anethema

as astudent of history and especially early christian origins ive always been intrigued by arianism. this was as as prominent an ideology as what became orthodoxy in the late 2nd and early 3rd cens. my background is roman catholic, i am an agnostic. not looking through a glass darkly, but with clear eyes it seems to me that this was the same debate we are having now. the substitution of an iota changed the course of western history. i am interested in anyone's input into this even you aa. homousios or homouisious? :huh:

Duvduv

Of course it's important to try to filter out fact from fiction given the fact that the only information that exists about Arians comes from their "enemies," the "orthodox" such as Athansius.....
And this despite the holding of councils where everyone was invited without distinction, and yet they were condemned, which itself sounds a bit peculiar, especially since apparently some of the rulers tended to the teachings of Arianism.

Toto

Arius did not believe that Jesus was a mere human, a historical Jesus. He believed that Jesus was divine, but of a separate type of divinity from god.

This is the sort of fine theological distinction that makes modern eyes glaze over, but was enough for the death penalty at certain times in history.

anethema

im not sure how to edit correctly yet but ill plow forward. i should have said the history of western thought probably. the basis for great masses of people to believe one thing and not another has has historically been in the hands of the the propagandists and intellecual elite. this is to me a case in point. the vast majority of so-called barbarians of the time (goths, huns, whatever ) were arian thinkers, if they were believers at all. the idea of a preexisting deity becoming human was incredible. but this is what eusibius and his cohorts propounded. this course of action has proceeded down through the centuries unabated. the average joe or gaius did not care. he didnt have a dog in that fight. my question is why does the current discussion have any more relevance than their's? arius can be construed as analogous to todays exigisizers (price, doherty). im not taking away anything from them. i find their work very erudite. i just dont dont like the liars (eusibius for one self proclaimed). errormans close but i do think beside his genuinely great work he still looks as through a glass darkly, from his association with the acedemic elite, just like eusibius lol. i welcome any responses that further the course of historical understanding with intellectual honesty.

anethema

thats exactly the point im trying to make about the current discussion. how many goths in ca 340 were willing to die over an iota? it was a muggs game.

No Robots

The war within Christianity as always been between those who lean toward a Jewish interpretation and those who lean toward a pagan interpretation. Arians leaned toward the Jewish view. Nowadays, most everyone leans that way, with the one notable exception being the mythicists.

Duvduv

Of course we can never truly know simply because there is nothing from this sect that exists other than what the ancient propagandists wrote. So everything can be taken with a grain of salt unless one places *faith* in the statements of these writers.

sotto voce

So the Bible's notion of Jesus being the one and only 'God, with us' is heretical.

Iskander

This statement makes the purpose of your OP impossible to understand.

Nobody has ever died over an iota.

sotto voce

Not that these are equivalents. A person fully human and fully deity (within the limits of corporeality) is perfectly permissible in logic.