- This topic has 18,300 replies, 268 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
T8,
You quoted The Formation of Christian Dogma, by Martin Werner, D.D. pp. 155-8.
It is true that Arius repeated what was already stated by earlier writers i.e. that Christ had a beginning. Here are some quotes from earlier writers:
'There was a time when the Son did not exist; God was not always a Father' (Tertullian, Against Hermogenes)
'The Father, however, has no beginning because he was not begotten' (Tertullian, Against Praxeas)
'He [the Most High God] is without beginning, because He is unbegotten' (Theophilus)
Essentially before Nicea 'begotten' meant 'created'. However, 'begotten' was considered seomthing different in the eyes of Athanasius. Thus resulting in confusion. You see Athanasius was not happy that earlier drafts were acceptable to Arius. Athanasius wanted a creed that would force Arius to renounce his beliefs. A Biblical creed could not do this.
I gather that during the second and third centuries Christ was believed to have had a beginning and that God had the idea of a son in his mind from all eternity. Proverbs 8 is used by a number of writers who lived before Nicea to demonstrate that Christ had a beginning.
Arius' letter provides us with the reason why he was persecuted:
'We are persecuted because we say that the son has a beginning, but that God is without a beginning. This is the cause of our persecution (Arius' letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia)
So Arius was persecuted for something that was accepted by the church in previous centuries. However, Athanasius thought that this was a denial of the divinity of Christ just like some Trinitarians but this is false. Take for example, God's angels in heaven, theys are divine beings yet they were created.
What do Trinitarians not tell you:
Athanasius hired mobs to beat up and intimidate those who resisted him including fellow clergy. This is not the spirit of God at work but the devil. He was accused of rape by his opponents and found guilty of a number of crimes. He was exiled for a time for this reason. We need to be aware that he also produced copies of other writers works and may have altered them e.g. the writings of Irenaeus. The Greek copy of Ireneaus writings was produced byf Athanasius'. This copy is markedly different in places to the other copies that exist.
Athanasius played an important role in deciding which books should be included in the Bible Canon. He was very influential at Nicea.
The real issue at Nicea was not whether or not Christ was God but whether or not Christ and his Father were the same, similar or different substance. Arius had no problem in refering to Christ as GOD. But he did not see Christ as God Almighty ie. two persons co-equal persons in one being called God.
He believed that the Father alone is God above all including Christ. Arius said in his letter to Alexander:'For He [Christ] is not eternal or co-eternal or co-unoriginate with the Father, nor has he his being together with the Father… For he [the Father] is above him, as being his God.'
(Arius letter to Alexander)Trinitarians are providing people with a dishonest picture. Arius believed that Christ could be called GOD in some sense but not as equal to God Almighty since he believed that God Almighty was a separate or distinct being.
Nick quoted:
Heb 1 .2f” ..in this, the final age, He has spoken to us through His Son ,whom He has made heir of all things ,and through whom He first created the universe .This Son is the reflection of the Father's glory, the Exact representation of the Father's being and He sustains all things through His powerful Word.”
Now Trinitarians teach God as three persons in one being. The scriptures do not. God is the Father is one being and Christ is a copy of him, a perfect copy of his nature.
The doctrine of the Trinity is a deceitful doctrine.The Council of Nicea were not lead by God.
Some Trinitarians say that the decision at Nicea was unanimous and not influenced by Constantine. Again, this is not true as Eusebius of Caesar (who headed the majority group at Nicea) said this to Constantine:
'We committed an impious act, O Prince, by subscribing to a blasphemy from fear of you'
Hence, the controversy continued.
Quote (Guest @ Aug. 12 2004,03:11) Hmmm! The so-called 'arian heresy' is … what you actually believe, t8 Arius believed that Jesus pre-existed his birth as the 'Logos'
Therefore the Logos to him was a supernatural being of some kind. The reasons why Athanasius & his contemporaries condemned him & called his teaching an heresy; is because, altho' trinitarians believed that Jesus pre-existed his birth, they asserted that he was eternal hence he had no beginning; whilst Arius & his contemporaries asserted that Jesus indeed had a beginning (sometime before the foundation of the world because Arius believed that Jesus as this Logos-being created all things)
If your quote truly represents what Arius believed, then I also believe this teaching of Arius. So I am in agreement with Arius on that.Please note that I used the words “so-called heresy”. I wasn't saying that he was a heretic. But like I said, I do not know what he believed. I had never read any of his writings or quotes. I just knew about him and the circumstances surrounding his persecution.
To MessageOfSalvation,
thnx for you post. It is very informative.
Sounds like Arius taught the truth, if the quotes you gave are correct. Is there anything that Arius taught that anyone disagrees with?
Also did any of his writings survive the Arian persecution? Do they exist today?
I know that Jehovah Witnesses say they are Arians, but I do not agree with their doctrine nor their institution.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 12 2004,10:18) Arianism arose early in the 4th century and he taught that Jesus was a “created being” and thus not divine. Later extremists claimed Jesus was “unlike” the Father.
Is this true?Did Arius really believe that Jesus was created?
I myself certainly do not believe that Jesus was created, rather begotten.It could be that this is what Athanasius or his cohorts said that Arius believed. Does anyone have anything for or against this statement? I read somewhere (maybe an encyclopaedia) where it stated that Arius said that Jesus was created. I do have my suspicions about such reports, but of course it is very possible that he did say this.
Again I really know very little about this person.
T8,
I have read 3 of Arius letter that exist: one to Constantine, the other to Alexander, and the third to Eusebius of Nicomedia. I can't find anything unscriptural in them. I also decided to see if I could find documents that were not written by Athanasius who hated Arius.
Arius was exiled for refusing to agree with the Council of Nicea' s decision. However, he was later released and a document was issued by the Jerusalem Synod. Here is what it says regarding Arius and those who were exiled with him:
'their orthodox teaching in writing, which we all confessed to be sound and ecclesiastical…'
And again, ' the articles of the faith which they have published preserve indisputable the universally confessed apostolical tradition and teaching.
This response from the Jerusalem Synod angered Athanasius who then accused Arius of installing men more favourable in the Jerusalem synod. Do you think a man could simply walk into an organisation and do this, not likely considering Arius had come out of exile. What I find is that Arius dies in mysterious circumstances just before he was due to be reinstated. Some believe he was poisoned. Athanasius claimed it was an act of God. However, other bishops continue to oppose Athanasius who is later exiled for corruption by Constantine.
Now, as far the Trinity is concerned there is clear evidence from Tertullian someone who was advocating the Trinity that the doctrine was unknown to people at around 200 AD:
'”The majority of believers, are STARTLED at the Dispensation (of the Three in One)…They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods…While the Greeks actually REFUSE to understand the oikonomia, or Dispensation” (of the Three in One).”
It is also clear that Tertullians trinity has been developed. Tertullian associated 'begotten' with one who has a beginning and unbegotten with one who has no beginning.
'The Father, however, has no beginning because he was not begotten' (Tertullian, Against Praxeas)
'He [the Most High God] is without beginning, because He is unbegotten' (Theophilus)
There is only one God, the unbegotten God i.e. the Father. He alone has no beginning.
Christ's beginning is the point at which he became the son.
This is the beginning of all things. This is how he is the beginning so that he could be the first in everyway.
For example, the first born of all creation.Before Athanasius earlier writers used proverbs 8 to support that Christ had a beginning.
Christ is the first born of all creation. He is part of God's creation. This therefore means he was created. If God created all things Christ naturally is part of creation. There is Christ, then there are angels, men and animals etc.
Incidentally, both Jehovah's Witnesses and Trinitarians are deceived. Both have produced translations none of them are perfect. Hence, the need to look at a variety of translations when examining certain verses.
But Jesus was the instrument of all creation, at least of the universe , but He did not create Himself surely??
In the beginning there was no time, because time is a fruit of creation and the beginning was eternal.
Begotten has more meaning because birth also relates to created nature.
I looked up some things that Arius was suppose to have said. Quoted below:
Arius said: “We must either suppose two divine original essences, without beginning and independent of each other, we must substitute a dyarchy for a monarchy, or we must not shrink from asserting that the logos had a beginning of his existence – that there was when he was not
(Albert Newman, A Manual of Church History, p. 326).Nicene Creed
“But as for those who say, there was when He was not, and, before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is from a different… substance, or is created, or is subject to alteration or change – these the Catholic [that is, Universal] Church anathematizes,”
(Ibid).Arius wrote to his friend Eusebius Bishop of Nicodemia,…
“how grievously the bishop attacks and persecutes us , and comes full tilt against us, so that he drives us from the city as atheists, because we do not concur with him when he publicly preaches, ’God always, the Son always; at the same time the Father, at the same time the Son; the Son co-exists with God, unbegotten; he is ever begotten, he is not born by begetting; neither by thought nor by any moment in time does God precede the Son; God always, Son Always, the Son exists from God himself’….”And before he was begotten or created or appointed or established, he did not exist; for he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted because we say the Son had a beginning, but God is without beginning.”
(letter to Eusibius 321 AD Theodoret. Bishop of Cyrus 423-458 H.E.I.v)It seems to me that Arius believed that there was a time when the son was not. But did he actually teach that Jesus was created? I have read a number of Trinitarian websites that say that the did. But I need to see an actual quote or letter where he says that Jesus was created. Does anyone know of such a quote or writing?
Also does having a beginning equate to being created?
How does Colossians 1:15-17 fit with this.
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.As Nick pointed out, Christ didn't create himself.
Is it possible that begotten and created are different.
i.e. Christ was begotten (born, or not made by hands but proceeded) in eternity and then God created all things through him including time itself. Now we are created beings, but then we are given the opportunity to be born from God, born of God, born from above, born again. So then Jesus calls us brothers and we will be like him.
So is our born again experience a created thing?
When the Logos was born was he given a unique identity as the son? And did this all happen before time itself, even before any created thing?What do you guys think about the eternal proceeding from the Father that the Trinitarians teach? I personally hold to the view that Jesus proceeded from the Father at some point. So God became a Father. God was not always a Father.
Psalm 2:7
I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.Hebrews 1:5
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?Quote (t8 @ Aug. 13 2004,20:51) How does Colossians 1:15-17 fit with this.
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.As Nick pointed out, Christ didn't create himself.
Is it possible that begotten and created are different.
i.e. Christ was begotten (born, or not made by hands but proceeded) in eternity and then God created all things through him including time itself. Now we are created beings, but then we are given the opportunity to be born from God, born of God, born from above, born again. So then Jesus calls us brothers and we will be like him.
So is our born again experience a created thing?
When the Logos was born was he given a unique identity as the son? And did this all happen before time itself, even before any created thing?What do you guys think about the eternal proceeding from the Father that the Trinitarians teach? I personally hold to the view that Jesus proceeded from the Father at some point. So God became a Father. God was not always a Father.
Psalm 2:7
I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.Hebrews 1:5
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
T8,The Biblical references to Christ regarding creation avoid saying the world was made 'by' Christ in the original New Testament language of the scriptures.The scriptures avoid using the word 'ek' ('by) instead the word 'dia' (through) is used. Thus the world was made 'through' Christ who is the Creator's instrument.
'He has spoken to us through (ek) his Son that he has appointed to inherit everything and through whom he made everything there is' (Hebrews 1:2)
'through (dia) him all things came to be' (John 1:2)
etc
I've found one instance where neither 'by' (ek) nor 'through' (dia) are used and it is in Colossians:
My Bible translation reads as follows:
'He is the image of the unseen God and the first-born of all creation, for in him were created all things in heaven.' (Colossians 1:15)
To say that world was made by Christ is inconsistent with all other related scriptures in the original language.
Colossians 1:15 says 'all things in heaven'.The Father is in heaven, but that does not mean the Father was created by Christ.
The Bible teaches that the Creator has a son:
'Who has set all the ends of the earth firm? What is his name, or the name of his son, if you know it?' (Proverbs 30:4)
Christ does not have a only begotten son but the creator does. Hence, the text clearly means that the Father alone is the true creator.
Christ is unique in that he came directly from his Father. All others came through the power of the Father at work in Christ. That is why the scriptures are careful to use the word 'through' and not 'by'. It was not Christ's own power at work.
Some Trinitarians say that a man called Origen used the word 'Trinity'. Having looked at some of his works I find opposing doctrines within it which clearly suggest his work has been corrupted. His comments regarding the Gospel of John clearly contradicts the Trinity yet the word 'Trinity' occasionally pops up. He does comment on the subject of whether the word was created 'through' or 'by' Christ in the New Testament scriptures that he possessed in its original language:
'Thus, if all things were made, as in this passage also through the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos [the Word], but by a stronger and greater than he. And who else could this be but the Father? (Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II).
Origen distinguishes between 'through' and 'by' yet Trinitarians continue to translate his work using the wrong word 'by' at other points in his writings. However, even goes as far as saying
'and at the same time we believe nothing to be uncreated but the Father (Commentary on John Book II).
I discovered that Athanasius in the next century attended the same school in Alexandria that Origen attended roughly a century earlier. It combined the study of Greek philosophy with Biblical studies.
Psalm 8:5,6 is applied to Christ in the book of Hebrews. Here is part of the Psalm:
'You have made him a little less than a god, you crowned him with glory and splendour, made him Lord over the work of your hands and set all things under his feet' (Psalm 8:5,6)
The text says Christ was not equal to God. The Trinity teaches that he is equal to God. The text says that the Father made Christ Lord. He was not Lord from all eternity. We are the work of the Father's hand. Notice when Christ did miracles he said 'it is the Father in me doing the work'. Similarly, it is by Father's power alone that the world was made. Christ is the 'instrument' of creation through which God works.
It is more accurate to say that the world was reated 'through' Christ rather than 'by' Christ.
One can say the Father is the creator of all but not all are the same. Christ is unique. When life came to be in Christ it was not through any other but the Father. Angels, and men came through Christ but were created by the Father. Note that Christ is not our Father but our brother. The Creator has no brothers. He is the Father of all. To say that we are the brother of the creator would be unbiblical.
Created is a more general word. Begotten can mean created but it is more specific in that it relates to being the child of another, their offspring. Created can mean begotten but it does not always mean begotten.
Pro 16:4 Yhwh [the LORD] made everything for its own purpose, yes, even the wicked for the day of disaster.
God made everything. Therefore, God [Yhwh] made Christ. I believe the Father made everything.
Yhwh is the Father's name as found in the ancient Hebrew manuscripts (denoted as the LORD in most Bibles). Now, if we believe the scriptures as it reads 'Yhwh made everything' and therefore, he made Christ also. However, not in the same way that we were made.
The phrase ' begotten not made' is found in the Nicene Creed. However, I have not seen anything like this in writings that were produced in previous centuries. The Nicene Creed is unbiblical.
Quote (messageofsalvation @ Aug. 15 2004,00:18) To say that world was made by Christ is inconsistent with all other related scriptures in the original language. It is more accurate to say that the world was reated 'through' Christ rather than 'by' Christ.
I agree that God made all creation through him. I do not believe that Jesus is the creator, rather the way that God made all things. Just as God saved us, he did it through his son.Jesus said not my will but yours when he was faced with being crucified. So Jesus did the Fathers will yet again. God made all things through him and for him.
Jesus even said that he was the way.
Begotten not made.
I know that the Nicene Creed says this, but I agree with it.
John 1:3
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.The above scripture is the reason why I make a distinction between being made/created and begotten.
What are thoughts on John 1:3?
Quote (messageofsalvation @ Aug. 14 2004,06:54) Yhwh is the Father's name as found in the ancient Hebrew manuscripts (denoted as the LORD in most Bibles).
mos,
What about Zech 14:3, this is Jesus – a fact that is confirmed in Acts 1:11 & 12 (T8, im still waiting). Genesis 18 also seems to contradict this, given that no-one has seen the Father (Jn 1:18). Also, how does Micah 5:2 fit your theory that Jesus isn't eternal?Zechariah 14:3
Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle.Yes that is right. The LORD sends his son. The LORD doesn't have a body. He is Spirit and invisible. God sends us, prophets, angels and his son to do his bidding. The next scripture shows us clearly how God uses his son to do his will.
2 Corinthians 5:19
that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.Micah 5:2
“But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.”First of all the above verse in Micah answers your first question and I use it in support of my answer above. i.e., That God uses his son to do his will. Secondly the verse says that Jesus is from the days of eternity and long ago. I think this is a fitting description for someone who was begotten before creation was made. Jesus was given birth (before creation) and after that, God created all things though him and for him. I guess that time itself may be part of creation. To have come from eternity doesn't mean that one has always existed. We (children of God) are given eternal life for example, so we will be eternal. But we did have a beginning.
1 John 5:11
And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.Hi T8
Hmmm. Did you really read these scriptures “through the eyes of innocence” (your words) and interpret them without presupposition? Seems to me that they don't fit your theology so you've tried to make them fit. I respect and appreciate the fact that you fronted up though.To be childlike is not to be childish or foolish. For certainly we must be wise as serpents too. Now wisdom would say that we must look at the big picture when understanding any kind of biblical theme. So a scripture that appears to contradict another, is more likely to be a misunderstanding than a contradiction. That is why it says in 2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
So how do we understand Jesus clear teachings that no one can see God? The answer I believe is to just trust in his words and believe it. When we look closely at the scriptures that seem to contradict Jesus, we can really see that they do not. If you do not believe that God always sends a representitive then you are at odds with the following words of Christ.
John 6:46
No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.John 5:24
“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.It goes back to what was said before. Trusting in the words of Jesus is the safe path. Trusting in the cleverly devise fables , traditions and philosophy of man is in opposition to trusting in Jesus Christ.
If people really saw God, then that not only contradicts Jesus teaching, making him to be a liar, but it also contradicts the following scripture too.
Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?It's your choice to believe Jesus or not. My job is to teach, not to force anyone to believe in anything. I am only repeating Christ own words in this case. So if you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with him, not me. I am open to scrutiny with my teaching because my motive is to know and teach the truth.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
