Talk:Arianism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Arianism/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This is a very excellent summary. It identifies theological threads running from the 400s, right until current times. Excellent large perspective.

Last edited at 02:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 08:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Please make more accessible to the the lay reader

Hello I came across this article and found the introduction very difficult to understand even though I know a little about the history of the christian church. I appreciate that theological concepts can be difficult to describe but I found the intro completely opaque. Please could you describe it in more simple language. Thanks 85.210.13.213 19:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree! The below is just some of the jargon that needs to be cleaned up so that ordinary people can understand it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism#Beliefs
the Son (Jesus?) is 1) an eructation, others that he is 2) a production, others that he is 3) also unbegotten.

...the Son is 4) not unbegotten

...For he (Jesus?) was 4b) not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has 5) a beginning, but that God is 6) without beginning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism#Origin
"...He taught that the pre-incarnate Jesus was a divine being created by (and therefore inferior to) God the Father at some point, before which the Son did not exist In English-language works, it is sometimes said that Arians believe that Jesus is or was a "creature", in the sense of "created being". "
Isn't that what most people believe and what the Christmas story teaches? It seems like much over little. Yes or not, this point should be explained.

And if Jesus wasn't a "creature", wouldn't the short crucification as punishment/sacrifice be far, far less sacrifice than a modern long cancer death? "Only three days of torture with a ticket to heavan!? Where do I get into THAT line?!"

quotes from: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LEAD

The lead section (also known as the introduction, lead, or lede of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects.

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences.

While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, must be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view to invite a reading of the full article.....

... Introductory text

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MOSINTRO#Introductory_text

Provide an accessible overview

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for the topic being noteworthy should be established early on in the lead. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible.

"...In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided in an introduction. ....Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked. The subject should be placed in a context with which many readers could be expected to be familiar.

First sentence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MOSINTRO#First_sentence

The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject.

...If its subject is amenable to definition, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. Similarly, if the title is a specialised term, provide the context as early as possible.

--69.110.90.60 (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Doug

Theodosius and Arianism in this Article

A large portion of the latter half of this article describes Theodosius and his role in early Christianity. Isn't this information extraneous in an article specifically about Arianism? -- DH

Thedosius forms a critical part of the history of Arianism, especially in Italy. Removing it would leave a huge question mark as to why it disappeared in Rome. 24.247.157.122 01:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. Theodosius essentially ended the Arian-Nicene conflict by bringing the apparatus of the Roman state decisively down on the Nicene side. --Jfruh 01:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Idiots' guide

I may have misunderstood this concept when I studied it at Uni, but I thought it could be summed up for idiots (like me) as follows:

First God was the Father... then the Son... and then he became the Holy Spirit

Is that simplistic rendering totally inaccurate? Or just usefully simplistic? Or just a waste of a couple of minutes' typing? --Dweller 14:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a simplistic rendering of a complex theological idea: The Arian's Believe that Jesus was created by god, as he was born, the fundamental idea in the Nicene creed is that Jesus was created by god, long before his birth, and that "In the beginning was the Word...", was that "The Word" was God's promise, and that Jesus was the fulfillment of that promise, and the Holy spirit was the source of the divine life of Jesus on earth. All of this is read aloud by Catholics and Anglicans every Sunday, so for them, its literally rote reading, and for others who wish to find the words of that expound on that idea, then one merely needs to read the idiots guide called "The Book of common prayer." Book Of Common Prayer

Are you talking about the views of mainstream Christianity, or Arianism? Christians who follow the Nicene creed (which is pretty much anyone who calls him or herself a Christian today) believe that Jesus has always existed (beginning of Gospel of John: "In the beginning was the Word...", the Word being Jesus). Some early Christians (who tend to be lumped together as Ariana, though they wouldn't have all necessarily called themselves that) believed that the Son was created by the Father at some point after the beginning of time, though they did not agreed on whether that made Jesus "inferior" in some way to God the Father.

Fundamentally, from the Sola scriptana, Jesus said My father is greater.

And Hermeneutics, "In the beginning was the Word, and the word was God." The Word, was Gods promise given in integrity, in which he is promising salvation, by means of Jesus, and the fulfillment of the prophecy, i.e. The prophecy is Gods promise. So logically if A gives you B, and B Gives you C, then A does give you C, It is NOT C, but gives you C. Lets be clear.

I admit that I don't really understand how the Holy Spirit fits into all this. But both Nicene and Ariana's don't believe that one person of the trinity replaced another. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are believed to all coexist and yet together make up one God. --Jfruh (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be essentially apropos to insert the text of the actual Nicene creed. It kind of spells it out.

And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.

Sorry, I thought it was clear that I was trying to give an Idiot's Guide to the Arian doctrine. I also thought that a central plank of that was that the entities didn't co-exist. I must've been wrong. --Dweller 15:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea is that in Arian beliefs they didn't always coexist. That is, at some point there was just the Father, and later the Father and the Son. But one did not replace the other.

Again, I don't know how the Holy Ghost fits in. He is a wily character, that one. --Jfruh (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

lol --Dweller 15:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Arianism, in a nutshell: "There was when he [the Son], was not" (an Arian slogan). The issue (from Arius' perspective) is that the 1st person of the trinity (Father) most in some some way "produce" (whether creation or begetting) the 2nd person of the Trinity -- and thus there must be a time when the 2nd person was not. The Spirit was not really considered until after Nicaea, other than to acknowledge that the SPirit is also divine. Pastordavid 11:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously Jesus believed he was younger than Yahweh. Why the heck would he call himself the Son, if he didn't believe he was younger than the Father? If he thought he was the same age as Yahweh, he would have used the word "brother" instead of "son" in Matthew 21:37, Mark 12:6 and Luke 20:13.

If believing that Jesus is younger than his Father makes you Arian, then Jesus himself was Arian. --WillJ 70.168.185.11 04:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the idea is that while Jesus as Jesus was born in 4 BC or whenever, the Word, as the beginning of the gospel of John says, had always existed and was co-eternal with the Father. Jesus was the Word made flesh. I'm not a Christian, so this all has a certain angels-dancing-on-a-pin quality for me, but the belief that all three persons of the Trinity have always existed in one form or another has defined mainstream Christianity for the last 1700 years. --Jfruh (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think really what we are saying is, so that we can continue to support the Pope as divinely assigned political role, we should close our eyes and continue to spout the Trinitarian dogma. 69.51.152.180 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

Arianism

"Most orthodox or mainstream Christian historians define and minimize the Arian conflict as the exclusive construct of Arius and handful of rogue bishops engaging in "heresy." Of the roughly three hundred bishops in attendance at the Council of Nicea, only three bishops did not sign the Nicene Creed."

Would be useful to add here the information about the total of bishops at that time was about 1800, as shown at Heresy:Early Christian heresies and First Council of Nicaea:Attendees? I think that to say that only 3 bishops out of 318 did not sign the Nicene Creed would be more properly understandable if this info is added. What do you think?

ZackTheJack 18:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"relevant" and "irrelevant"

This was added and removed: "Trivia In Chilean TV Programm "Tertulia" broadcast in Canal 13 Cable is a recurring joke between José Luis Rosasco and Monseñor Luis Eugenio Silva to say that Rosasco is "Semi-Arian"" In order to underrstand the banter one needs to known what "Arian" means: i.e. "Arian" is relevant at Canal 13 Cable. The converse however is not true: this statement is vacuous (a technical term, not just a "pejorative"). This needs to be re-explained a thousand times at Wikipedia: relevance is not a concept taught in public schools. --Wetman 07:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. If someone wants to set up a wiki on the subject of television programming in Chile, then they can include this reference. As it happens, I recall an abstruse joke being made about Arianism at a faculty cocktail party I attended more than a decade ago. I forbore to include a retelling of the incident in this article. . . . --Michael K. Smith (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

For clarity's sake

Arianism is a Trinitarian heresy, not a christological heresy. That is, Arianism is fundamentally about how the Father is related to the Son (the doctrine of the Trinity), not about how the divine and human are related in the person of Christ (the Christological doctrine). Yes, as in most trinitarian controversies, there are Christological implications -- but the issue was fundamentally understood as dealing with the relations of the persons of the Godhead. -- Pastordavid 11:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha...Arians did not believe in 3 Persons; therefore, they did not believe in a Trinity. So, Arianism was NOT a Trinitarian heresy NOR a Trinitarian christological heresy. To Arians, Theology was about God the Father and Christology was about the Son of God. Arians believe that God the Father is the only true God and that the Son of God is the Logos. Arians believed that God the Father and the Son of God are both divine/holy in nature but that only God the Father is a Deity. Arians believed that the Logos became flesh and that He emptied Himself of His divine/holy nature. Arians believed that God the Father and the Son of God are not equal in rank. Arians believed that the Holy Spirit is power of God.

I very much urge you to read the following links about Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Secondary sources and Wikipedia:Verifiabilityl, since your additions are exclusively based on primary sources, especially the Bible, and not on any sources mentioning Arianism at all. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I have been writing and editing on Wikipedia for 5 years. Just because I do not have an account, it does not mean that I do not know Wikipedia policy. My contributions to the article are based on published sources of Arians. The Letter of Auxentius is one published source, which contains the creed of Arian Ulfilas (who is a Goth). The Goths in the 4th Century is a second published source, which contains the creed of Arian Ulfilas. Posting a creed is not original research. A secondary source is not needed to post a creed, a primary source is sufficient. I provided two primary sources for the creed of Arian Ulfilas (who is a Goth). Next time, read the sources before falsely accusing people of original research. My contributions are NOT based on the Bible at all! You would have known this, had you read the sources and the creed of Arian Ulfilas itself; instead of assuming things and reverting my contributions, just to get it your way. I understand you probably despise Arians and Arianism but that does not mean that you can delete factual contributions nor does that mean that Athanasians (i.e. Trinitarians) can misrepresent Arian beliefs by contributing the personal opinion of some Athanasians (i.e. Trinitarians) (such as: Arians believe in an unorthodox form of the Trinity) and by contributing a secondary source of Athanasians (i.e. Trinitarians) (such as: false attribution of Gnosticism) that misrepresents Arians and Arianism. Arian beliefs are not Gnostic but Christian. By the way, the Bible supports both Athanasianism (i.e. Trinitarianism) and Arianism. According to the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Catholic Church, Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:7 used to not state "the Father, the Son (i.e. the Word), and the Holy Spirit".

Your method of using talk pages doesn't exactly inspire confidence in your claim that "you know Wikipedia policy". Also your blatant disregard of the fact that the edit I reverted was basically sourced with Scripture, as well as your closing comment, does not really speak in your favour. Ãnd please refrain from conjectures about my personal opinion of Arianism. Not only is your guess way off, you shold know better than to comment on the editor rather than the content. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I do NOT care what your opinion is of my method of using talk pages. I do not have a Wikipedia account; therefore, I am not bond my Wikipedia policy. Knowing something and doing something is not the same thing. Like I already stated, my edit was NOT sourced with Scripture but with two published sources. You need to stop falsely accusing me. The beliefs of Arian Ulfilas (who is a Goth) are grounded in the Bible, hence, why Bible verses are in parentheses. Since I'm the one who added the Bible verses, I know better why I added them and your assumption is based on your opinion. Tip: You should first read the sources (Letter of Auxentius and Goths in the 4th Century) before assuming things and prematurely deleting edits. Also, you should have asked why I added Bible verses in parentheses; instead, of accusing me of using them as a primary source because you obviously are confused. Since you find it confusing, maybe, you would like helping me to improve it? It was not a personal attack nor was it an attack at all because it was about the deletion of my content; your assumption is wrong. I have no reason to attack you, you are full of it.

"And to the Apostles he gives the command: Going around preach ye and baptize those who believe in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit." Theodotus, a Gnostic, quoted by Clement of Alexandria in Excerpts from Theodotus.

"With one word and voice He said to His disciples: 'Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsover I have commanded you.' That 'name' is Jesus." Matthew 28:19-20 as quoted by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea.

"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the catholic Church in the second Century." The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263.

"This formula so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the liturgical usage established later in the primitive community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus,"..." The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Roman Catholic work.

"The basic form of our profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text came from the city of Rome." Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

72.69.6.107 (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Some General Concerns

Does Arianism refer to the teachings of Arius of Alexandria in particular, to the various concerns of the school of Lucian, or to the various different-substance, similar-substance, and like-substance groups of the 4th-6th centuries? In the first case, the article should stick as closely as possible to Arius, and should limit references to other teachers (e.g. Auxentius) propounding other not-same-substance teachings. In the second case, the article should focus much more on Lucian, much less on Arius, and much more on different teachers addressing recurring concerns, some with teachings closer to Nicaea, and some with teachings farther from Nicaea. But that could be another article (Co-Lucianism?). In the third case, I don't know. Jacob Haller 20:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, some authors suggest that the Logos may be not uncreated, and not created at some specific time, but continually created, and perhaps changible (within limits) or perhaps unchangible. Thus the idea of the created Logos does not imply the idea of a time before the creation of the Logos, although Arius probably taight that "there was a time when He was not" early in the controversy. Eunomius of Cyzicus considers and rejects the theory of continual creation in his First Apology (chapter 23). Jacob Haller 20:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Name Issues Persist

[I asked about this on talk: Naming conventions.] The term Arianism is very common, but suffers several problems. It is a derogatory name given by its opponents; it has acquired additional meanings (e.g. teaching that Jesus was not divine) that would exclude Arius et al.; and it describes two larger overlapping groups ((1) the critics of Nicaea and (2) Lucian of Antioch and his followers) as well as one smaller subgroup (Arius of Alexandria and his followers). So it's hard to tell when the article means "Arians, as in Arius, Eusebius, George, Aetius, Wulfila, etc." or "Arians, as in Arius, but not these other guys." Jacob Haller 04:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Mormons Support Arius?

I have to question the addition of Mormonism in the list of faiths prescribing to Arius' teachings. Without reference side by side with what Arius taught vs. what Mormons believe, it seems as though this section is trying to find ways to prove Mormons follow Arius' teachings. In fact, I can prove via cited reference that they do *not* subscribe to Arius' teachings. Please see http://www.geocities.com/essays12/UScreeds.pdf for a great explanation on Mormon beliefs on the subject. Without cited evidence to the contrary, I suggest Mormons be removed from the list, as I think more than anything, Mormons support the Catholic belief that Arius was a Heretic.Jstayii 22:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, did you read the paragraph leading into that list at all? Or the headline, "'Arian' as a polemical epithet"? The point is not that the groups on that list are Arians -- in fact, the intro material states exactly the opposite. The point is that the groups don't follow the Nicene Creed, and thus have been labelled Arians by others. --Jfruh (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the example I provided? It makes very good evidence that Mormons do support the Nicene creed. We may have different interpretations of what 1 in 3 and 3 in 1 actually mean, but Mormons agree with the sections of the Nicene creed and others that were added to contradict Arianism. Should Mormons be in that list, Catholics should as well for the same reasons as Mormons. Catholics and Mormons are very much in agreement with not following any of the teachings of Arius. Jstayii 22:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, I think we're arguing at counterpurposes here. I, and more importantly, this article, is in no way arguing that Mormons (or Jehovah's Witnesses or Muslims or whatever) are really secret Arians or something. I'm not that familiar with Mormon trinitarianism, so apologies if I misspoke. But such accusations have historically been a feature of anti-Mormon polemic. The interesting thing from the standpoint of this article is that the Arian controversy so marked the early Church that "Arian" became frequently used insult or attack word in debates about the trinity, centuries after the last Arians (in the strict sense of "those who follow the teachings of Arius") died out. To summarize: This article is not trying to say that Mormons are Arians. This article is only noting that others have called Mormons Arians.

Frankly, this whole section is a bother and it may need to be eliminated or seriously rewritten. The problem is that this exact thing keeps happening over and over: someone sees their religion on this list, feels that Wikipedia is insulting them by calling them Arians, and adds some elaborate theological argument proving that they aren't, really. I'm pretty sure I wrote this section way back when, and it originally just noted that "Arian" was used in theological debates about the trinity, and then mentioned in passing some of the groups that have been so accused. Then everyone wanted to add descriptions. The rest is sorry history, and I'm open to suggestions on how it can be reworked to make it more obvious that Wikipedia isn't in the business of deciding who's an Arian and who isn't. --Jfruh (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I would say cut the section. The fact is, any non-trinitatian or subordinationist group will always be compared to arianism. Indeed, throughout the middle ages it was a common term to through around as an accusation against one's theological opponents. Arians are Arians - and that is what this article should be concerned with. Not who is like arians, or has been accused of being like arians. -- Pastordavid 02:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep. And there are very different non-trinitarian theologies. Jacob Haller 03:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I do honestly think it's worthwhile to keep the part that points out that "Arian" is a frequent term of abuse in theological disputation -- it may be the first context in which most people will encounter the term, so they'll be confused if they come here and find that they all died out in the firth century. I think the list of not-Arians can be safely cut, though. --Jfruh (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree - thanks for cutting it. It either needs to be rewritten to state your purposes, or removed to avoid any evidence of bias. I realize it wasn't the intent, but the wording made it look as so. I think if it were to be shown again, references of people calling certain religions "Arian" should be cited, along with cited references of both sides of the story on why people claim such, and why the particular religion does not agree that they subscribe to Arian teachings. So long as it remains neutral there should be no complaints on either side. That, unfortunately is not an easy thing to do - hence why I think it's just a good idea to remove the section. Jstayii 04:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to grumble, but I did state my purposes -- the text said clearly that there was no historical continuity between Arians and the listed groups and that the members of those groups didn't consider themselves Arians. I'm not sure how much clearer I could have made it. I just got sick of the endless fights and the pointless "they say"-"they say" accretions of text to this section. --Jfruh (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The current (October 18 2013) paragraph on Latter-Day Saint beliefs on this subject is clear, concise and correct. Very few of them would care at all whether others call them Arians or not. Terrel Shumway (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Modern times arianism?

It should probably be stated that “even, there has been no historically continuous survival of Arianism into the modern era, there are in the modern times, religious that held the arian point of view, such as Jehovah Witness, and others”.

Oh man, please read the entire previous section of this talk page for the troubles that starts. Thanks. --Jfruh (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

To call a modern view "Arianism", in addition to being horrible POV, is an anachronism. Please read above. -- Pastordavid 01:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Arianism as heresy

I don't know why this is covered up. According to heresy and the source quoted in it:

Heresy, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is a "theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the Roman Catholic or Orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church, or, by extension, to that of any church, creed, or religious system, considered as orthodox. By extension, heresy is an opinion or doctrine in philosophy, politics, science, art, etc., at variance with those generally accepted as authoritative."

Moreover, the scholarly sources invoked in this page study Arianism under the sign of heresy. Is any ground to consider Arianism not a heresy? Daizus 11:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should cover the issues. Nicaea condemned Arianism as heresy. Wikipedia should state that Nicaea did so (and the article does). Wikipedia should not, however, condemn any tradition as heresy, as that violates NPOV (as the category tag would). Jacob Haller 11:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

A personal issue: I am not an Arian (closer to Anomean) but my own position is also condemned by Nicaea. I try not to push my own POV, but to stay neutral and stay close to the sources. If our positions were reversed, if history had gone another way, and people were tagging Athanasianism as heresy, I hope I would not be doing so. Jacob Haller 11:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia simply has to follow the sources and the sources say Arianism was a heresy. To say it was not it means to engage in original research. Also to say it is a NPOV violation it means there's another POV represented by reliable sources. Yet I don't see it. Is any scholarship claiming Arianism was not a heresy? Is any scholarship claiming the Nicene creed was not mainstream/orthodox at that time? Daizus 11:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Heresy is a relativistic term and should not be used without directly referring to the offended party in an objective medium. Endercase (talk)

For the first question, it depends how we define Arianism. For the second question:

Eunomius' First Apology?

Philostorgius's Church History?

Auxentius' Letter?

Of course these are partisan works. Athanasius' and Sozomen's are also partisan works, as are Newman's, Schaff's and Kelly's IIRC. Jacob Haller 12:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice try. I asked for reliable sources, I asked for scholarship. Let's leave aside the theologicians (though some of them were/are professors of Church history, as well), check Edward Peters (present in the article's bibliography), check Mircea Eliade (not present, try "A History of Religious Ideas", vol. II). Daizus 12:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Which sources are you using which (1) you consider reliable (2) you do not consider theologians and (3) describe Arianism as a heresy? And Philostorgius was more historian than theologian. Jacob Haller 12:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've already provided two: Edward Peters (in Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe) and Mircea Eliade (in A History of Religious Ideas). Philostorgius doesn't qualify (and even so I wonder what part of his work are you using, as it is largely lost) because its usage fails to meet WP:RS and WP:NOR; can you name a peer-review journal he published in? Can you present a scholary review of his work assessing the quality of his interpretation? I thought so. Daizus 12:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As long as you keep moving the goalposts, redefining scholarly sources to exclude any sources which (1) I have access to and (2) contradict your POV, you can dodge the issue. But why should wikipedia condemn anything as a false religion? Jacob Haller 13:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

But I did not redefine them, from the beginning I was referring to them as reliable sources. Moreover Edward Peters is included in the article and it is available online ([2] "Arianism began, as many schismatical and heretical movements did"). Therefore your objections do not hold.

The condemnation issue is actually a straw man. Barbarian is generaly a pejorative term but is used by modern scholarship in a non-pejorative way to describe the non-Romans. Similarly heresy, regardless of what heavy conotations you may assign to it, is used by modern scholarship to describe certain schismatic movements inside major religions (in this case, Christianity). The definition provided by Oxford Dictionary shows it as well. Daizus 15:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As an alternative, I suggest creating categories for views condemned at various councils or by various churches. Perhaps Category: Condemned at the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople? Jacob Haller 12:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view specifically addresses this issue: Jacob Haller 14:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral – that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

To label the subject Heresy is in opposition to its subject.

NPOV requires views to be represented without bias.

assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves.

If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone.

Let the facts speak for themselves

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Religion also addresses this issue:

NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past.

Wait a minute ... did I see a little further up the implication that theologians are not reliable sources about theology? Of course they are. Actually, the sources J. Haller quoted are indeed RS. However, they are in the minority. The mroe important point is the issue with the category -- if Category:Christian heresy or Category:Heresy is still around, this article should be in it. However, the article is inherently POV, and has been up at CfD -- or at least considered for one - repeatedly. I would take the debate about the validity of categorizing terms as heresy where it belongs - to that category, not here. What happens here should be a result of that discussion. -- Pastordavid 14:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What proves the reliability (per WP:RS and WP:NOR) of Auxentius or Philostorgius (again I must stress the work of the latter is largely lost, bringing forward a weird situation of how can one discuss the reliability of a source he hasn't read??)?

Theologians may be reliable sources on theology, but not on the history of the Church. It is a fact (according to these historians) at Nicaea Arianism was declared heretical (through a majority of votes). It is a fact the Nicene creed was declared orthodox. It is a fact that historically the heresy can be defined in a certain way and Arianism falls under this definition. Daizus 15:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is that "heresy" is a theological term that basically means "theology that we don't believe in" and Wikipedia does not exist to take theological positions. Why is it so terrible and a "cover up" to say "Mainstream Christian churches consider Arianism to be heretical" rather than state in Wikipedia's voice that "Arianism is heretical"? --Jfruh (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Heresy" it is not just a theological term. I provided the Oxford Dictionary definition, I provided scholars (contemporary historians and historians of religion, with reputation, credentials, peer-reviewed) using "heresy" and "heretical" in a narrative about the history of Christianity, and having a different meaning that the one you claim it has.

You know, I have not encountered yet a history of Christianity (written by modern reputable scholars, of course) which considers Arianism anyhow else than a Christian heresy. It's not about putting a blame, but recognizing a certain derivative nature, a certain schismatic nature.

There's an article already about Christian heresy, I have nothing against restructuring the "heresy" category (i.e. having some subcategories and "Christian heresy/ies" to be one of them), just please do not try to claim things which are at odds with current scholarship. There were such things as heresies and Arianism was one of them, so let's just deal with the fact and do not hide it. Daizus 20:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Now that I'm looking at what the edit history, I'm seeing that this debate is about including "Heresies" as a category, which I don't actually have any objection to. There's just been a lot of POV pushing on this page that seeks to "prove" that Arianism is "wrong", which is what I object to. --Jfruh (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is the Catholic Church or the Orthodox lay claim to the christian mantle? The church is right and everyone who is opposed to the trinitarian belief is wrong and not a real christian? In this case every religous movement with the exception of the Catholic Church would be non-christian and heretic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SonofSieglinde (talk • contribs) 19:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Conflict

This article says three bishops voted in favour of Arianism at the First Council of Nicaea, but that page itself says only two. Which is wrong, or have I misunderstood? Larklight 16:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Split proposal

I suggest we divide this article into at least two and preferably three parts:

1. Arian controversy An article on the history and development of the controversy. This would cover all sides, cover Church councils from Nicaea to Constantinople, etc.
2. Arianism An article on the doctrines and practices of Arias and those closest to Arius' teachings.
3. (Untitled) An article on common doctrines and practices of those generally considered "Arian" including Anomeans and Semi-Arians, and possibly non-"Arian" developments within the school of Lucian of Antioch. Jacob Haller 06:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have started an Arian controversy stub and would like help filling it out, and splitting this article. Jacob Haller 03:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Why split an article that is this short?

This article is not even 25KB long yet and is not a good candidate for a split. In fact I came here because I was going to propose merging some bio stubs of famous Arians into this article. -- SECisek 18:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the article is that size after the split, carry on. -- SECisek 19:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Arius' death

I don't see much of a discussion of this death. I've read at least 3 accounts, including the classic, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" that suggest he was poisoned as he went to baptize Constantine. The poison caused his bowels to dissolve and he died on the toilet according to each of these accounts. That he was poisoned seems to indicate that he still had great power at the time. I may come back and add this discussion with references if I have the time. Gvharrier 00:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspected the same thing. PalindromeKitty (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought I'd read that he died around the time of the Nicene Council (325). It was really 336? Date of death? Sources? Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Changes to intro paragraph

It seems to me, in general, that a thing should be defined first in terms of itself, and only secondly in terms of its relationship with other things. Thus, I am rearranging the intro sentences first to describe Arianism itself, and second to describe it as a heresy with regard to the Council of Nicea. Also I plan to correct the grammatical error. --Ginkgo100^talk 23:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Arianism" as idiomatic expression

The current intro section contains the statement:

Also, an "arianism" is usually used to indicate a feat of failure. An "arianism" would be followed by the line "0 for (insert absurdly high number here)"

This is both confusing - an example would be helpful - and unsourced. It also appears somewhat dubious. --J. G. Graubart (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Introduction / Overview

The following statement in the overview/introduction section is incorrect:

"This teaching of Arius conflicted with trinitarian christological positions which were held by the Church (and subsequently maintained by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches and most Protestant Churches)."

PROTESTANT churches did not exist in this time period. There may have communities that existed that did not agree with Church teaching however they were not known as "Protestant" as the way most understand these denominations today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mckfouch (talk • contribs) 13:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course protestant churches did not exist yet. Therefore the section writes subsequently, to indicate that these views did not change when the Church split into its current streams. I don't think the current phrasing is confusing on that point, but feel free to replace 'subsequently' with 'later' if you think that helps. (BTW: I moved your comment to the bottom of the talk page, as they are normally ordered chronologically.) Classical geographer (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Arianism is a heresy and this should be stated

Ok, I know that some people today do accept the teachings of Arius. However, that does NOT remove the fact that the original Christian Church declared Arius a heretic and his teachings as heresies. If we are to claim Arius is a "Christian", then we HAVE to clarify that his teachings are considered heresies BY Christians. We cannot simply state that Arianism is a "Christian" idea. It HAS to be pointed out in the first sentences that it is considered a heresy by the majority of Christians out there.

We have no real idea what Arius teachings were, because they were all destroyed, except for what his enemies painted them to be. Basically, anyone who disagrees with the trinitarian formula becomes a heretic along with Arius, because there are in fact no known specifics to Arius. Here is a sample Dialogue:

Bill: Jesus must have been very powerful and great, he must have been a Superhero to perform all those miracles.

Chuck: No Bill, if he were a superhero, then his miracles could have been flawed and in fact guided by evil. He must have been an angel to perform those miracles.

Bill: Actually Chuck, if he were just an angel, then he could have been a fallen angel like Satan. He must be divine. He must be part of God.

Chuck: You're right! That would make everything he did and said right.

Arius: You guys are nuts.

Bill and Chuck (together): Heretic!

69.51.152.180 (talk) 11:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the SAME as Mormonism. Many Mormons would like to see themselves to be considered to be Christians. HOWEVER, that DOES NOT make them Christians.

Another example... Today, if someone in the Republican party turns and begins to espouse views that are in heavy agreement with the Democrats, is it not right then for the Republican party to "Disown" that person and thus call him a Democrat?

Christians original DID have a solid set of doctrines they had to adhere to. You can even read the Gospels and Epistles and find this. The Apostles repeatedly denounce heretics and people that taught false doctrines. Just because one believes in Jesus as the messiah doesn't always make them a Christian. As I said, we can see this in the New Testament. The Apostles (and God even) denounce "heretics" for their teachings and call for their repentence and the resistance of Christians.

Therefore, is it not also right to show to the world that these people are considered heretics by Christians? It does NOT matter what more liberal Christians believe today about different people or different issues. The fact remains that the early Christians, who were taught by the Apostles themselves and the disciples of the Apostles thus saw that the people teaching these doctrines were straying dangerously far away from what the Apostles and their disciples had taught, and thus called these people heretics.

The First Council of Nicaea was in 325 A.D. St. Alexander of Alexandria presided over this. He was the Bishop of Alexandria, an Apostolic See. Here is the succession of Alexander... Pope Alexander
Pope Achillas
Pope Peter I
Pope Theonas
Pope Maximus
Pope Dionysius
Pope Heraclas
Pope Demetrius
Pope Julian
Pope Agrippinus
Pope Celadion
Pope Markianos
Pope Eumenes
Pope Justus
Pope Primus
Pope Kedron
Pope Avilus (about this time was when St. John the Theologian reposed)
Pope Anianus (ordained by St. Mark the Evangelist)
St. Mark the Evangelist

That is not very many Popes/bishops that continued the Church in Alexandria which was founded by the Apostles. We can easily do this with the other Apostolic Sees and the bishops that participated in the Council of Nicaea.

They were simply continuing the tradition and beliefs of the Apostles and the Disciples of the Apostles. How then, can we claim that Arianism is NOT heretical/heterodox when it contradicts the teachings of the Apostles, their Disciples and the successors to them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KCMODevin (talk • contribs) 20:01, 1 August 2008

Agreed. To call Arianism "Christian" is to call Christianity "Arian" -- which it is not. The definitions do not match. Thanks for the catch.Tim (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This is incorrect. To say that Arians are Christians is definately NOT saying that Christianity is Arian. All cats are mammals, but not all mammals are cats. It is beyond the scope of Wikipedia to give God's perspective.--66.162.55.3 (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW -- the reason to call Arius a heretic is not that he's "wrong." Let's say that he's "right." Let's say that the New Testament and apostles believed and taught Arianism, and yet the large corpus of the religion we call Christianity actually sabotaged the true faith. Nevertheless, they now use the name and are identified under that title. As their self definition is the Nicene Creed, which specifically prohibits Arianism, Arianism is now a heresy with respect to the Christian church -- simply meaning that the belief is not accepted within the mainstream of the religion known by the name "Christianity." The same is true for any set of ideas. Messianic Jews claim to represent Judaism, but by Jewish standards (Orthodoxy) Messianic Judaism is a heresy -- meaning that it does NOT represent the group normally known as "Judaism." The word heresy doesn't mean you are wrong -- only that you are different from the group giving you that label. If you don't CLAIM to be in that group, you may never get the label. For instance, Hindus are not "heretics" by Christian standards for the simple reason that they don't CLAIM to be Christians. They are simply a different religion. Clarity and consistency in terms and definitions in their historical context are the reasons to make distinctions on Wikipedia, not truth and falsehood. No doubt you do not consider the Roman Catholic church to be heretical. But if you were a third century Pharisee you would. One person's heretic is another person's prophet -- but the distinctions MUST be made for sound Wikipedia articles, without judgment of who is "right" or "wrong."Tim (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, it isn't stating they are "right" or that they are "wrong", it's simply clarifying that ever since 325 A.D. Christians have regarded Arianism as heretical. Look at Mormonism, some Mormons want to be considered Christians, but because of their beliefs, they are considered heretical in Christianity. It isn't that we are saying they are wrong or right, we are just stating that they aren't part of mainstream Christianity and are in fact considered heretical. --KCMODevin (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The opening paragraph reads:

Arianism is the heretical/heterodox teachings of the Christian heretic Arius (c. AD 250-336), who lived and taught in Alexandria, Egypt, in the early 4th century. The most controversial of his teachings, considered contrary to the Nicene creed and heretical by the Council of Nicaea, dealt with the relationship between God the Father and the person of Jesus, saying that Jesus was not one with the father, and that he was not fully, although almost, divine in nature.

I have reverted the new edits in the first sentence so that there is not the repetition of heretic. However, some editors insist that it is the preferred language. I find the language clumsy and repetitive. I think the way it should read is:

Arianism is the heterodox teachings of the Christian Arius (c. AD 250-336), who lived and taught in Alexandria, Egypt, in the early 4th century.

The fact we state it is a heterodox teaching already covers the topic of heretical. Heterodox is defined as being "not in accordance with established or accepted doctrines or opinions, esp. in theology; unorthodox".[3] I am not questioning the fact that the teaching was heretical, I am seeking for using better sentence structure.

As an aside, Arius was to have been brought back into communion the day after he died. At the time of his death it would appear that his personal beliefs were in accordance with the church. To me this language is just exaggerated repetition. The language I have proposed states the same thing that is desired, but states it sensibly and without overkill. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Does this clear it up?

Arianism is the theological teachings of the Christian heretic Arius (c. AD 250-336), who lived and taught in Alexandria, Egypt, in the early 4th century. The most controversial of his teachings, considered contrary to the Nicene creed and heretical by the Council of Nicaea, dealt with the relationship between God the Father and the person of Jesus, saying that Jesus was not one with the father, and that he was not fully, although almost, divine in nature.

I see your point, and this eliminates the duplication without making him look mainstream Christian.Tim (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to qualify Arianism, the topic, as heterodox and heretical. I tend to lean away from qualifying Arius as a heretic because he was accepted back into the church after his first excommunication if I recall correctly. More importantly he was already accepted back in again. This was a muddy time in church history where one day one was in and the next day one was out. I am thinking of both Arius and Athanasius here. Calling Arius a Christian does not mean that his teachings were acceptable; they were not. Calling him a heretic now overlooks that he personally was found acceptable for communion. I am making a distinction between the man and his previous teachings. Does this make sense to you? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does make sense, and you could be right. The problem is the wording. One man's heresy is another man's orthodoxy. For instance, Paul is both Orthodox and Heretical, depending on which person you asked. Is he an Orthodox Christian? By definition, one would hope! Is he a heretical Jew? Absolutely.

So, Christianity... the heretical teachings of the Jew Paul... well, that works, but only because we know who Paul is. If we were a little fuzzy there would be a problem. So, that's why Christian and Heretic really need to be crammed together for Aruis. He isn't a Jewish heretic or a Buddhist heretic. He's a Christian heretic. So we know the context. Does that make sense to you as well? To say that X is the heretical teaching of the Christian Y, one is left with the question of -- heretical to who?Tim (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm changing the introduction. It says that Arius said that Christ was not fully divine, but the article later states that he said Christ was divine. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 08:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Origin section contentious

This part: "That doctrine that Arius wrote was the main theology of the first century Christians. Scriptures such as John 14:28 where Jesus says that the father is "greater than I" to John 17:20-26 where Jesus asks that the Apostles become "one as we are one" so that all of them including Jesus and God become one, thus demonstrating that the oneness refers to thought and will, and not a physical Trinity." is both a grammatical chaos and contentious. It attempts to hoist Arianism onto 1st century christianity which is tantamount to saying "the Bible supports Arianism". It is true that the full blown Trinity is not there, and that the early years of Christianity were at least partly marked by subordinationism; but that is not the same as Arianism.

Indeed, the whole section is written from a pro-arian perspective. Grahbudd (talk) 06:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I haven't gotten all the way through the article yet, but what you quote here doesn't even make sense as a criticism of orthodoxy. What the heck is intended by "physical Trinity"? The only kind of physical trinity I know of is a billiard ball: one ball in three spacial dimensions. Although useful as an analogy, that's all it is.

Thanks for the heads up!Tim (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Crucifixion

Perhaps the article could clarify the Arian view of the Crucifixion. Did they reject that the Crucifixion had happened, or was it merely that they did not view it as an act of redemption for the world, as the orthodox Christians do? The article suggests that Arianism, unlike Islam, did believe that there was a Crucifixion. I was under the impression that they did not.

Heresy as a method of disqualifying the Enemy

Although I have read the whole Wikipedia on the Arianism issue, as well as other sources, I haven't read anywhere a clear analysis about the practicalities of the problem nor the relationship between the whole "heretic" issue and the political motivations.

Philosophically speaking, and having studied eastern and western mysticism and philosophy, it is most probably that Arianism is more accurate to the truth about Christ, Logos, God, etc. than the politically motivated "official dogma".

The Church's Fathers and Doctors were, most probably, good men, but not sages. And many of their dogmas, if not reinterpretations of old doctrines, were mere convenient opinions: If Jesus is God, then the Church would have the monopoly on spirituality. And in a time where Religion is the official knowledge (in the same way that today's official epistemology is scientific) this would be a source of earthly power.

Why this specific issue doesn't arise on the study of heresies and dogmas?--Giordano1507 (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Religion is not and has never been knowledge is a rational-modernist sense, it has always been faith in a supernatural sense. The Church has always been against Gnosticism, which is an early form of Scientism, since it puts everything on a naturalistic scale. ADM (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The Church has also been against anything that threatened its power base, including Arianism. 69.51.152.180 (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Personalist christology and Freedom of conscience

Is there any evidence to suggest that Arius advocated a personalist form of christology and an accompanied doctrine on freedom of conscience ? According to Fr. Romanides, Arius insisted that the Father is related to and generates the Son not by nature, but by will. Athanasius insisted that the Father is related to and generates the Son not by will, but by nature. [4] ADM (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

References and WP:NFC

I have removed from the footnotes several pages worth of material taken from Michael Pomazansky, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. I haven't found any indication that the original (much less the foreign language translation) are public domain. We can't quote extensively from copyrighted texts even in footnotes--certainly not when that extensive quotations basically amounts to several pages worth of material. This is inconsistent with WP:NFC. If it can be verified that the original and the translation are both PD, please feel free to restore. Otherwise, it may be appropriate to paraphrase as long as the paraphrase doesn't follow too closely on the original. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Examples in Modern Culture

We need a section on modern examples of Arianism. Something like experts in a field that attempt to edit Wikipedia Articles and are accused of Vandalism and generally being East Geman. Also any attempt at humor on a users own talk page is another example of Arianism.66.236.143.130 (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Arian and Nicene (Catholic) congregations?

During the 400's and 500's were there distinct Arian and Nicene congregations in Constantinople, Ravenna and other places? If so, how did the congregational hierarchies work? 118.208.238.98 (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Remnants in the West, 5th-7th C.

Present text suggests that Islam was a factor in the attrition of the sect. This is misleading, if not incorrect. Arianism, being a form of unitarianism, was closer to Islamic Christology. In fact, the attrition, if any, due to Islam is likely to be due to the adherents of the sect merging into Islam. If the preceding commentary is supported by existing mainstream scholorship, I would like to amend the section accordingly. Anasim (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw that too, and intended to make a note here. Instead I'm going to remove the subclause blaming Islam. If there had been Arianism left when they reached the Iberian peninsula, then the survival of Arianism would have been far longer than it really was, c.f. the pre-Calchedonian Syrian Orthodoxes and the (nowadays formerly) Nestorians in the Assyrian Church of the East.

The real reason why Arianism finally "failed" in the West was that the Visigothic kings forcibly merged the Arian church with the Catholic church. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Arius' bishop's prayer

The claim that "Arius' own bishop" prayed for Arius' death was added on 23 Oct 2008. It seems to be an attempt to weaken the suggestion that Arius was poisoned while also insinuating that Arius' death was a divine act. I doubt a proper citation can ever be produced, and I suspect the statement should just be removed.TrippingTroubadour (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed it. TrippingTroubadour (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

216.240.249.190 contribs

Interesting enough to be dumped here:

It was also one of the earliest apostasies away from the teachings of the Christ, and his apostles. While the so-called doctrine of "Arianism" was among the earliest Christian doctrines disputed by the early Catholic religion, it was only one of many that defy the teachings of the Bible.

It is said to be based on John 14:28 and Proverbs 8:22. That may be true of the position taken by Arius, but in fact other scriptures also support the doctrine. In particular, Colossians 1:15-16, where the Christ Jesus, "the Son"( of verse 13), is referred to as; "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation". Other scriptures that disprove the "Trinity" doctrine and support the more ancient teaching of a "Unitarian" God include Acts 7:55-56, Matthew 26:39, John 8:17-18, Revelation 3:14, Mark 13:32, Matthew 20:20-23, Matthew 12:31-32, 1 Corinthians 11:3, 15:27-28, John 17:1-3, 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, 1 Peter 1:3, and others.

A number of reference works also indicate that the so-called "orthodox" view is in error include The New Catholic Encyclopedia, which states:

“The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

The Encyclopedia Americana reads: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L. [See Reasoning From the Scriptures, pp. 405-423.]

There are a few troubles with the text:

• the writing style is not neutral,
• the text is somewhat valid and true, but it partially duplicates information already elsewhere in the text,

The possible benefits:

• the tertiary references, Catholic Encyclopedia, —(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299 and —(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L. [See Reasoning From the Scriptures, pp. 405-423.] can be salvaged for relevant passages already in the article,
• it stresses the widely known secret that original Christianity was undefined regarding trinity, christology etc..

Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Information box for "Germanic Peoples" at bottom of page

There is an information box for "Germanic peoples" located at the bottom of this page. Most likely this was placed here due to confusion with the "Aryanism" page. If nobody can give a good reason why this box is located on the page, it needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.86.219 (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Who cares?

I would like to see some discussion of why it mattered whether the father and the son were of different substances, similar substances or identical substances. It seems now (to me) that these arguments are academic or even semantic, but it must have seemed very important in the fourth century. It may have been a matter of eclesiastical power politics, but I sense there must have been something more.

On the basis of no evidence I offer some speculations in the hope that someone with the appropriate scholarship can add a section that fleshes out what I consider the sterility of this contoversy:

1) A personal connection with many gods and spirits is probably more satisfying than trying to connect to the one distant and authoritarian god of a monotheism. A few intermediaries like Mary and Jesus, might help but it probably wouldn't matter how you conceived them provided they were your path to God. On the other hand perhaps the heresies of those times were trying to work out just how near to man and how near to God these intermediaries needed to be.

2) If salvation were as important then as it became in the middle ages, then ecclesiastical power would presumably be increased by convincing the people that there was only one correct path through a field of error leading to salvation. Any theological distinction would be useful in that case and provide the grounds for appropriating the truth.RobLandau (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

My observation is that the more obscure and incomprehensible a difference, the more bitterly theologians will fight over it. thx1138 (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this is sometimes true, but it hardly applies in this case. This is an issue that is fundamental to any Christian, even today, who understands the issue.

There are three ways (off the top of my head) in which this controversy is of fundamental importance. (1) Christians have always believed ourselves to be monotheists, and yet we worship Jesus a.k.a. Christ a.k.a. the Logos a.k.a. the Son. Now, if Jesus were not one-in-being with God the Father, then there would be only two possibilities: either Jesus is not God (in which case, Christians are worshipping a false God), or Jesus is God (in which case, Christians are not monotheists, because that would mean that the Father is a god and the Son is a different God). That's why the view of Catholic, Orthodox, and virtually all Protestant churches -- that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are together one God -- is so important. (2) Christians believe that salvation was achieved when God became a human being, thus creating a bridge between God and humanity. Different theologians explain this differently, but that's always the key part. But if Christ wasn't really God, then he wouldn't have created a bridge between us and God, but merely a bridge between us and whatever kind of creature he was. [This is Athanasius' primary argument.] (3) Christians consider a personal relationship with God to be fundamental to our faith, and we relate first and foremost to Jesus, who became human to show us what God's love is like. But if Jesus wasn't God, then our relationship with Jesus would not be a relationship with God.

Do people feel this article should explain why this is important? Obviously my summary above isn't sourced, but all of this could be found in reliable sources.

Lawrence: I believe that the article *should* include such an explanation, and I think your clarification above is just what's needed. For those with no faith it puts the issue in focus, and for those with faith but no theology it's clear and explanatory. I suppose it's a bit of work to locate all the sources you'd need, but I think it would improve the article significantly. And for those reasons I also think you should try to include the quote from Gregory of Nissa below.RobLandau (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, should there be something in this article indicating how important people have found the issue? Here is a famous quote from Gregory of Nyssa, in which he describes how all the people of Constantinople in the mid-fourth-century cared about this issue a great deal: "The whole city is full of it, the squares, the market places, the cross-roads, the alleyways. Old-clothes men, money changers, food sellers: they are all busy arguing. If you ask someone to give you change, he philosophizes about the Begotten and the Unbegotten; if you inquire about the price of a loaf, you are told by way of reply that the Father is greater and the Son inferior; if you ask “Is my bath ready?” the attendant answers that the Son was made out of nothing." — Lawrence King ^(talk) 21:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Mormonism

I know this has been discussed already, but the Latter-Day Saints should be mentioned at least somewhere on this page. I don't know who it was that suggested that Mormons still believe in some kind of trinity or accept parts of the Nicene Creed, but we most definitely do not. We believe that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are three separate beings with a unity of purpose but a separation of substance. This may not be exactly what Arius taught but we are certainly closer to Arianism than we are to Nicene trinitarianism. I am not ashamed of this label because I personally have great respect for Arius—anyone who was persecuted by the Catholic Church for "heresy" is a hero in my book. --Antodav2007 (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that the LDS understanding of the Godhead differs from the Nicene (Trinitarian) view. But it also differs from Arius' view. Arius believed that the Father is eternal, outside of time, not subject to any change; he was not created or begotten by anyone, and there is no other being who existed before him or alongside him, as he is the only being outside of time and before all time. This differs from how most Mormons understand the "Heavely Father". Moreover, Arius believed that the Son was a kind of super-angel, created by the Father, subject to time, and doing the bidding of the Father without any free choice in the matter; the Son (whom Arius preferred to call "the Logos" or "the Word") was not truly the Father's "son" in any real sense, nor was he "God" in any real sense, but was entirely a creature. This differs from how all Mormons understand the Son. You are certainly free to respect anyone whom the Church called a heretic, just as you are free to respect anyone who disbelieves in modern science. But not everyone who disagrees with the Catholic Church agrees with each other, any more than everyone who disbelieves in modern science agrees with each other. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 21:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Erroneous pictures description

The icon in the main body described as depicting Arius actually depicts Saint Spyridon (the name is written in greek on the icon). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.40.225.38 (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

You are right! I looked into it also and it is as you say. When I came to this article it looked a little weird, went to comment section to see if anyone talked about it, and there you are! It indeed says "O ΑΓΙΟΣ ΣΠΥΡΙΔΩΝ". Perhaps the information for the picture could have been changed to have it say that he was a great opponent of Arius (he debated against him during the ecumenical council) but it does not feel right to have that as the first picture. The icon of him debating Arius would have been more fitting, but I just left it all blank so the modern Arians would not go insane ;P (A JOKE!)75.73.114.111 (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Relationship with East-West Schism

I'm not sure if this is accurate, as the centuries differ. However, there seems to be a similarity with the dispute of the holy trinity and the East–West Schism. Clearly the movement of Christianity was widely accepted, but changed dramatically on the continent of Africa and the Middle East. Anyone have information about this relationship and its correlation with Arianism? Twillisjr (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

There isn't any major connection. Arianism lived on for a few centuries in some of the Western European Germanic tribes, but it eventually died out there. In Rome, Greece, Syria, Egypt, and Persia it never had any significant presence after the fourth century. There were later theological disputes (such as the disputes over Nestorianism and Monophysitism) in the fifth century that proved long-lasting. But even on those disputes, Greece and Rome were on the same side. The great East-West Schism between the Catholic Church (based in Rome) and the Orthodox Churches (based in Constantinople) was primarily political; it did have a theological element, but that was the Filioque, a controversy that arose later. All of these controversies can be seen as similar, insofar as they all involved the nature of God or the nature(s) of Jesus Christ, but they were very different controversies. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 21:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree regarding the schism between Rome and Constantinople, but Arianism did not "die out" in the West. It was removed by force. On the one hand, Vandals and Ostrogoths were crushed by Roman armies, and then, after a bloody civil war, the young Visigoth king, Reccared I, publicly announced his conversion to Catholicism, and the Arian faith was outlawed after the 3rd Council of Toledo (589). One point in common, although most probably non-influential, was that this Council included the filioque formula in their new official (Trinitarian) creed. --Jdemarcos (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Improving this article

The article as it stands is a muddle. I have removed statements from the section "Origin" which do not correspond to it; but there are far more major defects. The fundamental problem is that there is no current agreement among academics as to the contents of Arius' teaching. Rowan Williams goes as far stating that Arianism is an invention of Athanasius (Arius page to be supplied later) I am not clear as to how the article should be reworked, but I sense that its revision should be part of a project which includes the other two main articles Arius and Arian controversy. It is hardly worth trying to tidy up the missing citation references until the overall structure of the article has been rethought. Jpacobb (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The German page on Arianism has a lot contradictory to this English entry. It says the Unitarians are a late renewal of Arianism, as are some other of the reformist churches.

Further Constantine is said to be baptized etc. by an Arian. At the same time it is reported that he got their books burned. Why does an Arian burn the books of the Arians?

The whole question is an Owl-to-Athens. The Protestant Church of Germany today teaches that God alone is holy. The trinity is part of the doctrine. The son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are not worshipped. The Church further says God is the Trinity.

They are deceivers, especially to lay men. Further it seems interesting to look at the heresy before Arius. Church of today says there was only one God ever since. The acceptance of one of the trinity elements, the father, could be closer to an older core theology, perhaps non-Christian?

And further the question arises, does one know more if one knows only one unknown element or all three of them together or the result of it. An irrational question in itself.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.80.198 (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Bible as only source

I reverted this edit (again) because it is solely sourced by Scripture. The Bible is a primary source and cannot be used to back up distinct claims about Arian beliefs. The Bible is used by all Christian nominations, so it does not in itself support one or another. We will need some reliable secondary sources that supports claims distinct to Arianism. Thanks. Also please do not add sections in the main text like these: "See also Colossians 1:15—"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;"; also, Revelation 3:14—"These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God"; and Proverbs 8:22–29.". That is not encyclopedic and is a direct violation of WP:NPOV as well as WP:OR. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Influence upon the founding of Islam

I came across this passage in St. John of Damascus' critique of Islam, and he says that Muhammad may have possibly conversed with an "Arian monk," which later influenced influenced how he formulated is doctrine. [5] St. John of Damascus' critique is mentioned in the Medieval Christian views on Muhammad Wikipedia article, but I figured it'd be helpful for that influence to be mentioned on this page as well. Thoughts? Yadojado (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Confusion with Sabellianism

The article as it currently reads states that modern Christian groups which may be seen as espousing some of the principles of Arianism include, among others, Oneness Pentecostals. This is incorrect as they espouse modalistic monarchianism or Sabellianism. The article seems a bit muddled in that it seems to view all non-trinitarian views as being a form or variation of Arianism, which is incorrect.

I will make some edits in the future to clarify this and improve the wording on the differences between the various non-trinitarian views of the Godhead. Happy to discuss any of the edits related to this issue. Taxee (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Heretics, cults, apostates, and negative words

After reading the article and the talk pages it appears that there's a bit of an emotional issue surrounding the use of "heresy" to describe Arianism, arian's (potentially possibly reconstructed) teaching, and related concepts. I think it's because of the charged nature of these words that connote very negative tones. The word "heterodox" was a very interesting choice in one of the sections that does not seem to have the same emotional charge. The dictionary definition of heresy provided at one point was a bit flat and didn't capture the gut feeling reaction it evokes that means not only are you in the minority, you are a dangerous crazy person for holding said belief.

I think that it is clear from the cited sources that Arian-like (to be non specific) teaching and teachers were a strong minority in many areas, and a strong majority in many other areas. Later they were named, grouped, and condemned as heretical by the majority view in one place, that through shrewd political efforts, prostelityzing, and sometimes coercion spread their view to became the dominant and majority view in most places and for most teachers. So the view that Arian = heresy grew and changed over time, eventually becoming commonplace and core enough to several Mediterranean ecclesiastical power structures to be used as an epithet or slur in debates against each other. This is analysis of the sources.

Calling something "heresy" or "heretical" outright hurts feelings of people who share similar beliefs today in earnestness and with good intentions. I think it's somewhat unnecessary except to describe the view of party A towards party B, and to provide the context of actions. it may be like using a racial slur when talking about Africans, because the dominant groups of Europe at a point in history considered Africans inferior morally, mentally, societally, etc. obviously writing an article thus this would be offensive to earnest people on both sides. Clearly passion gets involved with word choice in articles like these occasionally.

just a thought. TL:DR heterodox might be a better way to refer to something like this gererally, which withholds the implied moral judgement of calling something a heresy, except for in cases when You're talking about a historical figure's specific view or providing context for their actions.

Hugs not flame wars

Trebor42k (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I added a link to heterodoxy in the first line of the article. Taxee (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate quote?

Reading through this article, the longer inset quote of SDA beliefs on the trinity isn't very relevant to Arianism, and seems more like a user's plug for their religion rather than something that enriches the Wikipedia entry. I move to remove it-- anyone have any objections before I do so? I'll try to return in a week or so and see?

Flyingmoses (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree with you as the quote is not a reference to SDA beliefs but rather to the beliefs of the Church of God (7th day) - Salem Conference which does appear to be Arian in its beliefs. Taxee (talk) 06:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I should clarify. It's a long quote, but the only thing that has to do with arianism from the quote itself is the line "He is a separate being from his son, Jesus." The rest is more about a rejection of Trinitarianism that it is about a positive example of Arianism, which is more specific than just refusing to believe that the Father and the Son are the same being. That's why I don't think it adds much to the article and should be removed for brevity's sake. Any thoughts?Flyingmoses (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Article confusions and structure

As many people have commented over the years this article is a bit of a mess. I think one of the major confusions is to whether the article is about the Christology of Arian and the early Christians that he directly influenced, or just about non-Trinitarian Christologies generally. I strongly believe it should be about the former and all the text concerning other Christologies that bear a passing similarity but or not directly related should be excised or moved to a small 'similar Christologies' section near the end. Ashmoo (talk) 10:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Opening sentence needs fixing

Currently simply states: "Arianism is a nontrinitarian Christian belief that asserts that Jesus of Nazareth." wolf (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Ashmoo (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello I am one of very few Arians still in existence today. I would like to contribute some to the discussion

to begin with I have a website arianismtoday dot come that could shed some light to questions. And I will add as I can. There is alot right about this article as it is today. and alot missing. I have tried to edit this before but people hate Arianism alot. So nothing has changed in history as I can tell. :) Let me say that a few intresting things. Arius had a trinity a group of three but they were not mixed within each other so the word "trinity" or "triad" is not exclusive to trinitarians. Also shocking to most of you is the fact that Arius called Yeshus "Jesus" the Only Born God so Arius called Yeshua God is a lower sense of the word. The confusion is the understanding of the word "god" which in ancient times was used of many things biblically from kings, angels, false gods, and even the stomach as a god. Arius called Yeshua "god" because he is a mighty one in the kingdom of GOD but is not GOD himself. He also belived Yeshua had the same king of substance as GOD "spirit" but was not mixed with him. In other words like my sone has the same kind of flesh as i do and is from me but we are not mixed nor Siamese twins. Just a all humans are like beings and share flesh from Adam we are not all one being, we are many. The mistake of the Counicl was to assume that GOD took part of himself and made Yeshua then he would share in always existing because what he was made of has always existed. But Arius said that Yeshua was created into the identical kind as GOD but not from a part of GOD, because GOD can not be broken or split or portioned. Its not impossible for GOD to create a being after his own kind, but it is always understood that the creation is always lesser than the Creator. So which case Yeshua would have a GOD to thank for his existence. 17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (Joh 20:17 KJV) 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. (Joh 17:3 KJV) (maybe someone can relate these things to the article in an unbiased way? maybe?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by R035173z (talk • contribs) 10:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Arianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110819215807/http://www.fourthcentury.com:80/index.php/urkunde-33 to http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-33
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150629141505/http://www.fourthcentury.com:80/urkunden-chart-2007 to http://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunden-chart-2007/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080925171026/http://www.fourthcentury.com:80/index.php/urkunde-chart-opitz to http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-chart-opitz
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080925041017/http://www.fourthcentury.com:80/notwppages/arius-supporters-map.htm to http://www.fourthcentury.com/notwppages/arius-supporters-map.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk page needs cleaned/archived

This is one of the worst talk pages I've seen. Endercase (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I moved this to the bottom of the page, which is where new comments should be made. Generally talk pages should not be "cleaned" but they can be archived. See WP:TPG Taxee (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Then we should do so, due to the debates from 10 years ago and such. I may have learned my wiki etiquette from the wrong people, they argued that "cleaned" items remain in the history anyway.Endercase (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Relationship with related articles

For a discussion of this subject please see the page Talk:Arian controversy#Arian controversy and related articles — Jpacobb (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Known Church that adhere to Arianism

There is a group of individuals that call themselves the Arian and Orthodox Church their website is Arianismtoday.com. I think there's about 1000 of them that you can see their activity on their Facebook group of the same name. And they have their own Creed and they have some other stuff. I'm wondering if there is a threshold that needs to be met before they can be identified in the category churches that adhere to Arianism. It's just a thought because they're the only active Arian church professing the word Arianism today. There is a Arian Catholic Church but I think they're not even active any further. Just wondering if it's something they lack as to why they're not identified. Maybe thousand members is not high enough I'm just wondering what would be the holdback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R035173z (talk • contribs) 03:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC) R035173z (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Clarification on distinction.

"is distinct from the Father and is therefore subordinate to, and not the same as, God." This quote although for all accurate in a generalized way. I would like to interject that a better way to describe what Arianism believes is to say quot "is identical to the father in regard to nature and form but is not conjoined or mixed in essence, therefore Christ is a separate being who is like his God his father but is created existing this way originally. Therefore Christ is a subordinate creation who shares the nature of God"

This comes from Arius's own words " that he made him subsist at his own will, unalterable and unchangeable, the perfect creature (ktisma) of God, but not as one of the creatures; offspring, but not as one of the other things begotten"

and also 'At God’s will the Son has the greatness and qualities that he has. His existence from when and from whom and from then — are all from God. He, though strong God, praises in part (ek merous) his superior . In brief, God is inexpressible to the Son. For he is in himself what he is, that is, indescribable, So that the son does not comprehend any of these things or have the understanding to explain them. For it is impossible for him to fathom the Father, who is by himself. For the Son himself does not even know his own essence (ousia),

So if you see what Arius is saying here is calling him the perfect creature of God than is using the word offspring. So he saying that he's like a child of God to have the same kind of nature. In the second quote it says that at God's will Jesus is given the same greatness and the qualities that God has but obviously because Arius believes that he is a created being there only a couple of things that he's not identical to God in the greatest of these is that he's not always existed like God has so he's a creation that's very very very similar to God. And then later on he starts talking about how God is indescribable to Jesus and how Jesus doesn't understand even his own nature. The reason he says this is because he understands that Jesus is like the father in nature and that nature is so wonderful and so glorious that Jesus can't absolutely understand his own nature because it's the nature of God and God is hard to understand. So with all of that I'm trying to support the idea that it Arianism the idea is that Jesus is like God in nature and kind to be someone made after God's kind but to not be part of the father part of the Almighty God concept but a creation ROM the Almighty but as identical a son as any of us know. A man and his son are two separate beings and they are identical in nature but are not the same person and one will have greater authority than the other. This is the concept it Arianism that Jesus was a literal child of God even sharing the nature of God but was created by God and therefore is not who the true God is. I don't know Wikipedia very well and I think I have time to figure it out. I have in the past try to make changes in the always been undone. So I'm not going to change any of the wording in the actual article. I'm just to give this information out and if someone wants to use it great someone doesn't want to use it great on display my two cents

References

R035173z (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your post, but this talk page is not a place for personal interpretations, nor is the WP article. Please see the policy, WP:OR. What we do here in Wikipedia is find reliable, scholarly secondary sources (something written by a scholarly theologian or someone in the field of the history of ideas) and we summarize what they say. Please don't post further personal interpretations of primary sources here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I have corrected the article in view of https://ehrmanblog.org/the-controversies-about-christ-arius-and-alexander/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

About the Holy Spirit: I think we don't know what Arius thought of the Holy Spirit, since Ehrman stated "Yup! But I don’t think Arius talked much about the Spirit." Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying that a primary source is no good? from the horses mouth is not good enough?R035173z (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

No that is not what i am saying. Please read WP:OR, particularly the part (redundantly) labelled "Policy" in the WP:PRIMARY section. Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Arians were the majority

One source I could find is: James Anthony Froude; John Tulloch, eds. (1864). Fraser's Magazine. J. Fraser. p. 269. This seems a bit too old. Does someone else know a newer source? Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Or, more correctly, the majority consisted of anti-Niceneans, which were lumped together as Arians by the later heresy-bashing propaganda. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Froude is not now a reliable source. The whole academic understanding of Arianism has changed since his time. In 1958 Kelly made the point that those who objected to the decisions of Nicea were divided into two major groups. The great majority were not Arians but traditionalists who felt that the homoousion favoured Sabellianism and wanted to avoid terminology not found in the Bible. (Early Christian Doctrines pp. 238ff). Between 357 and 360 the minority Arian group gained imperial support which obliged synods both in the East and in the West to subscribe to Arian credal statements. This provoked Jerome's rhetorical complaint that "the whole world groaned and marvelled to find itself Arian". However, the majority of bishops and leading thinkers were not and the official situation was reverted well before 381. Since no sociological surveys were carried out, any attempt to determine the position of the laity is little more than pure speculation although it seems reasonable to assume they mostly reflected the positions of their priests and bishop in so far as they understood the debate at all. In 1987, Rowan Williams produced a major work on Arius and he makes the same point as Kelly even more forcibly. I don't think the claim can be responsibly sourced if it is taken to mean anything like the majority of Christians in a given period (XXX - YYY) were Arians. The maximum that could be claimed is that the Germanic tribes which irrupted into the former Roman Empire had been evangelised by Arians and were therefore Arians. As it stands the whole claim is a vague generalization and I am inclined to remove it unless it can be adequately developed and properly sourced. — Jpacobb (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I have replaced it with a quotation saying that the majority of Christians had no dog in this fight. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

God the Son

According to the Ehrman blog, Arius believed that Jesus was God, namely God the Son. Which "serious sources" deny this? Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you should actually list Ehrman's rationale for claiming that Arius believed that Jesus was God, given that there are no existing copies of Arius writings? And perhaps that should go in a subsection on various theological partisan's speculation on the matter, since there are so many diverse opinions on it? 24.176.43.70 (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Ehrman claims that just an iota separated orthodoxy from heresy (in the case of Arianism). That was the view of the sources contemporary with the theological dispute. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Catholicity or Orthodoxy

What scholars use Orthodoxy? Do you know that even the orthodox consider themselves catholic right, it is officially "orthodox catholic church"? St Ignatius in the second century used "the catholic church"; the term "orthodox" means that we are in communion with Constantinople; "roman" means we are in communion with Rome. Well, it's wrong to say orthodox or roman, because that is a division. The only word that joins the two main branches of Christianity is "catholicity". Mfbps (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

While "Orthodox" (capital o) may (or may not) mean in communion with Constantinople (or part of the tradition that was), "orthodox" (lowercase o) means correct belief... see the article Orthodoxy. tahc ^chat 14:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The anti-catholic sentiment is so big that you prefer to use a word that can mean various things, against the word which is clearly the correct one, that's ok, in a democracy you need to accommodate errors. The council that discusses the Arian heresy was called by Constantine: Roman Emperor; and the creed which comes out declares the Trinity and the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church. But you know better right? Catholicity is by far the best option because at the time there was no schism in the church. If it goes against your sensibility to use Catholic in the name, at least don't use a word at all: just put "The Arian Controversy" Mfbps (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

It would be fine with me to use a heading like "Controversy" (Arianism already being the topic of the whole article) or another heading that lacks both catholicity and orthodoxy but, see no reason to prefer "catholicity" over "orthodoxy". Since orthodoxy is about belief and Arianism is about belief, orthodoxy is much preferred of the two. In fact your conflation of Roman Emperor with modern Roman Catholicity is an example of why we should avoid the term catholic for things in era. tahc ^chat 16:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

There was no conflation with the roman emperor, because as I was saying, at that time there was no difference between east or west. That difference now is basically defined by the terms "orthodoxy" and "catholicity". The use of both will lead to mixed ideas, but from the two, catholicity is much better because every document and every official name will also lead you to catholicity and not to orthodoxy. It's wrong to use "orthodoxy" because is doing exactly what you probably don't want: to conflate, to give wrong interpretations because you are clearly pushing one side. The universal church, the whole church, the church coming from the apostles, the general church is commonly known both in the west and the east, in academia and in popular knowledge as "catholic". That's why if you push the "orthodoxy" line doesn't work really.Mfbps (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

1. Among other reasons, relative unity (or as you say "at that time there was no difference between east or west") is a reason to avoid the term catholicity (even though "catholicity" can mean "unity"), because now days catholicity is link to the West.

2. I do not push using both, nor even push Orthodoxy (whatever you may think that means). Rather, I agreed to use neither, as you (seemed to have) proposed first.

3. The "universal church, the whole church, the church coming from the apostles, the general church" is commonly known as lots of different things-- one or two of which is "catholic". (But never normally called that anywhere in "the East") Furthermore-- different people mean different things by that term-- "catholic"-- and some of those things meant by that are wrong if applied to the church coming from the apostles. It is a uniquely Roman Catholic POV that the one Roman Catholic Church is that same as "coming from the apostles" to today-- and that other groups split away from the Roman Catholic Church while it stayed the same. Rather than impose a POV that any one group is (or was) the same as from the apostles to today-- Wikipedia's policy is write from a NPOV. tahc ^chat 20:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Well it seems that this discussion will not lead us anywhere. Just have a look at the pages here in wikipedia of the concepts: Catholicity and Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is so ridiculous to argue for that you can even connect that word to Islam and Judaism, but well. I have not talked about the roman catholic church, I clearly talked about the catholic church that clearly comes out of the apostles, is called by St. Ignatius and it's in the creed of all the "churches" that disagreed with Arianism. It's probably better to change to a neutral name, I can't because I reached the limit of 3 changes.Mfbps (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman speaks of the proto-orthodox and orthodoxy, he does not say (early) Catholic Church. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

If you (Mfbps) really want a change to a better name, then I propose you only talk about what the neutral name should be. If we agree on something then I can change it. tahc ^chat 22:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman speaks of the proto-orthodox and orthodoxy, he does not say (early) Catholic Church. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman? Are you joking right, an anti-christian westerner? Against all the accepted names and definitions? What about the NPOV? I've noticed you link catholic or catholicity with the roman catholic church, and I link the orthodoxy with the orthodox church, since there is no agreement can we agree with a neutral name for this problem and end the question? "The Arian controversy" or something like this?Mfbps (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

If you'll keep saying that, you don't belong here. Sooner or later you will get blocked for tendentious editing. I cannot block you, but somebody else will. I just see it happening, if you continue this way it is unavoidable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Unexplained reversion

My copy-editing having been reverted by Nitpicking polish, I figure I should bring the matter for the talk page. What concern are you wanting addressed, Nitpicking polish? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

You made an set of unexplained (and, in my opinion, unhelpful) changes. GenoV84 (talk · contribs) reverted them. You repeatedly reinserted them, again without explanation, citing the "MOS". The relevant guideline here is the "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle" (or one of the alternatives mentioned on that page): you made a change, another editor disagreed, so take it to the talk page, explain the rationale for your edits, and try to get to consensus. (Conversely, with regard to repeatedly adding the same material, please note WP:3RR.) Nitpicking polish (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nitpicking polish: There were a plethora of small copy-editing changes made, so I am wondering which you would like me to address? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Some were harmless; some required explanation (like the change to the "Distinguish" tag, the deletion of a category, or decapitalizing "Semi-Arians" contrary to the usage at Semi-Arianism); some were contrary to the WP:MOS—e.g., the ellipsis changes (cf. MOS:ELLIPSIS), or the use of an explicit image pixel size (cf. MOS:IMGSIZE). And none of that is the reason for my reversion: I'm not the editor who initially reverted your unexplained changes. I objected to you inserting the same change three times without explanation and without seeking consensus on the talk page. If you feel the changes are important, you've done the first step of WP:BRD. Having had those changes reverted, go ahead and make the case for them, if you feel they'll improve the page.

Rejection of Homoousianism

Arius (initially) has not rejected Homoousianism; Homoousianism was a reply to Arius's teachings; he could not have rejected something which did not exist yet. It would be like saying that Isaac Newton has rejected Darwinism. Arius was a pioneer who ventured into unexplored territory; Alexander followed him in unexplored territory in order to offer a response to his teachings; they both could not be right, so only one view has prevailed as orthodoxy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Re:edit on Arianism

I apologize, I thought I was simply bringing the article into compliance with the “neutral pov” position of Wikipedia by simply rephrasing the existing statement regarding the “equally orthodox” status of the Arian and Homoousian interpretations. Categorizing the two positions as “equally orthodox” seemed to make a value judgment whereas “potential interpretations” seemed to leave out such a judgment, especially given that the question of orthodoxy was what was under dispute. ScottSmith1983 (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@ScottSmith1983: It's Ehrman's judgment, not ours. Our own judgment is prohibited per WP:OR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

So be it, although that seems a bit silly on the face of it. Perhaps, then, a better edit might be something along the lines of “according to Bart Ehrman...” rather than making a bald statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottSmith1983 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@ScottSmith1983: Show me your WP:SOURCES that Ehrman's view is contested/controversial. No sources means no allowable edits. This is Ehrman's whole point: initially Arius's view was completely orthodox, it was deemed a heresy later, when it was formulated it wasn't heresy. Arius has advanced a neat explanation for what orthodox Christians already believed. He devised the explanation, but he did not invent their beliefs. Arius wasn't writing a dissenting opinion, he wasn't writing in order to divide the orthodox community (like Paul the Apostle before the Sanhedrin), we was simply giving an orthodox account of orthodox beliefs. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I understand that this is Ehrman’s point... That’s why I think it ought to be attributed to him. The problem that I’m finding is that ‘x’ pages of reading and citation to deal with one quick quip from Ehrman on his blog. I only posited the rephrasing, and I might emphasize that it was a rephrasing, is because in all of my studying thus far, the presupposition of church history is that “orthodoxy” as a category is something established after the fact. That is, after the decision is made. Up until that point, there are “potential” interpretations within the accepted realm of orthodoxy, but calling two interpretations within that realm both “equally orthodox” is something of a misnomer. ScottSmith1983 (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, in the beginning Arius viewpoint was orthodoxy. Then it was opposed by Alexander and orthodox theologians were divided upon this issue. Then at the council one side had prevailed, and only then Arius's view became heresy. Ehrman, Bart (2005) [2003]. Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 176. ISBN 978-0-19-514183-2. Retrieved 26 July 2010. As a result of this ongoing scholarship, it is widely thought today that proto-orthodoxy was simply one of many competing interpretations of Christianity in the early church. It was neither a self-evident interpretation nor an original apostolic view. The apostles, for example, did not teach the Nicene Creed or anything like it. Indeed, as far back as we can trace it, Christianity was remarkably varied in its theological expressions. See also pp. 250, 253-255, 259 of the same book: briefly, all bishops there were orthodox since other brands of Christianity had been already excluded, suppressed, reformed or destroyed; then the former orthodox theologians (proto-orthodox) were vanquished by the newer orthodox theologians with their own weapons, not because the proto-orthodox opposed views seen as orthodox, but because they missed the theological refinement needed for rubber stamping contradictory theses simultaneously accepted by the orthodox. Also, Berndt and Steinacher nowhere deny Ehrman's view, their work is available on Google Books, they dedicate more text to it than Ehrman's blog. So, yes, Arius's view was orthodox at a certain moment, later it became controversial and then it became heresy. This agrees with what you say about potential interpretations, it just wasn't a static situation, but it was changing dynamically. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

It was a clash between homoousian trinitarians and homoiousian trinitarians. Before Arius, it was not fully thought out what the Trinity might be like. Both homoousianism and homoiousianism were interpretations of orthodox teachings. During their initial clash, they were regarded as having equal claim to orthodoxy. Homoiousianism became a heresy due to losing this clash. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

It is not true to say that "they were regarded as having equal claim to orthodoxy"; the Council affirmed what had always been taught and repudiated the novel teachings of Arius. That some had been deluded by the errors does not give them equal weighting or validity. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Saying "That some had been deluded by the errors" is saying the Council was right and Arius wrong. Wikipedia has to be neutral, not take sides. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Homoousianism was more novel than Homoiousianism. It seems therefore that the later innovation was accepted as orthodoxy, to the detriment of the older teaching. Let me rephrase it: before Arius Homoousianism and Homoiousianism did not exist. Arius noticed that the orthodoxy of his time left some stuff about God unexplained and he offered an explanation which seemed perfectly orthodox to him and to many other Christians. Alexander disagreed with Arius's explanation, so Alexander devised Homoousianism as a response to Arius's teachings. So, Homoiousianism was first, Homoousianism appeared only as an alternative explanation in order to challenge Homoiousianism. Obviously, theologians noticed that they could not be both right, so they had to choose between the two views. But the choice wasn't easy and was not in any way foreseen by the orthodoxy previously to Arius. Homoousianism was a political choice which made many orthodox Christians unhappy; the choice was dictated by Constantine's wish of having a united Christianity, instead of a Christianity split between two major parties. He had no understanding of the details of the debate, he merely wanted that one side prevails and defines what Christianity means. Later, he wanted to conciliate the two factions, so he advocated for the exoneration of Arius, which got rubber stamped by the bishops. And it was merely a caprice of history that Homoousianism won in the long term, it wasn't written in the stars that Homoousianism would win and historians of Christianity have no access to the will of God, so they cannot tell us if this is what God wanted. The idea that Homoousianism prevailed because this was the will of God is theology, it isn't history. Historians have no access to God, as Bart Ehrman emphatically stated. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Subtle vandalism

The vandalism by the IP is rather subtle, but it is nevertheless vandalism (the phrase no longer makes sense). Also, he is outright negating what WP:RS are supposed to WP:VERify, it is sheer WP:OR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Ehrman

52:07

arias arias was trying to figure out how 52:12 to explain the relationship of God the 52:15 Father and God the Son at this point in 52:18 Christian history every Christian knew 52:21 that Jesus was the son of God this is 52:23 not a decision that was being made 52:24 Christians had thought this for 52:26 centuries at this point 52:27 ever since the New Testament everybody 52:29 thought Jesus was the son of God the 52:31 question is if Jesus is the Son of God 52:34 how does he relate to God the Father 52:36 he's obviously a son but but in what 52:39 sense is he also God in what sense is he 52:44 also God everybody thought he was God 52:45 but in what sense is he God arias 52:49 solution was this arias said that in 52:52 eternity past way back in eternity 52:55 before anything else existed just God 52:57 existed and God brought into being his 53:01 son he begot a son Christ came into 53:04 existence Christ was a secondary 53:08 divinity a subordinate divinity not 53:12 equal in power and glory and Majesty to 53:14 the Father because he's the son he's not 53:16 the father the father is superior to the 53:19 son Christ the son then created the 53:24 universe and he eventually came into the 53:27 world as a human being and died for the 53:29 sins of the world was raised from the 53:30 dead or returned to heaven and is God 53:33 but he's a subordinate 53:35 divinity who came into being at a 53:37 certain point of time well that made 53:40 sense to a lot of people and still 53:42 probably make sense to a lot of people 53:43 because I mean what's the option I mean 53:47 if if he's totally equal with God then 53:50 that would mean that he can't be 53:52 Almighty because God would be Almighty 53:55 but if God's Almighty and he's Almighty 53:57 how's that work you can't have to all my 53:59 T's if two people are Almighty neither 54:01 one of them is all-mighty right so it 54:05

doesn't

— Bart Ehrman, Smithsonian Part Four - Constantine and the Christian Faith

Smithsonian Part Four - Constantine and the Christian Faith on YouTube Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Last Arian kings in Europe

The last Arian kings in Europe were not the Lombards kings Grimoald and his young son and successor Garibald, but Rothari (636-652) and his young son and successor Rodoald (652-653). King Grimoald was probably Catholic. To verify.--31.37.155.16 (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)