Neos Dionysos Posted May 10, 2006 Report Share Posted May 10, 2006 As a Roman Catholic, I underwent a lot of 'force fed' education concerning religion and especially that of early forms of Chrisitianity. My question concerns the sect of Arianism which was first introduced by Arius in Alexandria. I would like to ask anyone out there who knows more on religions of Rome or early Christianity what the major controversy was? Was it simply that those who followed Arius beleived that there was no equal trinity or was there more to it? Also can anyone point me toward good sources or books on the subject? Thank you for any help you can give me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rameses the Great Posted May 10, 2006 Report Share Posted May 10, 2006 Arius was a heretic who fled to Egypt for his actions. He faced off against the former pagan known as Athanasius. Many people believed Arius so they assembled at Nicea to make what is known as the creed. He thought that God and Christ was not of the same substance nor had any correlation. It was even, and Constantine supporting Athanasius kept the original faith in order. When he had died he split the kingdom between his sons. Constants believed in Athanasius beliefs and Constantius Arius. The issue remained split, until Constants died and Arianism spread under Constantius's rule. Athanasius was banned, but always kept trying to fight Arianism. When Costantius died, Arius could no longer gain support and with Athanasius coming back strong he could not combat it. Arius died and so did his beliefs. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neos Dionysos Posted May 11, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 11, 2006 Arius was a heretic who fled to Egypt for his actions. He faced off against the former pagan known as Athanasius. Many people believed Arius so they assembled at Nicea to make what is known as the creed. He thought that God and Christ was not of the same substance nor had any correlation. It was even, and Constantine supporting Athanasius kept the original faith in order. When he had died he split the kingdom between his sons. Constants believed in Athanasius beliefs and Constantius Arius. The issue remained split, until Constants died and Arianism spread under Constantius's rule. Athanasius was banned, but always kept trying to fight Arianism. When Costantius died, Arius could no longer gain support and with Athanasius coming back strong he could not combat it. Arius died and so did his beliefs. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius See I want to avoid Wikipedia... and the damn shame is that most of what is written about Arius or Arianism to date is from the opposite point of view so of course it will be 'heretical'. Is there any non-biased sources out there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted May 11, 2006 Report Share Posted May 11, 2006 Here's a collection of articles (which does include wiki)... perhaps you can at least find a proper direction within.... www.encyclopedia.edwardtbabinski.us/ Unfortunately since the notion of Arianism was virtually destroyed by it's rivals, there's not much source material other than the rebuttals of opponents (Athanasius in particular) and who knows how much of that was altered for various reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lex Posted May 11, 2006 Report Share Posted May 11, 2006 Does Arianism simply believe that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not equal? If it does, then it makes sense in my opinion because God would surely be at the top, then Jesus then the Holy Spirit....or am I just an heretic??? I always thought that the 'Trinity' theory was quite tricky, especially if they are all supposed to be one and the same, yet three seperate entities. Though the appeal of this theory came from the similarities to the 'Logos' theory of Plato right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Posted May 14, 2006 Report Share Posted May 14, 2006 www.encyclopedia.edwardtbabinski.us/who/a/arius/]www.encyclopedia.edwardtbabinski.us/[/url] Unfortunately since the notion of Arianism was virtually destroyed by it's rivals, there's not much source material other than the rebuttals of opponents (Athanasius in particular) and who knows how much of that was altered for various reasons. Very true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neos Dionysos Posted May 16, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 16, 2006 Does Arianism simply believe that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not equal? If it does, then it makes sense in my opinion because God would surely be at the top, then Jesus then the Holy Spirit....or am I just an heretic??? I always thought that the 'Trinity' theory was quite tricky, especially if they are all supposed to be one and the same, yet three seperate entities. Though the appeal of this theory came from the similarities to the 'Logos' theory of Plato right? And I agree... hence why I am really trying to find this out, since as a Roman Catholic I find I have issues believing what I have been told since a child. Am I so wrong for thinking this really has merit/logic? I am not sure concerning Plato's theory. www.encyclopedia.edwardtbabinski.us/who/a/arius/]www.encyclopedia.edwardtbabinski.us/[/url] Unfortunately since the notion of Arianism was virtually destroyed by it's rivals, there's not much source material other than the rebuttals of opponents (Athanasius in particular) and who knows how much of that was altered for various reasons. Very true. Exactly, and I am afraid to admit that perhaps that it was destroyed by the rivals that the original notion is now forever lost to us... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lex Posted May 16, 2006 Report Share Posted May 16, 2006 And I agree... hence why I am really trying to find this out, since as a Roman Catholic I find I have issues believing what I have been told since a child. Am I so wrong for thinking this really has merit/logic? As far as I can recall (and I've also had a fair share of religious teachings in my younger days), nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Trinity are all equal. In fact I don't even think the Trinity is even mentioned as such in the Bible. Could anyone confirm this? I really believe the best way, is for a person to make their own opinions and even interpretations when reading the Bible (or religion in general)....that's why I have such a problem with the Christians of the Roman Empire, because people weren't allowed to make their own opinions on the subject. They were forced to believe in a specific interpretation only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docoflove1974 Posted May 16, 2006 Report Share Posted May 16, 2006 I really believe the best way, is for a person to make their own opinions and even interpretations when reading the Bible (or religion in general)....that's why I have such a problem with the Christians of the Roman Empire, because people weren't allowed to make their own opinions on the subject. They were forced to believe in a specific interpretation only. It still happens to this day, as many of us are well aware. I know that I'm very thankful for my upbringing: Catholic mother, but agnostic (technically Baptist) father, and both parents encouraged my brothers and I to form our own opinions. We were required to go through catechism school and be confirmed, true, but we were constantly asked to form our own beliefs. (As a funny side note, of the 3 of us, I believe I go to church most often...on Christmas Eve, because I love going to the children's mass! And I went to a few Southern (Black) Baptist masses and revivals when I used to live in Texas...which is a 'must do', in my opinion. I don't care what sect of Christianity you are, or whatever religion you consider yourself, to go in a house of worship and be with people who not only openly embrace their religion but are so joyful that it is darn near infectious in a positive way, well, it's something to behold.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil25 Posted May 17, 2006 Report Share Posted May 17, 2006 I have always thought that Ariainism gained its force 9at the time0 from being closer to the "Christianity" preached by the apostles. One must recall that neither jesus nor his immediate followers saw themselves as operating outwith the Jewish faith. But as it diverted under the influence of Pauline teachings,, we see a particular (gnostic?) approach growing. This does not make Jesus "god" - something he never claimed in the canonical gospels (except in quality) - nor associate him directly with a divine trinity. These appear to have been accretions from Egyptian (Osiris/Isis/Horus) or pagan thought - assimilating gods was a very Roman thing. I have got into trouble here before, for questioning the use of the word "heresy", so I must be careful. But I think here it may distort our understanding. essentially it is a perjorative term used by those who claim to be orthodox (note the word "claim"). It seems to me entirely possible that the antagonism towards Arian was so great and so intense because he actually had a greater claim to legitimacy and a lineal descent from early Christian thought, than they did. He thus had to be silenced for a pagan-influenced, imperial (dare I say Roman) Christianity to arise. But I must make it clear that I am no expert in any of this, so shoot me down if you will. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neos Dionysos Posted May 17, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2006 I have always thought that Ariainism gained its force 9at the time0 from being closer to the "Christianity" preached by the apostles. One must recall that neither jesus nor his immediate followers saw themselves as operating outwith the Jewish faith. But as it diverted under the influence of Pauline teachings,, we see a particular (gnostic?) approach growing. This does not make Jesus "god" - something he never claimed in the canonical gospels (except in quality) - nor associate him directly with a divine trinity. These appear to have been accretions from Egyptian (Osiris/Isis/Horus) or pagan thought - assimilating gods was a very Roman thing. I have got into trouble here before, for questioning the use of the word "heresy", so I must be careful. But I think here it may distort our understanding. essentially it is a perjorative term used by those who claim to be orthodox (note the word "claim"). It seems to me entirely possible that the antagonism towards Arian was so great and so intense because he actually had a greater claim to legitimacy and a lineal descent from early Christian thought, than they did. He thus had to be silenced for a pagan-influenced, imperial (dare I say Roman) Christianity to arise. But I must make it clear that I am no expert in any of this, so shoot me down if you will. Phil Right, that's another key influence... the fusion of paganism to Chrisitanity to gain converts more easily and we lose that history, we lose those roots because suddenly Church doesn't want to admit in some of it's more sacred holidays or institutions or sacrements, there is a root to some pagan idea, or thought, or day, or event. Sadly, I also wonder what exactly was cut out from the bible or our later teachings by Constantine and his Counicl at Niecea. Since only those who beleived his way were invited to it... and Arius and leaders of the other sects ignored and isolated. In a recent debate with a close friend, I am struck how deeply her feelings are, (and I respect her for it), but I just feel that to think that there was no political motiviation or purposeful distortion when the Counil met to make an official bible is naive... Naive to think people do not have agenda's and it makes me wonder, was Arius and his followers wrong? Were they more correct to the teachings of Christ? Have we been fed lies? It's all a personal opinion, choice and decesion to make... I'd like to think my faith is "Holy" and thus pure and would not purposely do wrong... but then again, I am a student of history and now better and thus it makes me question what is supposed to be 'Right' and 'Fact'... and asking my own pastor for his feelings and 'guidance' gets me know where, (I don't know why I am surprised...).... Sorry... little bit of a rant there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmo Posted May 17, 2006 Report Share Posted May 17, 2006 I was once looking at the paintings of R Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rameses the Great Posted May 17, 2006 Report Share Posted May 17, 2006 I'll just say one thing. If you read the bible in English, there is a lot of confusion and phrases worded as though that of a contradiction. If you read it in Greek or Latin, you would understand that it is not. Sadly in English we tend to speek in absolutes. For example in the bible in English it says, 'he who sins is not the son of God.' However in Greek it says, 'he who continually sins is not the son of God.' That is why we tend to get confused. I do not know about Catholicism, but in Orthodoxy Arianism is completely dispelled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladius Hispaniensis Posted January 28, 2007 Report Share Posted January 28, 2007 I think someone forgot to mention that Arius had his nose punched in the Council of Nicea by St. Nicholas - yes, I mean Santa Claus. Nice gentlemanly "council" that one With goings on like that, and of course Charlemagne's famed crusade against the Goths, no wonder Arianism did not survive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 "It seems to me entirely possible that the antagonism towards Arian was so great and so intense because he actually had a greater claim to legitimacy and a lineal descent from early Christian thought, than they did. He thus had to be silenced for a pagan-influenced, imperial (dare I say Roman) Christianity to arise. But I must make it clear that I am no expert in any of this, so shoot me down if you will." Right, that's another key influence... the fusion of paganism to Chrisitanity to gain converts more easily and we lose that history, we lose those roots because suddenly Church doesn't want to admit in some of it's more sacred holidays or institutions or sacrements, there is a root to some pagan idea, or thought, or day, or event. I thought I would revive this thread since I was reading a bit about the Goths and Arianism. It seems to me that a basic tenet that the son is created by the father and is therefore subordinate to him. Doesn't this make it more like a form of polytheism? In the pagan religion Zeus or Jupiter was the father who had a son (Hercules) from a mortal woman. Isn't this similar to the Christian God having a son from Mary? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.