Red Pill me on Arianism, Veeky Forums

Red Pill me on Arianism, Veeky Forums.

Other urls found in this thread:

orthodoxwiki.org/Arianism
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

> arians
Were invented by german pseudoscientists, now you know everything you need and can back to /pol/

Arianism was a 4th century heresy named after Arius (c.250-336), a presbyter in Alexandria, Egypt, who taught that the Son of God was not co-eternal and consubstantial with His Father, but rather a created being with a definite origin in time. In Arius's words, "there was [a time] when he (the Son) was not." This led to the calling of the First Ecumenical Council, which condemned it and its author and established the Orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity as taught by Arius's chief opponent, St. Athanasius the Great. Though it managed to hang on among some of the Goths and other Germanic tribes in the West, Arianism had vanished by the seventh century.

Arianism today

Today, a so-called "Holy Arian Catholic and Apostolic Church" in England claims to proclaim Arius's teachings, even "canonizing" him in 2006. However, this body differs with its namesake on several crucial points, including its rejection of the Virgin Birth and Resurrection of Christ, which Arius himself never questioned. The Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormon sects are often accused (especially the former) of being Arian; while both certainly exhibit doctrines which tend toward Arianism—which are rejected by the Orthodox Church as being heretical, along with many other teachings—each sect's Christology differs somewhat from classic Arian doctrine.

No remnant of any of the Arian sects established in Western Europe or elsewhere is known to exist today.

Some forms of modern Protestantism appear to espouse a form of Arianism, referring to Jesus Christ as essentially distinct from God in terms which suggest that, as the Son, He is ontologically distinct from, and inferior to, the Father.

orthodoxwiki.org/Arianism

Early Christian religious movement centered around the belief that Jesus the son was subordinate to God the father. Branded a heresy at the Nicaea. Despite this, a lot of the early conversions from the Germanic peoples were Arian Christians, such as the Vandals and I believe the Franks.

There was a lot of fighting all around before they were finally subdued and brought into "regular" Christianity.

The only form of Christianity that makes sense.

Arius did nothing wrong

I know every other thread here is a /pol/ thread, and thus one may naturally jump the gun, but there's a "y" in that one.

This.

I mean, they are all the same but not? That doesn't even make sense.

pumb

>with arianism
God the Father begot Jesus, therefore Jesus is less than God. You can't take existence itself and divide it into multiple times, it's binary. Jesus is not God.
>without
Jesus and the Father are both God equally. The father begot the son, but God doesn't play by the rules of this world. God exists outside of time, so as a result we cannot fully understand his nature. If time is irrelevant to God, Jesus has always been begotten, from the very beginning. If they have both existed since the beginning, they must both be God.
The without theory is less set-in-stone; the council of nicaea essentially said that God can't be comprehended by man no matter how hard we try, but the theory they made was the best way to not contradict the Bible. So they acknowledge the imperfections, whereas Arius ignored certain Bible passages to support his claim. You can't ignore the Bible but also use it as a source, you have to look at it all.

Heresy

>the Bible doesn't make sense so nothing has to make sense
Anti-Arianism, everybody.

...

Well the way it has been described to me is that as mortals, we can't really understand God wholly. Just try to wrap your head around the concept of Time never ending, going on forever. God is like that. In Exodus, he names himself as "I AM" which is from the Hebrew verb for to be. He's saying he is being itself. That's hard to understand wholly. But the easiest way to describe it is a shamrock. It has 3 leaves. Each leave is distinct, but the leaves are all part of one plant.

"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."
John 8:58

Read carefully you fucking retard.

Can't make out the name on that icon, but it sure isn't Arius. Not surprising, since it's an Orthodox icon

Heretics.
>Literally can describe the trinity.

Google Arius

Hitler was an evil man who killed 6 million (TM) Jews.

Wrong thread retard

It doesn't say Arius on the icon

Still begotten.

Eternally begotten of the Father

Begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father

No you idiot.

If you can explain God, then you're a heretic. Fuck you have a good day.

"I and the Father are one."
John 10:30
It's in Greek, so it wouldn't

Wouldn't that line have been left out and another line been put into the New Testament had Arianism won out?

>It's in Greek
I can read Greek, it doesn't say Arius

>Wouldn't that line have been left out and another line been put into the New Testament had Arianism won out?
No

Who is it then?

Why would Arianism have gained so much traction if the Bible said "[Arianism is wrong and I, Jesus Christ, am part of God]"?

Because heretics would ignore it, come on.
Let me explain something to you, if you can logically make sense of God then there is no reason to believe in him.

the franks weren't arian, they went straight from paganism to chalecedonian Christianity.

The Vandals, Goths (both eastern and western flavours), Burgundians and I believe the Gepids were the Arians.

>In Exodus, he names himself as "I AM" which is from the Hebrew verb for to be.

Not quite true. It's not how God identifies Himself to Moses, rather, what He tells Moses to tell the Israelites. And the phrase is usually rendered "I am that I am" or "I will be that I will be", but reading both into the same would be inconsistent for a given reading.

It's more likely that He's saying he is the future, as Moses is being sent down with a message of hope to get away from a shitty situation.

Yes it does. Read the top left closely.

Gods are the natural result of the human tendency to assign agency to natural phenomena.

No.
If you can't logically explain God then it means you must believe in him through faith, that's how it works.

If that was the case, wouldn't we be living in the age of greatest religious belief and polytheism?

Can't tell, resolution is too low. I can only tell what it's not

The name is placed on the right side

Literally what?

>Let me explain something to you, if you can logically make sense of God then there is no reason to believe in him.
I must say that is pretty retarded.

*tips pope hat*

Oh, so you know God? You know what God is?

>M-Muh theology doesn't have to make sense because you are too stupid to comprehend it!

>I literally need logic to make it right because I have no faith in God

Theologians don't say "MUH FAITH" and expect everyone to agree with them.

Arius pls go
I believe that God is real, and as a real being, must therefore make sense.
>I think trying to make sense of something means you reject it's existence

Fuck the Vatican! It thinks it can get me excommunicated?! I excommunicate the Pope!

The original Church of the Germanics before Lutheranism. Offers the most rational explanation on the nature of Christ besides adoptionism.

Why are all these arian heretics on Veeky Forums?

>expecting christians on Veeky Forums to know a little bit of theology

Mr Wolfsheim the tripfag, who used to open catholic treats and answered questions as if he was some authority figure, did not know what Nicene Creed was until a year ago.

Really makes you think.

It may have something to do with the GETS thread that proved Christian Arianism is the one true religion, or it may be because Arianism is right. I'm not sure.

>God causes GETS

>being this assmad

I think that is Coptic script, not Greek, but it's faded and barely legible to me, too. You can yell at me if I'm wrong.

while the internet's top theologians are present: were the Judaizers wrong simply because Paul said so? Matthew 5:17 seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Nope, it's a Greek style icon. Coptic style is very distinctive, that;s not Coptic.

>But the easiest way to describe it is a shamrock. It has 3 leaves. Each leave is distinct, but the leaves are all part of one plant.
That's a partialism heresy.

>However, this body differs with its namesake on several crucial points, including its rejection of the Virgin Birth and Resurrection of Christ, which Arius himself never questioned.
Christ, I'll never understand this thought process. How the hell can people justify it to themselves to invent some new Church that claims to be prescribing the "true old teachings," but then wantonly just reject or ignore scriptually-supported facets of faith just because they don't fit your worldview? Why even call yourself "Arian" or "Catholic" or anything like that then? You might as well call it the "SuperMax Christ-faith v3.0" for all of its similarities with doctrinal Christianity.

That's because you don't know what the Hebrew and Greek words for "fulfill" mean. They are synonymous with "finish", like when you finish a book or building a house.

>SuperMax Christ-faith v3.0: You Can(not) be Saved
I'd follow that desu.

As a Muslim, I can confirm that Paul brought nothing good and Jesus was only sent to partially abrogate the Mosaic Law.

I don't know what the proper interpretation of Matthew 5:17 is, but it doesn't really matter.

Who would be the Holy Virgin? Asuka or Rei?

>as a Muslim
Yeah, Muslims hate Paul, I know.

Best be a Shiite, you Ishmaelite.

.t My hairy ass.

>Red pill me
This place is literally /pol/ now

Do christians really believe that people like arius go to hell? He had the faith, but the inner workings of god and the trinity were unclear enough for there to be disputes, he's only human, humans make mistakes

You have a poor grasp on board culture.

Uh, no. They actually are. The words in question are סוּף and πληρόω

>Recognize a behavior indicative of a particular board culture
>You have a poor grasp of board culture

>Best be a Shiite
Why?

The thing is that 'redpill me' kind of means 'tell me your position on this subject' rather than 'tell me about X' the latter is more fitting for Veeky Forums

>I know one meme from one board, even though it's not even from that board originally, therefore I have a good grasp on board culture and other people should care about my judgements about boards
Are you for real right now?

Well, redpill is basically on every board now.

>go to hell

Everyone goes to sheol, user. Jesus was crucified, died, and was buried, then descended into sheol.

Gehenna is a physical locality outside of Jerusalem, the burning place, a big "garbage heap" where adherents to various ba'al would commit their burned sacrifices, sometimes in the form of whole dead persons or on rare occasions, children. Jews did not believe in being cremated, but buried whole, and this was a fate worse than death, because their bodies would not be able to later go to heaven.

So, in the earliest translations to English, and few other languages, "all sheol" became "all hell" and "all gehenna" became "all hell", and so "all sheol" became a burning place, a place where your soul is lost in eternal damnation separated from God. 16th century and forward presbyters took this idea and ran with it to a touchdown, as a scare tactic to keep mollified adherents in line.

TL;DR There is a choice to be made in which one may forsake the Son, but the "destination" in such an event is contrived in modern concept. Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.

Actually "Red Pill me" specifically means "tell me the deeper meaning that the average person doesn't understand".

Yeah, as if, everybody can claim to know the deeper meaning on something and in the end they just tell their own positions on it

Your assessment of the general intelligence of the people you choose to talk to has nothing to do with the matter, dumby.

Assad, Iran and Iraq are a lot more tolerant of Christians than the Sauds and Turkey and Al Nusra.

No, "Red pill me" means "tell me a totally biased side of a story, only instead of the left wing version, tell me the right wing version"

See The butthurt in this thread is beyond reckoning.

Don't play dumb, you know what 'redpill me on x' threads were really made for, for the circlejerk on /pol/ and other similar places to initiate people into their positions although it is usually posted by /pol/acks themselves who want to circlejerk even more, or solidify their positions on something(an outsider can also do this)

>סוּף

Never once used in regard to the Covenants in the OT retard. It is used 5 times, Joel, 2:20 to refer to the "northerners", and how their rear end will be in the western sea, once in Chronicles, to refer to the end of a valley, and a trio of usages in Ecclesiastes, once to refer to time, once to refer to death, and once to refer to the end of the book itself. It doesn't mean "fulfill" in any sense of the word, it simply means ending or stopping.


Instead, you should look to verbs actually used to describe covenantal keeping, which is almost always some conjugation of שֹׁמֵר, guard or keep.

Right, but why would he say that he didn't come to abolish it if he had intended the Sermon on the Mount to be its replacement? Isn't he just saying that he's adding to it, not that it no longer applies?

See Your derrieredevestation doesn't change the meaning of the word no matter how much a few of the people who use it piss you off.

By "סוּף" I mean "soph", not "suph". It probably a Persian loanword. It's Aramaic.

"Fulfill" here is the word "complete" for "finish" or "end". As in, he's saying he's not abrogating the law, he's saying he's accomplishing the purpose it was there for, and thereby making it no longer useful. "Fulfill" here does not mean, in any context, "expansion pack"

How true is this? I just read about gehenna and it makes sense.

It's all just politics. The Shia powers tolerate minorities, because they're minorities.

And I don't see how any Christian could favor Assad compared to those Sunni countries.

Orthodox Christianity are the only Christians who still make a distinction between Sheol and Gehenna. We call Sheol "Hades" though, because that is how the Septuagint translated it, but it's the same concept.

Assad allows Christianity, and even works to foster relations with Christians. In Saudi Arabia, it is completely illegal, and in Turkey, churches have been confiscated by the government (and this still happens, it happened recently)

How many times in scripture is sheol and gehenna changed to hell? Is hell ever actually in the bible?

None of Joel, Chronicles, nor Ecclesiastes have Aramaic, Persian loanwords or otherwise. You have the "O" and not the "U" in every example in the OT. You only see Aramaic in one passage (probably an interpolation added way later) in Jeremiah, and chunks in the very late stuff, Daniel and Ezra being the only examples I'm familiar with.

Suph, by the way, means reed (or perhaps seaweed), and is almost always used to refer to the sea that the Jews cross leaving Egypt. It's not even a reasonable mistake.

It is never used to refer to either the covenants in any fashion, or to fulfilling anything.

>You have the "O" and not the "U" in every example in the OT.
That's wrong, at least judging by the Masoretic text.

Note, I wrote this badly

>You have the "O" and not the "U" in every example in the OT.

You do have "Suph" in the Old Testament, in fact more frequently than "Soph", but they're not interchangeable, and they're not really mistakeable either, referring to very, very different things. Bad re-write done quickly while sleepy.

keep telling yourself that, do I have to explain to you how the commonly interpreted meaning of a phrase and the response to it can change due to usage?

>projecting

SeeI mis-wrote. They're not passages that can be mistaken for each other, one being a noun, and the other being an adjective.

Neither are Aramaic.

>and they're not really mistakeable either, referring to very, very different things.
Indeed, but they are spelled identically, unless you count annotative vowels.

>Assad allows Christianity, and even works to foster relations with Christians.
Does that excuse everything else?

>and in Turkey, churches have been confiscated by the government (and this still happens, it happened recently)

>Currently there are 236 churches open for worship in Turkey.[9] The Eastern Orthodox Church has been led by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, still based in the city which the Turks call Istanbul, since the 4th century.[10][11]