No Robots

Which applies a fortiori to you, no?

MrMacSon

Pretty much. It would've been heretical in the 3rd century. Modern Christianity is, relative to the times of Arianism, Docetism, etc., heretical.

aa5874

If Arius is too far removed in the 4th century then YOU are hopeless c 2012 CE. Please, stop telling us about "No Tax Jesus" because you are 1600 years later than Arius and must be too far removed for any use at all for the understanding HJ.

You have Inadvertently brought YOUR "No Tax Jesus" to an end.

sotto voce

The debate that is not being aired very much now, a debate feared by many, is the one about 'oneness'. This concept is found troubling, so troubling that there is scant admission among people of a certain type that it exists. When it is mentioned, it is associated with people easily discounted on intellectual grounds, Pentecostals. There is an artificial polarity imposed on discussion, by those in positions where imposition can be made. If you are not trinitarian, you must be Arian, probably a Jehovah's Witness. You are certainly not mainstream, goes the hectoring voice of the fearful finger-wagger. The great fear seems to be that the concept of Jesus being what the Hebrew Bible says he was, 'God, with us', and not an under-god, or one third of God, should gain currency. Though that is what is happening. It is not just some Pentecostals who think that Trinitarianism is wrong, it is people in all the denominations and outside them, who believe that Jesus is the very same person as the Son, the Father and the Spirit, different names for the same person.

That modern straitjacket was the limited choice imposed on itself by the Roman Empire. Arianism demoted Jesus, and made him 'safe', or at least safer. The problem was, this idea did not square with Bible texts, that made it clear that there was one deity, and Jesus had been in some way that deity. There was still enough of the population familiar with those texts, directly or orally, and the imperial religion could not afford accusation of heresy. At least, not heresy as blatant as that. But trinitarianism, while complete absurdity, was actually more useful because it was absurd. An absurdity recommended with a straight face, along with the assurance that this is one of the divine mysteries (which even more requires a straight face) can so overcome the mind that it is meekly accepted. So three Gods were devised, though with assurance that there was still just one. Jesus, who, in orthodoxy is the same person as the Father, was made the son of the Father in a generic sense, the Father thus becoming God, creator and real authority, with Jesus virtually the Arian version of him. (If you didn't know, the Bible sense of 'son' does not carry this meaning.) The empire had the means of ensuring that no-one disagreed; and, abracadabra, no-one disagreed. Theology, if you can call it that, by means of sharp edges. Not something for humanity to be proud of.

But that, dear reader, is, after 17 centuries, almost certainly the way you think of deity. It is mathematical nonsense, and the stuff of fantasy. But worry not. The psychiatrist will not lock you away. He understands the pressure you are under.

outhouse

Nope , not really


trying to dig historicity from a completely different culture, and religion from that of the the original movement, makes this very time sensitive

aa5874

If Arius is too far removed in the 4th century then it is logical you MUST be FAR WORSE than Arius.

You are attempting to tell people about "No Tax Jesus" when you are from a completely different culture and time.

If Arius cannot help to understand HJ then you certainly can't 1600 years later.

No Robots

Just in case you have put aa on ignore:

If Arius is too far removed in the 4th century then it is logical you MUST be FAR WORSE than Arius.

You are attempting to tell people about "No Tax Jesus" when you are from a completely different culture and time.

If Arius cannot help to understand HJ then you certainly can't 1600 years later.

outhouse

aa is on ignore and its blissful best move ive made here.


As far as your statement, it makes no sense at all.

We know more in total then any church father knew. We know much more then Arius and we know more about the sources he would never be able to know.


why are you insulting modern scholarships?

aa5874

Please, your statement is laughable. You certainly will not ever be able to show that you know more than Arius.

Tell us who knows of or ever knew of your "NO Tax Jesus"??

No-one for the last 1900 years based on the available evidence.

"No Tax Jesus" is a fabrication--a Fable from outhouse.