God pushed through while Arius lived.
Once he was dead, documents were forged to back up the myth of an agreed-upon creed coming out of Nicaea.

Sorry I'm a little late to your thread, bro. I want you (and the others who have posted) to know how much this helps me.

There is a new thread over in Philosphy/Psychology this morning dealing with the myth of Prometheus, which ties in sweetly to your ideas here. I've been aware of the Arian controversy for some time, and I think it's a critically important key to understanding how what is now presented as "Triune" is so convoluted and next to impossible to accept for me.

Do you know where the letters of Arius's that survived came from?

I simply can NOT understand how so many Christians simply say, "Well, the Nicene Creed is what you have to believe."
Says who?

Not Jesus, he never ever said so. I'm with you all - I'll go by what he said, and interpret it in light of all the OTHER extra-biblical sources that add to it. Just because something got left out of "The Bible" as packaged by Constantine's council does not mean it's 'trash.' The Gnostic gospels changed everything, and I don't see any reason for them being called "vapid" or "moot" or "ridiculous" or "irrelevant", except that it undermines the status quo (which setup makes no sense).

Why are Christians so threatened by those writings? I think the fact that they WERE hidden away, for obvious safe-keeping and/or self-protection by those who held them lend even MORE credence to them. If they were no big deal, why were they ordered burned and people killed who even thought to bring them up!

Poor Arius. In my mind he is correct, and seeing as how 1700 years have passed since he lived, what is so horrible about just accepting his theory? I think he should be "Sainted".
But, who am I except one little fractal in a female form with only half a century behind me??

Just a thinking person. And won't be told, "You just have to believe this, because that's what this bunch of guys said to believe."
Erm, no. I don't "have to" - and I stand by my God-given right to NOT believe things that are inexplicable.

S/F, and stars all round, guys!

a reply to: Akragon

I don't think that the Son was created, but birthed or carved out of the Father.

Genesis 1:1
Hebrew : Usual Translation : Alternate literal translation (5 and 7 are not in the books per se)

1 Bere#h: In the beginning: Firstfruits

2 Bara: created : Birthed/Carved out see TWOT's explanation here classic.net.bible.org...

3 Elohim : God : god/Son

4 Ath : untranslated: Aleph-Tau, Alpha-Omega

5 Shamayim : Heavens : Mind of Christ

6 Ath : untranslated : Aleph-Tau, Alpha-Omega

7 Eretz : Earth : Body of Christ

All of Genesis 1 is about the formation of the New Man, The birthing of the Son

IMO, IMO, IMO

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

ONE in essence... which is what Arius was saying...

Not ONE and the "same" as some sects of Christianity teaches

IF Jesus were one and the same as the Father he would not have had to learn from the Father... which he specifically says... HE learned from his Father... HE was not equal to his Father, which he also says in three separate passages in John

That Jesus is not equal to God is all over the bible, yet trinitarians come up with ridiculous ways to argue otherwise. The son and the holy spirit are both subordinate to God and speak not of their own by but as they hear. Essentially, the trinty is a mini-pantheon. God, a subordinate son and a subordinate holy spirit. Other christians go to the extreme of saying Jesus is God who took on human form.... a nonsensical teaching that is not supported by the words of Jesus. That way, Christianity resembles hinduism..... With its concepts of man-gods and God becoming man.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Do you know where the letters of Arius's that survived came from?

Mostly in the books by his enemies where they quote Arius in order to refute what he said, or to just say, "here he shows how heretical he is!"
A good explanation of the dispute can be found in Elaine Pagels' book on Revelation.