Talk:Arianism/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Older material

Please, can someone review what is supposed to mean the second paragraph after "Fourth Century", where it reads "At one point... ... but Arians".? Should that be refrased?

"Christological" points to Jesus Christ--do we infer that "Christological" is jargon that simply means "of or relating to Jesus Christ"? --Larry Sanger

I 'spose. At least it wasn't one of the Pneumatological heresies. --MichaelTinkler

Yes, then we would have to go through the "pneumatic" drill. b-dum tss!!  ;-) --LMS

Did the Aryans really invade India?

Yes, around 2000 B.C. they invaded and started making a civilization that produced many works of Hindu sacred literature such as the Rig Vedas and Upanishads. (feel free to put this on the actual page, or start a new topic)

Yes, the Arians lost at the church council, but (as the article notes) there are still Arians today. Is "heresy" NPOV? If not, is there a better term? Vicki Rosenzweig

Well, but none of these modern Arians or semi-Arians traces an actual connection to the early Christian Arians. It's a similarity or a 'nothing new under the sun' or a re-invention. "Heresy" is certainly problematic given the - ahem - 'broad' way we have defined things here. --MichaelTinkler
I revised this sentence: The Jehovahs Witnesses continue to espouse a form of Arianism today, explicitly agreeing with Arius. It seems to imply that JWs have always existed and have continuously agreed with Arius. Nope. --MichaelTinkler (although do THEY themselves believe they have always existed?)

I vaguely recall reading that the Nestorian church was Arian, and they were influential in Asia later than this article refers to--converted some significant number of Genghis Khan's followers, I think. Anyone remember this, or do I need to do the research?

The article suggests Gene Roddenberry is a Mormon...uhhhhh, Idon'thinkso. B 14:21, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The Great Hoax that Led to Arianism

Arius was of true coptic african egpytian origin. He disagreed with the roman/greek spin being put on the triad/trinity story. He stayed true to the original deities,(osiris, isis, & horus) vs. The vicar of serapis which gave this great fake, osirian features. Then replaced the sun-god, with the created creature. They were upset that the majority of the real coptic african egyptians wouldn't accept the man created deity. Isn't it funny that the great arianism of today, don't even like africans, and their for father was african? It pays to research before jumping on a band wagon!!! This article states arius was a christian. Wrong!! Christianity wasn't even formed a such yet. It was still being transformed from its original creation story to one that would give honor to roman/greek image vs. The jet black gods whom have not forgotten, and will still ressurect!! Whoa to all the demons who took part in this great switch to allow ra's chosen people to become slaves/servants.. Osiris will live again & right(always over left)the wrong... Ho tep! -- Ra child

Do you know something we don't? If anyone has any original writings of Arius, please, by all means, tell the newspapers or an Archaeologist or something. Thanks. 24.176.6.165 06:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deeply Confused Paragraph

I began copy-editing the following 'graph, and then realized i had no idea what the author is trying to convey. Can someone with comparative-religion expertise make some sense out of it, and rewrite at a level consistent with the rest of the article? As it stands, it stalls most readers and intereferes with the usefulness of the article.

In terms of comparative religion, Arianism is seen as an common example of where Christian theology became culturally merged with Eastern religious, "pagan" influences, which tend to have distinct divinities manifesting separated divine and elemental powers. The conflict with the Church, being the vessel by which this past "conflict" is viewed today, was a simple factor of the Church's unique power, growing and far-reaching at the time.

--Jerzy 18:04, 2004 Feb 4 (UTC)

JW and Islamic beliefs

Unless I'm mistaken, Jehovah's Witnesses believe Christ should be worshipped. Also the summary of Islamic beliefs about Muhammed is incorrect, although its unclear to me whether this incorrectness is believed by the source cited.

I think that you are mistaken about JW beliefs. There may be some subtlety involved here, but the JWs believe that Jehovah, the Father, is the only object of worship. People and angels may bow down before Jesus, but JWs do not believe that they worship him; and the Holy Spirit is not to be worshipped.
"No, Jesus did not teach his disciples to pray to him, to his mother Mary, or to any other person. But God now requires that we recognize the position of his Son and offer all our prayers in Jesus' name. That is why Christ told his followers: "No one comes to the Father except through me."-John 14:6. For prayers to be acceptable to God, then, they must be addressed to Jehovah God through his Son, Jesus Christ. That is, they must be said to God in the name of Jesus. (Watchtower, 3/15/1988, p.6)
Mkmcconn — 23:35, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Arianism Swindle

Arianism and the Arian heresy was actually the belief that Jesus was not divine, but a regular person who was nothing more than a prophet. It was Rome who instead rephrased his argument as a philosophical one. As a matter of fact, the belief that Jesus was some kind of divine being akin to that of Crishna was the minority position prior to Nicea. This constubstantial business was hogwash designed to put words in the mouth of Arius, who was assassinated. The original christians did not believe jesus to be a god, it was Rome who wanted christians to adopt a pagan religion( Roman Christianity ) in order to reestablish control. The idea that everyone immediately adopted a highly complex philosophical idea in relatively short time is ridiculous considering the mass of christians were illiterate. Finally, the trinity is a egyptian/babylonian concept, that was, at the very least, against what Jesus taught.
that's all very correct, but you'll have to rephrase it without "hogwash" or "swindle" if you want to say that in the article. dab 09:24, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Finally, the trinity is a egyptian/babylonian concept, that was, at the very least, against what Jesus taught. I object to this statement. If the bible is accurate then I don't think there's anything that Jesus taught which is contrary to the concept of the trinity, and if the bible is not accurate then we have no idea what Jesus taught so we cannot say that it is contrary to anything.
hey, if the bible is correct, there isn't any teaching of Jesus contrary to tetrinity, or heptinity, or the Holy Spirit being raspberry flavoured. You know, christian theology should be about what these figures actually tought, not about what they forgot to deny. dab (ᛏ) 16:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
John 17.3 - right there you've got Jesus (recorded by John) as contradicting the theory of the Trinity, also this was supposed to be Arius' favorite proof text, along with Col1.15 and Pr8.22. For details see Theological Studies #26, 1965, p.545-573, by Raymond Brown, titled "Does the NT call Jesus God?" Also, the later Trinitarian proof text that made it into the Textus Receptus, the Comma Johanneum, was exposed as a forgery.

Removed section

I removed the following section from the article, as it is POV. Feel free to reword it and reinsert it. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 14:55, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Really? In that case all of Christianity is a POV, more importantly the minority POV prior to Nicea! These things were simply stated historical fact. The trinity is the Horus/Osiris/Isis Father/Son/Holy Ghost theology of egypt-babylonia. This information should be in the article! The Catholic Church does not own Wikipedia! Those people who are interested in what Jesus taught should know that he did not necessarily teach the trinity. History indicates that he did not.
hello? he didn't say the info shouldn't be included. He said you should rephrase it to sound less like a pov crusade. The point you are making is valid indeed. This is about the style of the paragraph (you cannot always rely on other people to fix your text for you). dab 21:57, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
also, there is an important distinction between an avatar Krishna (not Crishna) and God incarnate as seen by post-Nicean orthodox Christianity. Again, sometimes people will fix your inaccuracies for you, and sometimes they will just dump your paragraph on Talk with an encouragement to try again. dab 22:00, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Errors and omissions.

The article fails to mention that the Arians believed Christ to be a divine, pre-existent being. It is therefore wrong to say that they saw him as "a man like other men."

The claim that Arianism was "brutally enforced upon the Christian community" is patently false. Arianism was never forced upon anybody.

There are other points which need to be mentioned. I shall return to this article and correct it when I have more time. --Teutonic Knight 09:57, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think this sentence (about "brutal enforcement") is supposed to refer to Trinitarianism, not Arianism. It's been inserted badly (or mangled by editing). I will comment it out. Gwimpey 01:26, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Arianism certainly was brutally forced upon the Christian community, under the Emperors Constantius II and Valens. Str1977 23:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Answering a question about the Nestorians.

Somebody asked:

I vaguely recall reading that the Nestorian church was Arian, and they were influential in Asia later than this article refers to--converted some significant number of Genghis Khan's followers, I think. Anyone remember this, or do I need to do the research?

Nestorianism was definitely not Arianism, for the Nestorians believed that Jesus Christ is God incarnate. However, Nestorius was accused of dividing the Son into two separate persons (which he vigorously denied.) See the article on Nestorianism for an excellent summary of the Christological issues involved. Nestorianism is alive and well today in some of the Eastern churches - most notably the Assyrian.

In passing, it is interesting to note that Nestorianism was the first form of Christianity to reach China. --Teutonic Knight 14:11, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arianism and Jehovah's Witnesses

The article currently states:

For example, the modern Jehovah's Witnesses have some similar beliefs. However, Arius viewed the Holy Spirit as a person, whereas Jehovah's Witnesses do not attribute personality to the spirit.

The Arians did not ascribe personality to the Holy Spirit.

Jehovah's Witnesses also, unlike Arians, deny belief in a disembodied soul after death, eternal punishment of the unrep

entantly wicked, and episcopacy: doctrines to which the Arians did not obviously object.

This is irrelevant. Belief in the immortality of the soul, eternal punishment and episcopy is not what makes a person Arian. Arianism is a doctrine about the nature of Christ and his relationship to the Father; anyone who confesses that doctrine is therefore Arian by default, regardless of whatever else they might believe on any other subject. Since the JWs subscribe to the Arian formula (namely that Jesus pre-existed as the firstborn of God; that the creation was formed through him; that he was raised from the dead to the Father's side, yet remains distinct from Him; that he is a superlative divine being, but not Almighty God) they are Arians by definition.

In some respects, there is a closer analogy to Socinianism, than to Arianism, in Jehovah's Witness theology (Socinians similarly were called "Arians" by their detractors; see also Unitarianism). Jehovah's Witnesses, unlike Arians, do not direct prayers to Jesus.

There is no evidence that the Arians ever directed their prayers to Jesus. --Teutonic Knight 16:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

most of what is on this page is half-educated bs

Constantine and Arianism

A recent edit, among many fine additions, introduced this sentence:

"Constantine is said to have renounced trinitarianism in favor of Arianism on his death bed, although this conflicts with the rumours that he converted to Christianity on his death bed (as he would have to have converted to trinitarianism then changed his mind within seconds) - Constantine was not a Christian for the majority (or possibly all) of his life."

In fact, Constantine saw himself as a Christian -- that is, as a believer in Jesus Christ as divine -- for most of his adult life after 312 AD. Since he knew very little about the religion at first, in the period just after 312 his beliefs are a bit eclectic. What happened on his deathbed was his baptism. At the time, since baptism was viewed as washing away all sins that the baptisee had committed, it was common to delay one's baptism until late in life -- especially for an emperor, for whom sin was part of the job. The "conversion" to Arianism was also not a deathbed experience -- after Nicea, Constantine began to associate himself with Eusebius of Caesaria and other Arian or non-Nicene bishops, and it was from one of these that he received baptism. I've moved the original sentence down to put it into historical context and edited heavily. --Jfruh 15:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In fact, Constantine never renounced trinitarianism in favor of Arianism. Yes, he was lenient on the three leading Arians and quite friendly with Eusebius of Caesarea and others, that had some Arian leanings, but still he stuck to the definitions of Nicea. He was baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia, the leading Arian, but officially he had made his peace with the council by signing some equivocal statement. After Constantine's death of course, Eusebius's Arianism appeared openly again. In later years, Constantine's baptism by a heretic was considered so astonishing, that the legend emerged Constantine had really been baptized by Pope Sylvester. But this only made matters worse, since the undeniable sources for baptism by Eusebius were now seen as a Arian re-baptism. Str1977 22:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Why erase the Aryan clarification?

Was the clarification at the beginning of this article emphasizing that Arians and Aryans are different really so out of place that it needed to be eliminated? You might be surprised how many people with little grasp of history confuse the two terms, especially if they've only heard them spoken. One need only look at some of the uninformed discussion on this Talk page to see that this clarification would be helpful. --Jfruh 21:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree - the clarification did no harm and could only help people who don't nkow how to spell. ;) Trödel|talk 22:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, remove it. We don't do disambiguation for misspellings, let them use a dictionary. I'm not going to fight over it though. But maybe "for 'Arian' as a misspelling of...' sounds a bit clumsy. Try laconic "see Aryan for the ethnic concept". dab (ᛏ) 16:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't see why we'd want to have this. What is it clarifying, exactly? Having a note in an article to disambiguate something completely unrelated which is spelled differently is stupid. john k 19:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
One of the reasons we discourage throwing around terms like "silly" and (just above) "stupid" is that it takes some effort to be sure how many of your colleagues you are insulting in doing so.
In this case, i have not made that full effort (nor would i want to apply that language if i had). I have, however, sampled an evenly spaced 20 of the 165 edits that are shown in the portion of the page history preceding the first of this colleague's two removals. That sample shows
  • 6 by IPs, no two with the same first byte in their IP#s,
  • 12 by different registered users (one of them with no user-page, but a hundred and some edits since late December, and talk-page signs of collaborating constructively),
  • 2 by the same registered user (who has in fact made 11 edits total).
Without going into statistical reasoning (of which i am not a master) this suggests that no one has seriously been "hogging" the article, and that the content is a reasonable reflection of a consensus of a broad group of many dozens of editors.
The history also shows that the first revision for which the history is retained contains a closing 'graph reading
This, of course, is not to be confused with the Aryans who invaded India long ago.
and while i have found several specific edits that changed the wording (and one each that added a dab at the top, and that removed the bottom dab as redundant in light of the tob dab), i found no evidence that anyone else, from 2001 Dec 4 thru 10:32, 2005 May 1, has questioned the acceptability of there being some form of language indicating explicitly that "Aryanism" is not the subject of the Arianism article.
None of this proves that there must be a dab (or what i think of as a pseudo-dab, since it is true that this is about, rather than two correct meanings of one word, a relatively obscure word that matches a very sensible (though wrong) spelling of a word with a very odd spelling. (How sensible and how odd? The word for "pertaining to either Mary Tudor or the virgin Mary" is not "Maryan", but "Marian"; and "Marianist" is also a collegiate-dictionary word.) But i digress.). However, i suggest that the aggressive reassertion of this complaint by editing, and its extension by the same editor to another article, amounts for the time being to vandalism in defiance of the well established opinion of the community. The complaining editor can get it changed, but that should involve the emergence of others sharing his so far surprising opinion. Until then, there should be an Aryanism msg on this talk page's article, and an Arianism msg (which i, for one, consider far less needed, tho acceptable) at Aryan.
I would rather my colleague who (perhaps correctly) found my version "clumsy" had been willing to speak up more forcefully for the consensus that something is need, by putting their "laconic" version in place until pending further ideas (or a consensus for no such msg) emerge, but i don't mind advocating for something better than no msg, by my asserting the laconic version as the interim version in place of no msg.
--Jerzy (t) 04:13, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
Vandalism? That's completely uncalled for. At any rate, Aryans don't have anything to do with people called Ary, so I'm not sure what your point is. At any rate, can you point to other examples of false disambiguation like this? The affirmative case ought to be made as to why such a strange procedure is necessary, not simply saying that it's consensus because nobody bothered to do anything about it before. john k 05:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Don't get heated about this, people. This question would make for a very lame edit war. My position is, we don't need the dab notice. But if you insist, let's put it up, just make it as short as possible. dab (ᛏ) 07:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
To your many seemingly simple points, there are mostly no adequate simple responses. Instead:
  • Granted, the intent had not been shown to be vandalistic. And your changed approach convinces me it was not your intent. Thanks.
  • The point about "Marian" is not that Aryan comes analogously from Ary, but that any spelling in the same style as "Aryan", for something pronounced the same as "Arian", is so unnatural in English that being derived from "Mary" is not enough to make the spelling "Maryan" acceptable. If (in some sense) "Maryan" would have been a bad spelling, then "Aryan" for something that rhymes with "Marian" is an unexpected spelling, that is unusually likely to produce the misspelling "Arian" when "Aryan" has been heard and is the intended meaning.
(Another way of making the same point is Google searching. "baryan", "caryan", "daryan", "faryan", "garyan", and "haryan" each produced on the first page only foreign words or names, an (unfamiliar and probably freshly coined) English name or two, and the misspelling "baryan" for the unusual word "baryon".)
  • I see i did say "pseudo-dab", where i'd rather have said "quasi-dab" if someone was going to translate my words (even as accurately and fairly as you have), but now we're both playing with the terminology. The function of dabs is to help users to get to the right article. Certainly usual use for the classic dab-at-the-top format is for "eu-dabs" (if you will), about, as i said before, "[multiple] correct meanings of one word", and if i've seen other cases of misspelling-based quasi-dab hdgs, i'd be a little surprised when i saw one of them again, as the ones re Arian.../Aryan... feel unique to me. On the other hand, i'm pretty sure i have seen and ignored dab-only pages that included misspellings in addition to eu-dab entries, and i'm not sure there have been any of them that didn't lead me to make a face and doubt i would have included them if i had written the pages in question. Nevertheless, i agree with the spirit of the precedent i cite below (in a bullet point beginning "Actually, there's a...") which IMO is that most of us are unimaginative enough to fail to grasp the reason for some appropriate redirs or dabs; therefore i also doubt i would remove one unless i thot the whole page needed overhauling. And if in even that case someone put back entries i'd removed, i think i'd have deferred to them.
  • You dismiss the significance of the existing consensus, and ask for the making of "an affirmatative case".
    • My actual purpose in referring to that consensus was procedural: not to assert the consensus closes the case, but to assert the consensus imposes a rebuttable presumption, and that that presumption means
      • while your bold edit was admirable,
      • it's at least premature to use reversion to insist on keeping it: let something consistent with the consensus stand while we work out the disagreement.
    • Actually, there's a relevant precedent against needing an affirmative case, on WP:RfD: it says that (rough) consensus is necessary but not sufficient for removal of a redirect: if anyone thinks the redirect is useful, they are probably right even if you can't see what makes them think that. While cases like this one don't arise often enough for that advice to explicitly extend to them, analogy suggests it implicitly does.
    • I'm sorry i wasn't clear enough in what i offered as an affirmative case, and i hope i have clarified sufficiently. (I know my verbose precision is annoying, but those to whom the precision is surplus will, i think, find they can distill off the details that are for them in excess, producing their own rough and ready versions, unburdened by precision. If you're left still unclear, please ask another question.)
--Jerzy (t) 17:42, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
It is asserted (way above) that
We don't do disambiguation for misspellings
but to the extent we don't, it's because of the rarity of situations like this one. We clearly provide aids to access:
  • We do redirects for alternate names, and for misspelled names.
  • We do Dab pages and Dab headings for multiple meanings.
Pay attention to the asymmetry involved here: a redirect (an almost completely inflexible minor function built into the server) by its nature is suitable for bringing users via multiple names to the same place, and most misspellings amount to multiple names for the same thing. On the other hand, Dab-style pages are suitable for bringing users via a single name to multiple places, and typical dabs amount to single names for multiple things. The kicker is that this situation is neither one into many nor many into one, but many (well, two) into many (two again). It is a very atypical situation. The reason for using a quasi-dab is that a redirect would preclude the answering of the "which did you want?" question that a dab-style page or heading is designed to ask. If you type "Godel", we know you mean Gödel and redirect you there, no questions asked. If you type "Arianism", only you know what you mean, and we have to give you a choice, dab style. A quasi-dab like this is a special situation. The good news is that we don't have to do it very often. The bad news is that we have to do it so seldom that it's tempting to treat the rule of thumb "redirect for misspelling, and dab-style for ambiguity of a term" as a policy. (If it is a policy, it is a bad one that should instead say "If you are handling misspellings with dab-style headings or pages, you're usually making a mistake; think hard about whether this is really one of the rare cases where it's truly needed." In that case, this discussion is the first step toward theWP:VP policy page, and the second is when someone can cite such a policy.)
Frankly, i hesitate to mention an alternative, which could not reduce but could only mostly hide the ugliness of this scaffolding, that i think primarily motivates the opposition to the quasi-dab. IMO the alternative is even uglier, but with diligent maintenance (to keep the dabs bypassed) the ugliness could stay out of sight:
  • Arianism moves to Arianism (religion)
  • the redir at Arianism is overwritten as a dab page, with
    • some version of the now familiar unsatisfying lks to Aryan and
    • a lk to Arianism (religion),
The dab page is never seen by anyone following a Arianism (religion) lk from an article: only those who type "Arianism" (or i suppose "Arian") (or follow an lk from outside) get to see the ugliness.
BTW, the same point way above favors the "laconic", and i support that; in fact, my restoration was not a rv, but a rewording that replaced this:
This article is about the theological doctrine of Arius. The Arianism discussed here is a religious movement, and is not related to the terms Aryan or Aryan race, which denote linguistic and ethnic concepts.
--Jerzy (t) 17:42, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
I have rushed this into print without trying to adjust any of what i say (within this same editing session) to reflect it. I'm sorry to bring this into the discussion so late, but that's a left-handed apology: apparently everyone else is even more inclined than i to assume they know what's going on without research. I used the dictionaries i have immediately at hand: a Collegiate, the 1981 Amer Her, and the 1958 Second International.
  • "Aryan", usually pronounced with 3 syllables, also has a 2-syllable pronunciation recognized by all three, with the Y in its consonantal (or semi-vowel) role, not its true-vowel EE-like sound.
  • Nevertheless, the Am Her recognizes "Arian" as an alternative spelling for "Aryan" -- IMO we cannot treat it as simply a misspelling!
  • Contrary to what some of our versions seem to invite concluding, Am Her says
    Usage: Aryan is not a technical linguistic or anthropological term, in any of its senses.
--Jerzy (t) 17:42, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

More urgent, in any case, will be the dab notice Arius is unrelated to Arius, the genus of the Catfish [1] . dab (ᛏ) 08:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Personality of the Holy Spirit

A recent edit changed "which" to "who" with the edit note:

"which to who, following the appropriate subjective voice of the sentence 
(the Holy Spirit is considered human by Arians and Christians alike"

The reason is certainly wrong - no one that I know of considers the Holy Spirit to be human - not even the LDS. But, the eit may be correct. I don't know. Most modern non-trinitarians do not believe that the Holy Spirit is an entity with its own personality, but rather the personal influence of God. While I had supposed that the modern view could not be ascribed to Arians, I don't actually know. Does anyone else know? Mkmcconn (Talk) 15:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comparison to JWs

Duffer1 has added an excellent clarification of the differences between Arianism and Jehovah's Witnesses. It is to be hoped that these edits will stand, because they accurately describe why people call the JWs "Arian", and (I assume with equal accuracy), why this label is rejected by the JWs. Mkmcconn (Talk) 28 June 2005 19:10 (UTC)

The Mormon stuff needs NPOV-ification/clarification too. This sentence in particular needs a rewrite: " This agreement and close intimacy of three distinct beings according to LDS doctrine, is properly labelled tritheism compared to Trinitarian definitions of monotheism, which the LDS disputes." Basically we're saying that Mormons are actually tritheists, even though they deny it. --Jfruh 28 June 2005 19:21 (UTC)
I'm flattered Mkmcconn :), and thank you for the thorough edits Jfruh. Duffer 28 June 2005 21:40 (UTC)
Well, I hope that I'm just stating the facts, Duffer. It's a very helpful addition. Mkmcconn (Talk) 28 June 2005 22:27 (UTC)
Hmm...I feel like, as it stands, Duffer's changes seem to endorse the JW view that they are not Arians. I will assume that the Christological differences being pointed out by Duffer are accurate. The question is, what does it essentially mean to be an "Arian"? It certainly doesn't mean "believing exactly what Arius taught." In the 4th-7th centuries, when groups referred to as Arians were actually around, most so-called Arians were not actually close followers of Arius, but held to doctrines that were actually closer to Orthodox Christianity - there were Nicene "Arians," for instance. So the fact that differences can be pointed out between Arius's christology and that of the JW does not mean, definitively, that the JW cannot be defined as Arian. I would say that a broad definition of "Arianism" would be the idea that the Son is a created being, subordinate to the Father - a definition which, if I understand it correctly, JW does fit. I think we should strive to be more neutral here - to point out similarities and differences between the JW beliefs and classic Arian beliefs, to note that the JW deny being Arians, and leave it at that, without having wikipedia say that they are not. john k 28 June 2005 23:11 (UTC)
Except that, their denial is not unreasoned, john. By your broad definition, you're right, the JWs are Arians. But there is a reason that they do not subscribe to this label (and it isn't because they deny that Jesus is a created being subordinate to the Father). That's what I like about the section as it reads now. It pretty much says just that. Mkmcconn (Talk) 28 June 2005 23:28 (UTC)
I've tried to better incorporate your observations, john, hopefully without distorting the view as Duffer has explained it. I admit that the distinctions he has made appear to me to be primarily rhetorical. But because he describes them as rather, differing "significantly", as you say, wikipedia should refrain from trying to decide between the two points of view - so long as they are accurately reflected. Mkmcconn (Talk) 29 June 2005 05:02 (UTC)
I don't think you can really create such a broad definition to label a group: "Arian". "Arianism" was a belief system, not just Christological viewpoints (though that was the main point of contention with those that were later deemed 'orthodox'), contrary to the Arian wiki introduction. According to H.M. Gwatkin The Arian Controversy: "The God of Arius is an unknown God, whose being is hidden in eternal mystery. No creature can reveal him, and he cannot reveal himself." Apparently not even the Son could fully comprehend God according to Arius, contrary to Jehovah's Witness theology (and frankly the bible). Jehovah's Witnesses don't pray to Jesus like Arians did (as Trinitarians do). We don't believe the Holy Spirit is has a "personality" (so to speak) like Arians did (*cough cough* as modern Trinitarians believe :P). You can't legitimately call a group: "Arian," simply because they deny the Trinity, there's far more to it than that. I'm trying to be NPOV but first and fore-most I'm trying to accurately represent Jehovah's Witness theology. Frankly Mkmcconn i'm impressed with your opening to the "Parallels to later groups" section. It looks great. A note about: "But, they distinguish this instumentality of the Word from the Arian belief as they understand it, which conceives of the Word as a co-creator with Jehovah God." All I can speak to, for a certainty, is the JW take on this issue, I cited that one source (on the JW talk page) to draw a preliminary conclusion about the nuances of the two beliefs. I compared what the source stated to that of JW theology, but I must stress that the source may be wrong and should be checked for factuality (though that's probably why you added "as they understand it"). In other words, I don't have anything constructive to add at this time he he... Duffer 29 June 2005 09:40 (UTC)

Duffer: On what basis do you get to decide what is essential to "Arianism" and what is not? As I noted before, post-Arius forms of Arianism also differed quite substantially from Arius's original ideas. I am very happy to have this article (and the JW article) elucidate the ways in which JW differs from the beliefs of Arius (and, presumably, from later Arians as well). I think Mkmcconn's edits conform approximately to what I was looking for - basically, I don't think there should be any statement which says "JWs are not Arians." Their beliefs have similarities and differences, and depending on what one defines the term "Arian" to mean, one could say with equal justice "The Jehovah's Witnesses are Arians" and "The Jehovah's Witnesses are not Arians." That is, if one holds that the essential meaning of "Arianism" is the belief that the Son is a created being, subordinate to the Father, the Jehovah's Witnesses are Arian. If you look more closely, they obviously do not view the relationship between the Father and the Son in the same way that the Arians of the 4th century did, and there are many other differences among their belief systems. But "Arian" can be used in both senses, so we can't simply say that the JW are not Arians. john k 30 June 2005 18:19 (UTC)

Thank you Duffer. I really do just want to be helpful, and I am pleased if, for the time being at least, it appears that I have been. Mkmcconn (Talk) 30 June 2005 18:36 (UTC)

The LDS section is an excellent exposition of LDS thought on God, quite possibly the best I have seen at Wikipedia. I will make a few edits. Tom Haws July 3, 2005 20:08 (UTC)

The "Parallels to later groups" section -- can it be cut way back?

Hello to all the friendly wikipedians who have been working on this page:

A lot of you have put a lot of thoughtful work into the "Parallels to later groups" section. However, I think it exemplifies a common Wikipedia problem, in that it represents the beginning of some article drift. What you often see is that an almost throwaway sentence about something peripheral to the article's main topic rubs someone the wrong way, and they expand it. And then someone else, to clarify, expands that expansion. And so on.

Now, admittedly, my perspective is definitely colored by my academic interests, which are focused on late antiquity. But it seems to me that the section on parallels to later groups is way too long. None of these groups self-identify as Arians, and there is no historical continuity between the Arian churches of the fourth and fifth centuries and, say, the JWs or Mormons. I suppose a devout (Nicene) Christian of a certain mindset would have the POV that Arianism is a concrete, definable heresy that can be identified even in those groups that do not call themselves Arians. However, it seems to me that, after the last of the Germanic Arians converted in the 6th century AD, the term "Arian" was only used as a term of abuse against those Christian groups that deviated from Nicea, and is therefore not really that useful a term for analysis.

I would propose the following refactoring of this section. This explains why the modern use of the term is still important for Nicenes, while still emphasizing the term's somewhat anachronistic nature and keeping the focus on the self-identified and historically continuous movement of late antiquity.

(begin proposed text...)

In many ways, the conflict around Arian beliefs in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries helped firmly define the centrality of the Trinity in mainstream Christian theology. As the first major intra-Christian conflict after Christianity's legalization, the struggle between Nicenes and Arians left a deep impression on the institutional memory of Nicene churches. Thus, over the past 1,500 years, some Christians have used the term Arian to refer to those groups who do not hold to the Nicene creed, but who see themselves as worshipping Jesus Christ or respecting his teachings.

Like the Arians, many groups have embraced the belief that Jesus is not the one God, but a separate being subordinate to the Father, and that Jesus at one time did not exist. Some of these profess, as the Arians did, that God made all things through the pre-existent Christ. Some profess that Jesus became divine, through exaltation, just as the Arians believed. Drawing a parallel between these groups and Arians can be useful for distinguishing a type of unbelief in the Trinity. But, despite the frequency with which this name is used as a polemical label, there has been no historically continuous survival of Arianism into the modern era. The groups so labelled do not hold beliefs identical to Arianism. For this reason, they reject the name for their self-description, even if they acknowledge that their beliefs are at points in agreement with, or in broad terms similar to, Arianism.

Those whose religious beliefs have been compared to or labeled as Arianism include:

  • Unitarians, who believe (blah, blah: a one sentence precis of why others see them as Arian-esque)
  • Jehovah's Witnesses, who...
  • Those churches in the Latter-Day Saint movement, who...
  • Muslims, who believe ...

(end proposed text...)

What do you all think? In my mind, the little one-sentence descriptions don't need a "defense" explaining why these groups aren't "really" Arians; I think the lead-in text covers the fact that calling these groups Arians is the POV of others, not the groups themselves (or the article).

Jfruh's suggestion seems balanced to me, for one. History of ideas is the hardest to write. --Wetman 6 July 2005 18:57 (UTC)
Did it. Hopefully won't piss anyone off too much... --Jfruh 00:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

"...and thereby denied the doctrine of the Trinity."

A couple recent edits have changed "...and thereby denied the doctrine of the Trinity as it is generally understood today" to just "...and thereby denied the doctrine of the Trinity." I'm not so sure about this. It assumes that "Trinity" can always be read to mean "the nature of the Trinity as established by the Council of Nicea." The Arians believed in God the Father, believed in Jesus the Son (though they saw the relationship between the two as different from the post-Nicea consensus), and, I assume, believed in the Holy Ghost as well, which makes a Trinity, just not the Trinity that most Christians believe in today.

I know this is a thicket of POV issues. If you're a (Nicene) Christian, I suppose, you believe that the Trinity is an eternal fact, and that thus Arius did deny it. From my non-Christian POV, it looks more as if Arius was proposing a different definition of the Trinity, and the dispute that ensued resulted in the formulation of the Trinity as Christians know it today. Suggestions on an NPOV way out of this would be helpful. --Jfruh 20:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear Jfruh, I know you could define Trinity as having Father, Son and Holy Spirit in any way, but it's a bit misleading since in the Arian's view Trinity does not refer to a single being, but to three beings. On the other hand, I object to "as it is understood today" since that implies that it is a modern definition. Even "as it was defined in Nicea" is problematic as the Council only made explicit what was already believed before - otherwise Arius would have not run into trouble. Maybe "in the orthodox sense" or "the traditional sense" would work or more concise "the orthodox doctrine of the Triniy". Str1977 21:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

A succinct demonstration of precisely Jfruh's point: the successful party in the 4th-century wrangling was self-defined as the "orthodox' mainstream and claimed Apostolic tradition in their support. As Jfruh says, "the dispute that ensued resulted in the formulation" of the Trinitarian Christianity that remains to this day. No historian would disagree, but no Christianist would permit it, in precisely the terms presented by Str1977. --Wetman 01:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Dear Wetman,
now I am both, historian and Christian (that's the term).
The decision was not arbitrary and not random. Arius came up with a defintion but was opposed, first at Alexandria, then elsewhere.
The decision was forced by the emperor Constantine, the losers got exile from the empire (imagine Donald Trump saying "You're fired"). Of course when later emperors favored Arianism, that view prevailed. But later, Nicene Christianity was again adopted as "orthodox" i.e. officially sanction by the empire. 63.201.25.4 08:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the Nicean side did claim tradition for it - what could Arius claim for his view?
Tradition also of course. The Trinity only goes back to Tertullian and Valentinius. Most people know these weren't the founders of Christianity. Who were the founders of Christianity? Jesus? Paul? James, John, Peter and the Jerusalem Church? And of course Arius had his proof texts, such as John 17:3 (the Father is the only true God). 63.201.25.4 08:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
The dispute resulted in the formulation of this part of the creed.
"As it is understood today" is definitely a problematic wording, as it implies that is sort of arbitrary or current.
And even if the decision were arbitrary (which certainly wasn't the case), the dice has fallen (and neglecting that is close to rewriting history). At least since then the Nicean "version" of the Trinity is orthodoxy and traditional. i.e. it has been the tradition since then. This supports the alternatives I proposed.
I think my suggestions are fairly balanced, given that nowadays "orthodoxy" and "tradition" are not always seen as positive terms. (And Orthodoxy is the name for the view in question in the East).
Str1977 01:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, 63..., if I may be so blunt, but you don't know your history well. The decision was not forced by Constantine, who - in contrast to his son Constantius - was well aware that he had no authority to speak on these issues. What he did was pushing the bishops towards making a clear decision. It was the Emperor's intention to use this new religion, that had survived vicious persecution, to pacify society. Thus he would not have Christians quarrell among each other. He had already interferred in the Donatist struggle in Africa and after he had conquered the Eastern part of the Empire in 324, he was faced with the Arian dispute which had spread from Egypt to Syria.

Originally, a synod should assemble in Ancyra to try Eusebius of Caesarea and other sympathisizers of Arius. The Emperor however demanded bringing the issue to a clear conclusion and called the bishops to assemble not in Ancyra but at his residence in Nicea (and assisted in bringing together more bishops). He was present at the council and asked question, but did not decide. The main actors on the council were Eusebius of Caesarea (as the original defendant), Arius, Ossius of Cordoba, Alexander of Alexandria (and his secretary Athanasius), Eusebius of Nicomedia as the metropolite of the province, Nicolaus of Myra and Paphnutius. Eusebius of Nicomedia defended Arius' teachings and Arius himself quoted from his Thalia, which resulted in tumult. After this, Eusebius of Caesarea was asked to explain his beliefs and produced the baptismal creed of the church of Caesarea. This then was amended to counter Arius' teachings and Ossius provided the word 'homoousios'. Eusebius of Caesarea accepted this and was redamitted into communion. The bishops agreed and condemned the teachings of Arius. Only Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis von Nicea refused to sign the decrees of the synod.

The only thing Constantine did was base himself on the bishops' findings. He declared them law and banished Arius and his two partisans. However all three were to return shortly after his, after signing equivocal declarations and Eusebius still had a career ahead of him under Constantius. Now, the difference I wanted to point out is that Constantine did not mould the Church according to his liking while his son Constantius tried to do just that.

If you think Arius cited tradition for his case, what church fathers did he refer to? He had his proof texts from the Bible but there are also other texts contradicting him (John 10,30 comes to mind).

The word 'homoousios', provided by Ossius, however was an unhappy choice as it had been used, not by Gnostics but by the Paulus of Samosata, who was deposed as bishop of Antioch around 270 (He advocated a adoptianist heresy). Ossius, as a Westerner, was not very aware of this, but the word made the reception of the Nicean creed in the East very difficult and only after a lot of trouble, testing out alternatives and persecution by the Arian party did the Eastern bishops, who in substance believed the same thing as the Westerners but rejected Ossius' term and advocated "Homoiusios", come to accept the controversial term. Str1977 09:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

We need a better writeup about the history of the concept of Trinity. The concept as taught and believed today was brewed up in the 4th century by the Cappadocian Fathers and others. So we know that in the gospels, trinity was not an issue, and that by the 320s, there was an all-out showdown between the different camps. But what happened in the 250 years between Q and Arius? Origen seems to have bordered on Docetism (essentially teaching that Christ was an illusion staged by God, or God's avatar), or at least was uncertain of the nature of Christ. Before Nicea, you didn't have to deny "the Trinity" or the divinity of Christ, because it was not yet an "orthodox" doctrine, and these views may even have been the default ones before theological speculation became applied to the whole story. I am saying we should describe Arianism from the context of Arius' times, not from the retrospective view of the Catholic church, as is done in most church histories. dab (ᛏ) 10:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear Dbachmann,

you are right in so far as the doctrine of Trinity was discussed in the 3rd century and defined in the 4th. It is a theological question in the strict sense. My (private) definition of theology is "(Methods of) Philosophy applied to Revelation (as present in Scripture and tradition, in the case of Christianity)". You have many Bible verses talking about God, Jesus, the relationship of Father and Son, and the Holy Spirit (and in this way the Trinity is in the Gospels). Theologians tried to bring them into a coherent system. Origen (I don't think he's a Docetist) did this using Platonist philosophy and so did Arius. Both went into a subordinationist vein, but in the end fail on the biblial principle that someone can only be God or not, Creator or creature, but not both or something in between.

Please also note that doctrine develops not by positively setting up doctrines, but by negatively rejecting (usually one-sided) teachings that spread up as questions arise.

"Describe Arianism from the context of Arius' times", all right, but not supposing that this happened in some neverland, without important conditions already set, and certainly not supposing that Arianism (or the like) was somehow the norm at any time (as some earlier editor claimed). Arianism started with Arius and not before. Str1977 10:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course, Arius himself was controversial from the beginning. but not because he objected to an established dogma, but because in his days a controversy that had been brewing for 200 years was brought to a point. Trinity was 'not an issue' in the gospels in the sense that all these varying positions were possible, all of them based on the gospels. Sure, the gospels imply some hierarchical relation of the Father, Christ and the holy spirit, but exactly what that relation is seems not to have been an important question. Even more obvious than your claim that the bible does not allow for 'semi-divinity' is the ontological principle that an entity can not be one and several at the same time, and even this seems to be invalid in the concept of Trinity. Catholic dogma is much like a Wikipedia article, hacked together in a 200 year edit war :) full of weasling and neither-nors. The only approach possibly to the Trinity as finally formulated is a mystical credo quia absurdum (which is of course a very valid approach to anything religious) dab (ᛏ) 10:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course, Arius did not onject to a defined dogma, but he ran into opposition in Alexandria. If he had just yielded to his bishop, there would have been no council at Nicea and no definition (Though the issues might have come up elsewhere). Whether all these varying positions were possible based on all of Scripture is another question. Howwever many positions could be held in the Church back then and only some were condemned (Sabellius, Paulus of Samosata etc) because they yielded unbearable conclusions. Development of doctrine always was a balancing act of neither-nor and the definitions are an attempt of establishing something positive in between, also as prophylaxis to further heresies. Creeds are only Symbols (that's the original term) and negative theology warns us that God is always more unlike our understanding than he is like them. It wouldn't call that absurd (though that also has its merit) but paradoxical. Str1977 11:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

John 17,3

Dear Wetman and 63.201..., I have seen the revert and rerevert on the John 17:3 bit - involving you two. On July 18 63... included "The Father is the only true god [John 17:3]" at the end of the first paragraph of the origin section. I removed the bible citation, since this verse only provides the wording "only true god", but nothing in relation to the Arian dispute. I also inluded the disclaimer: the Father was seen. Now, since this has gone back and forth between you, I'm asking whether this sentence has anything to do with Axentius' letter, whether Axentius actualled used "John 17:3 as proof text of that belief" and whether it should be included in this paragraph or not (, as the paragraph starts with reference to the letter). Str1977 15:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

John 17:3 is one of the proof texts for Arianism but I don't have a reference at hand for that. Obviously one of Arianism's claims was that the Father was the only true God (Big "M" Monotheism) and John 17 records Jesus telling anyone who listens just that: "After Jesus had spoken these words, he looked up to heaven and said, ‘Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all people, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. I glorified you on earth by finishing the work that you gave me to do. So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed. (NRSV)
User: 209.78.19.63 19:50, 19 July 2005
I know that the Arians used this verse as a proof text and that the early Eusebius of Caesarea took a middle path, distinguishing between "God", which applies to both Father and Son, and "True God", which he only gave to the Father. Hence the Nicean creed says of the son: "True God from true God".
The question here however is, where to include this information. The first paragraph starts with Auxentius. If the cited verse is not used by him, it must be kept distinct somehow.
And please sign your posts using four tildes, even if you don't have a user name.
Str1977 20:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Redundancy

I have removed (again) the "but there were other councils ..." passage. These other councils are already included in the text, at places where they should be mentioned. I also moved the list of exiled from the opening paragraph (where they don't belong - this article is about the doctrine of Arianism) to the section where the exiling is mentioned. I also clarified the reasons why each cleric was exiled.

Str1977 09:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Jesus vs. Jesus Christ -- Can there be only one?

OK, can someone explain the reason for the slow-motion edit war on the name of the youngest Person of the Trinity? (That's an Arianism joke, for those not paying attention.) Hmmm, anyone? This seems like a candidate for Lamest_Edit_Wars_in_Wikipedia, if you don't mind me saying so.

I've contributed a lot to this page, but I'm about to drop it from my watchlist because I find some of the disputes here so damn exasperating. Ditto with Zoroastrianism, where some of the players are the same. --Jfruh 02:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree an edit war about this seems pathetic and you may go a head with your proposal (candidate for ...). I did what I did in defense of the text as it stood before CDThieme started to eliminate the word "Christ". I can understand why some see Jesus Christ as POV as a article or section header, but since this is a theological question an Arians (including so-called modern day descendants) and their opponents agreed on that, it's perfectly NPOV to write "Jesus Christ". CDThieme should accept this. Str1977 19:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Christ is a title, not part of the name, and it expresses a POV. It's fine for the article to say what POV the Arianists had, and in doing so it can use the word where atributed. In fact, I did not take the work "Christ" out of the direct quote in which it appears. It is another thing to use the word "Christ" in the lead, using that as part of what Wikipedia calls him. Wikipedia cannot do that without violating its NPOV policy. CDThieme 21:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The theological dispute covered here is based on Jesus being the Christ. Hence it is not POV in this context. Sorry, but I can't stand it when people are claiming something to be POV when it just isn't. Have been there before. Str1977 22:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

How about this alternative I posted - it is even more "logical" IMO. Str1977 22:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

"Created"

I'm not really insisting on using a different word than "created" - however, it's my understanding that some ideas condemned as Arianism preferred to avoid this word. The difference from Trinitarianism does not rest in the use of the word, but in the idea of a timeful beginning-ness (which to most of us is the same as saying, "created"). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mkmcconn, sorry but one of the distinct features of Arianism, in the 4th century debate, was that Christ was seen as created - note Arius' prooftext from Proverbs 8, especially verse 22 - though later on some Semi-Arians might have avoided the word "created". The problem is that one has to be either creator (and hence divine) or creature (hence not divine). Arius wanted some middle position for Christ, but in the end it cannot work out and he opted for creature.

Also your alternative "who nonetheless had existence from the Father" doesn't work well since it also fits with the orthodox christology, which has the Father begating the Son and the Son being begotten by the Father. The dispute is about whether to deduce inferiority from that and in what way. Arians say: inferiority in substance/usia, while the Orthodox say: no inferiority in substance.

Str1977 16:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The orthodox position does not imply - in fact it denies - that the subsistence of any of the persons of the Trinity originates at some point "before which he did not exist". Since you do appreciate that "created" does not describe the scope of Arianist beliefs (and you understand that the heresy that goes by this name is not limited to the views of Arius, personally), I hope that you will reconsider your insistence on the word "created". I will not revert; however, if the present version stands simply on the basis you have described above, I do think that this qualifies the article for a Disputed status on the basis of fact and POV. I'll look for other opinions besides yours and mine to make that decision.
Regardless of whether we think, or even whether Arius or some advocate of this view thought, that "it cannot work out"; if "created" doesn't quite embrace the whole of the view described, then it isn't adequate. Likewise, since we're at it, when you use the term "God the Son". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I second. You use this sentence:
The problem is that one has to be either creator (and hence divine) or creature (hence not divine).
as if it were self-evidently true, but there are plenty of religious traditions that believe in divine beings created by other divine beings.
On the other hand, I do think that it's important to get the word "created" in there, if only because any person even casually researching Arianism in English will encounter it. We can say that Arius believed it, and that later Arians or semi-Arians disavowed it. We should also briefly touch on the word "creature", often used in earler English-language works to mean "created being," which an emphasis that it doesn't mean what most modern English-speakers think it would mean. --Jfruh 17:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Under Jewish or Christian premises, and the whole issue is one of christian theology, it is self-evident that it's either/or. Str1977 12:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Except that (and I feel like we're arguing in circles here) Arians (and Mormons and JWs for that matter) see themselves as Christians, and don't feel constrained by this logic. The fact that a lot of Christians disagree doesn't make it false. You're essentially privledging Nicene Christianity as "true" Christianity, which I hope you would recognize as POV, even if you're a Nicene. It's a fundamental problem with this article, I realize. --Jfruh 12:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, of course I recognize the Nicene orthodoxy (to which I adhere) as a POV but this mainly about Arianism and the debate in the 4th century. That debate was a fact, regardless of what others might think.
Arians adhered to this logic too but, yes, at first didn't feel constrained by it. That doesn't make the logic any less logically.
Mormons and JWs however are not actually Arians but something new and because of some parallels were labelled as Arians.
Str1977 12:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, sure the debate was a fact, and we discuss that at length here -- but to say that one side was "right" is POV. Mormons are JWs aren't Arians obviously -- but they are Christians that don't think the logic you presented is iron-clad and air-tight, is my point. Speaking as a non-Christian who is nevertheless fairly familiar with Christian history and theology (particularly in the period of late antiquity under discussion here), I don't find the idea of the Trinity more "logical" than the idea of divine beings creating other divine beings. --Jfruh 13:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

But wouldn't several divine beings violate monotheism.

Creating each other seem more pagan?

And what about the definition of divinity, taken from philosophy and easily at one with Scripture, that states God is immutable and eternal. That's were Arius failed. Str1977 13:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Look, I don't know how to make this any clearer. I am not interested in re-arguing the Arian controversy. (Personally, if I believed the Bible were true, I don't know how I'd get past the first chapter of the Gospel of John to get to Arian beliefs.) But your impulse seems to be to treat Arianism as objectively false, and Nicene theology as objectively true. That is not the tone that an encyclopedia should have. Arianism was a theological movement within early Christianity. It flourished, ran up against counter-theologies (that later became universally accepted), and then was supressed, in large part because the Roman state put its muscle firmly behind Nicea. To argue that Arianism failed because it was "wrong" is POV. --Jfruh 14:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, Jfruh. I won't argue with you about it.
Except for one thing: " was supressed, in large part because the Roman state put its muscle firmly behind Nicea" is absolutely historically wrong. In fact the Roman state put its muscle firmly against Nicea, exiled bishops, burned churches etc. This contributed to the Easterners evercoming their initial opposition to the one word.
I'm not saying that Arianism did fail to win adherents, I'm saying that it failed in this theological question. However, that is indeed POV, but it's not what I posted into the article.
What other word could we use other than created, when the Nicean creed has "genitum non factum".
Str1977 14:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Er, maybe we're not arguing about the thing that we think we're arguing about. I don't have a problem with the use of the word "created" -- in fact, I put the term "creature" into the introduction in my latest edits. Sorry if I flew off the handle.
But as for the power of the Roman state, I am correct, when taking the long view. After Constantine's death, Arians and/or semi-Arians were protected in promoted by the Roman government, and Nicenes persecuted to varying degrees, especially in the East. Then when the Westerner and Nicene Theodosius took over, the Roman state's power was firmly dedicated to eliminating Arianism as it never had been before, not even under Constantine. That's the "muscle" I referred to in my earlier post. --Jfruh 14:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Ok, good that we can drop the "created" issue.
As for your "muscle" explanation. Of course, under Theodosius the Roman state did support the Nicean orthodoxy and put itself against Arianism. However, there is no account of large scale persecution of Arians (in contrast to Valens' policy against the non-Arians) and IMHO Arianism had already discredited itself through its intolerance (note that the Arian Emperors were much more intolerant against pagan temples too) and through its inability to come up with an alternative "universally acceptable" definition. Easterners could now come to terms with the disputed word "homousia" and once government support for Arians collapsed with the battle of Adrianople, Arianism among the Romans collapsed too and only survived among the Goths and Vandals. That's not saying that Theodosius might not have persecuted Arians too (that is another and hypothetical question), only that he didn't need to as Arianism was already "through". I hope this clarifies my statements. Str1977 10:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Um, actually, most of the landmarks of anti-pagan legislation happened under Nicenes. It was Theodosius I who finally made Christianity (and Nicene Christianity at that) essentially compulsary in the Roman Empire. He banned sacrifice in pagan temples and then in natural settings. It is true that Adrianople was seen as divine judgement against Arians and semi-Arians; that doesn't mean that Theodosius didn't arrest Arians and kick Arian bishops out of their sees. (Gregory of Nazianzus, who had been the Nicene counter-bishop of Constantinople, was escorted to the city's main cathedral by a platoon of soldiers.)
I think the truth is that fairly few people, outside of the realm of the educated theological elite, really cared all that much about the formula. Constantine himself was less interested in the exact formulation arrived at at Nicea and more interested in making everyone agree to it so there could be peace in the church. It is interesting to me that Nicene theology flourished under Nicene rulers (Theodosius and his successors) and Arian theology flourished under Arian rulers (the German kingdoms) -- I have a suspicion that most people would just go with the flow on theology, as long as the priests and bishops they trusted assured them that everything was OK. And those priests and bishops could be influenced by politics, but they weren't always.
Anyway, that's all speculation on my part and obviously can't be proved or put in the article :). But if you want a perspective on this issue different from the one you have, I recommend the book "Ambrose of Milan and the end of the Arian-Nicene Conflict" by Daniel H. Williams. When I was in grad school studying this stuff a few years ago, that book had made a big splash among academics who study late Antiquity. I'd be interested in hearing what you've read on the subject, since it's obviously pretty different from what I've read.
Also, I am going to tweak a few of your recent tweaks -- but for style, not for (ha ha) substance. Let me know if I go too far with the changes. --Jfruh 13:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Jfruh on my recent "wording" edits

Hey back, yo're right I should have posted explanations. Here they come:

Hi Str, back at ya -- my answers are indented.

I changed "These moves did not stop the controversy within the church, however, and Constantine tried to pacify the situation and became more lenient towards the Arians."

to: "Though unwavering in his adherence to the Nicean creed, Constantine tried to pacify the situation and became more lenient towards the Arians."

The council at first stopped the open controversy and Constantine did not allow anyone to meddle with the Nicea defintion. However, he was not a theologian and was in the end more interested to achieve peace. The Nicean definition he considered the basis but he was not so bent on probing into the genuity of declarations offered by Arius or others. Hence their return. But no open debate until after his death.

Well, yes officially, argument was forbidden, but obviously all the intriguing and exiling and un-exiling indicated that it was still happening, at least privately. I think this can be fixed in the article by emphasizing that open debate was forbidden, but tension seethed beneath the surface.

You wrote: "the fact that he kept on a known Arian or semi-Arian (Eusebius of Caesaria) as his personal theologian, eventually receiving baptism from him, seems like it might cause one to question the statement."

You are confusing two persons:

  • Eusebius of Caesarea, was a close to the Emperor and could be considered his personal theologian and biographer

he had some Arian leanings, he was the actual occasion for the Nicean council but he also provided the basis for the definition and didn't hesitate to sign. Later however he was involved in banishing Athanasius

  • Eusebius of Nicomedia, bishop first of Beirut, then Nicomedia, later (after Constantine's death) Constantinople, was the closest religious advisor of Constantius II and the leader of the Arian party until his death.

He also baptized Constantine on his death bed, but that has more to with his being close geographically and because of family ties

No, I'm thinking of E. of Caesaria -- his Nicene bona fides were never fully accepted by Nicene hard-liners like Ambrose and the Cappadocian fathers. And if Constantine were really "unwavering," in his personal devotion, would he have really accepted baptism from a suspect bishop? Surely there was someone politically less problematic close at hand.
I think my problem with this is that the phrase "unwavering in his adherence" implies a lot about Constatine's personal theology, which I don't think is knowable at this remove. Perhaps the sentence can be reworded to say that he always politically remained committed to the agreement within the church that was reached at Nicea?

I changed "The dispute continues" to "The dispute resumes"

I'm not insistent on this, but since there was no open debate under Constantine, I consider that it resumed under his son.

Again, just because it wasn't open didn't mean it didn't happen. If we earlier change things to make it clear that disputes were officially banned, this heading becomes less problematic. Maybe we can change it to "Public debate resumes"?

I changed "As debates raged in an attempt to come up with a new, more universally acceptable formula..." to: "As debates raged in an attempt to come up with a new formula..."

It was not universally acceptable since it stood against the Nicean creed. The entire west could not adhere to anything going against that, Egypt could not so it's hardly acceptable to everyone. I agree that they were looking for a compromise, but sometimes that is impossible and you cannot turn back the clock.

Well, yes, obviously it wasn't universally accepted, because not everyone accepted it ;). My point is that the purpose of the debate was to attempt to come up with a new formula that everyone could accept. Some of those in the debate (the hard-line Nicenes who ultimately prevailed) felt that the formula established at Nicea was (or should have been) universally accepted. Would you accept (ha ha) the wording "As debates raged in an attempt to come up with a universally acceptable formula" (leaving out the "new")? --Jfruh 13:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Str1977 12:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Arius was right!

I believe that Arius was right in this respect. He pointed to the Scripture to support his view. His quotation from 1 Cor. 8:5,6 is legitimate plus other places like Rev. 3:14 or Romans 6:9 which shows that he (the Lord Jesus Christ) received the divine nature after His resurection not prior shows a healthy logic. I can't believe this trinity lie has endured for so long and it's using spurious texts like 1 John 5:7 etc. Reading the original texts it becomes very obvious that the Father (YHWH) has created Jesus. The word God or god denotes a powerful being as judges in Israel were called "gods" and even our Lord has said "ye are gods" quoting from the Old Testament. I never met a more confusing statement than trinity! liviu_constantin@hotmail.com

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/i/Talk%7EArianism_Archive_1_e2e3.html"