Arianism (What is that)?

[Ignatius the Hermit]

Great, finally a explanation what i understand, own words and not only verses, ok thanks for youre explanation.

Second, one question, when you look to hebrew 1:1,2 it says first we send to prophets and then to his son, but then the vers says that the prophets are not sons right? cause the verse make a difference between prophets and son. I don't understand why it is, that all people are called sons in the bible, and then the verse says, first prophets, and then son, cause the prophets where also called "sons" right? When you look at the verse it look like it says that prophets are not sons but Jesus he is a son.

How to look at that?

But i think you believe Jesus is God, am i right?

The bible speaks of Christ being the firstborn over creation and the firstborn of the resurrected. People associated with him are considered his brothers. If God is the Father of Jesus--then all the people he has saved become Jesus brethren, and puts them into a special relationship with God--the right to be a son. And what right is that? Sons often hold more privileges than daughters do. When we are called children of God, or sons of God (which also includes females), we have a special relationship with God. It becomes more personal, and permanent. But I must emphasize--we are not 'born' as a son of God, we are Adopted into God's family. Jesus is considered the true Son of God--a status that he vicariously shares with believers.

As for Hebrews 1:1,2 these verses remind me of a parable of Jesus that he taught illustrating the history of how God has dealt with humanity:

The Parable of the Tenants

9 He went on to tell the people this parable: “A man planted a vineyard, rented it to some farmers and went away for a long time. 10 At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants so they would give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the tenants beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 11 He sent another servant, but that one also they beat and treated shamefully and sent away empty-handed. 12 He sent still a third, and they wounded him and threw him out.

13 “Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my son, whom I love; perhaps they will respect him.’ 14 “But when the tenants saw him, they talked the matter over. ‘This is the heir,’ they said. ‘Let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ 15 So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.

Luke 20:9-14

This story illustrates that God has sent several 'servants' (Prophets) to His people who did not listen to their message. So He finally sent His Son because He thought they would respect Him more.

Please understand, Christians are not God's offspring--we are children by adoption. But Jesus is different, he is considered, according to the New testament scriptures to be the Only-Begotten Son of God. I hope this has helped.

 

[barbara van loo]

Kirk thanks for the answer, but can you say me of you believe that Jesus is God?

And then tell me what you understand of Begotten son, what's the meaning of it?

 

[barbara van loo]

Human can you give me in your own words the explanation of Begotten son, and can you tell me of Jesus is the only son or not? And i'm waiting on explanation why the verse in hebrew says first prophets then son, while everybody is called sons in the bible and what it have to do with abaraham and so on.

 

[he-man]

Great, finally a explanation what i understand, own words and not only verses, ok thanks for youre explanation.
Second, one question, when you look to hebrew 1:1,2 it says first we send to prophets and then to his son, but then the vers says that the prophets are not sons right? cause the verse make a difference between prophets and son. I don't understand why it is, that all people are called sons in the bible, and then the verse says, first prophets, and then son, cause the prophets where also called "sons" right? When you look at the verse it look like it says that prophets are not sons but Jesus he is a son.How to look at that?

In the Epistle to the Hebrews, it is said that when Abraham was ready to sacrifice Isaac he was offering up τον μονογενή, "his only-begotten" (11:17), because although Abraham had another son, God had said that only in Isaac shall Abraham's seed (σπερμ&#945 be named.

So, God also named Jesus as "his only-begotten" because Jesus was of the seed of Abraham. Jesus had brothers and sisters, but they were not named by God as "his only-begotten" heir to the throne of David.

The parable of the tenants relates the Position of Christ as the Son, who is to inherit the Land of Promise. The other servants that God sent are the Prophets which shows that there is a distinct difference. Only Christ is described as being the Lawful One to inherit the Land of Promise.

The man that planted the vineyard is God.
The husbandmen are all the people in this world.
The servants God sent were the Prophets.
The Son who is to inherit the Land (Vinyard) is Christ.

Again, The same parable is given by Mark and notice that God put a barrier around the vinyard to keep the most undesirable out and dug a vat to catch the dregs. He then placed a tower so that there could be a lookout (overseer0 perhaps Angels and then notice the 9th verse at the second coming of Christ God will destroy those who have put Christ outside of their lives!

Mr 12:1 And he began to speak to them in parables: 'A man planted a vineyard, with a barrier around it, and dug a wine vat under the trough, and built a tower, and let it out to a husbandmen. and went abroad;
2 And in the season he sent to the husbandmen a slave, that he might receive from the husbandmen, from the fruit of the vineyard.
3 And they took and beat him and sent him away empty.
:4 And again, he sent another slave to them; that one they disgraced and wounded on the head.
5 And he sent another, that one they dehumanized; and indeed many others, being beaten and being dehumanized.
6 Yet having one beloved son: he sent him last to them, saying, They will show humiliation1 toward my son.
7 But those husbandmen said to themselves, This is the heir; come, we may dehumanize him, and the inheritance shall be ours.
8 "And having taken, they dehumanized him and threw him outside the vineyard.
9 What will the Lord of the vineyard do? and coming2, He will destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard to others.
1• Greek 1788 εντραπησονται εντροπιασμένος shamefaced, embarrassed, humiliated, ashamed

2* Greek 2064 ερχομός Advent, Second Coming of Christ

But i think you believe Jesus is God, am i right?

Nope, there is only ONE GOD. And there is only ONE Christ, who will inherit the Land of Promise along with the saints and believers.

 

[barbara van loo]

Ok this looks better.

1. So you say Prophets are servants, and Jesus is the Son. Is there Only one son, or are there more?
2. Do you understand what i am saying, everybody is called sons in the bible so when the verse say first prophets then son, how is that possible, cause the prophets are also called sons in the bible right?Example: Psalm 82:6
3. And can you tell me in own words what means only begotten son.

Don't answer with lot of text but in your own words plz.

In the Epistle to the Hebrews, it is said that when Abraham was ready to sacrifice Isaac he was offering up τον μονογενή, "his only-begotten" (11:17), because although Abraham had another son, God had said that only in Isaac shall Abraham's seed (σπερμ&#945 be named.

So, God also named Jesus as "his only-begotten" because Jesus was of the seed of Abraham. Jesus had brothers and sisters, but they were not named by God as "his only-begotten" heir to the throne of David.

The parable of the tenants relates the Position of Christ as the Son, who is to inherit the Land of Promise. The other servants that God sent are the Prophets which shows that there is a distinct difference. Only Christ is described as being the Lawful One to inherit the Land of Promise.

The man that planted the vineyard is God.
The husbandmen are all the people in this world.
The servants God sent were the Prophets.
The Son who is to inherit the Land (Vinyard) is Christ.

Again, The same parable is given by Mark and notice that God put a barrier around the vinyard to keep the most undesirable out and dug a vat to catch the dregs. He then placed a tower so that there could be a lookout (overseer0 perhaps Angels and then notice the 9th verse at the second coming of Christ God will destroy those who have put Christ outside of their lives!

Mr 12:1 And he began to speak to them in parables: 'A man planted a vineyard, with a barrier around it, and dug a wine vat under the trough, and built a tower, and let it out to a husbandmen. and went abroad;
2 And in the season he sent to the husbandmen a slave, that he might receive from the husbandmen, from the fruit of the vineyard.
3 And they took and beat him and sent him away empty.
:4 And again, he sent another slave to them; that one they disgraced and wounded on the head.
5 And he sent another, that one they dehumanized; and indeed many others, being beaten and being dehumanized.
6 Yet having one beloved son: he sent him last to them, saying, They will show humiliation1 toward my son.
7 But those husbandmen said to themselves, This is the heir; come, we may dehumanize him, and the inheritance shall be ours.
8 "And having taken, they dehumanized him and threw him outside the vineyard.
9 What will the Lord of the vineyard do? and coming2, He will destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard to others.
1• Greek 1788 εντραπησονται εντροπιασμένος shamefaced, embarrassed, humiliated, ashamed

2* Greek 2064 ερχομός Advent, Second Coming of Christ
Nope, there is only ONE GOD. And there is only ONE Christ, who will inherit the Land of Promise along with the saints and believers.

 

[barbara van loo]

Up

 

[he-man]

Ok this looks better.

1. So you say Prophets are servants, and Jesus is the Son. Is there Only one son, or are there more?
2. Do you understand what i am saying, everybody is called sons in the bible so when the verse say first prophets then son, how is that possible, cause the prophets are also called sons in the bible right?Example: Psalm 82:6
3. And can you tell me in own words what means only begotten son.

Don't answer with lot of text but in your own words plz.

26 For ye are all the sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

because although Abraham had another son, God had said that only in Isaac shall Abraham's seed (σπερμ&#945 be named.

So, God also named Jesus as "his only-begotten" because Jesus was of the seed of Abraham. Jesus had brothers and sisters, but they were not named by God as "his only-begotten" heir to the throne of David.

Do you not understand what the word heir means?

Sons, or children of God are not the same as being named by God as "his only-begotten" heir to the throne of David.

There are many who are called sons and gods but there is only ONE who is called the heir to the throne of David to inherit the Land of Promise else the Promise would be of no effect.

Gal 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

26 For ye are all the sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

 

[COMankind]

I'm new to the forum..first post. I actually was one of Jehovah's Witnesses for years, left due to doctrinal differences. This concept of 'Arianism' (which frankly I'm not comfortable referring to a teaching as labelled by its teacher - is hard to disprove scripturally)

Without even citing verses, there are some logical roadblocks:
- Jesus said the Father was greater
- Jesus did not know things his Father knew
- Revelation shows Jesus in subordinate positions (Lamb, child born from woman, King riding on horse (like a general sent into battle), and on a throne with his Father in New Jerusalem.
- Satan tempted Jesus, who needed strengthening by angels afterward. Jesus claimed that, remember...it was just the two of them, that they both were accountable to God. Satan could not presume to tempt God.
- Visions by Ezekiel, Daniel and others always had a distinction between the Almighty and the King/Lord/Messiah.

The book of Enoch, interestingly enough, refers to multiple 'Elect Ones' in heaven, above all spirit life, but beneath the Almighty. If we wanted to think even more broadly, you could imagine that Jesus was given Earth, while other Elect Ones were given other planets of life. It IS possible that we are not the center of created life.

Aside from this, only-begotten:
This means that the only-begotten creation was formed with God's own (figurative) hands. That all other created life was through that creation. In the case of God and the Logos...when God created man, he did it with his Son. Thus, Jesus is a divine being who was capable of building or generating life, but the Father is the Almighty engineer of life, who gave power (through spirit) to his Son, the Logos, to build.

Cases for the Trinity:
There are only two points that support the case for the Trinity in my mind. 1) That Jesus accepted worship when no other angel would and 2) That some verses use the word God when referring to Jesus.

1) If Jesus was a King, with authority over the Earth, then all man would be his subjects, thus worship is permitted.
2) Verses have been twisted (1John 5:7,8) over time to support doctrine. We have to get away from reading into specific words, and grasp the overall themes.

Men want to see God. To think of God as a being that has not taken shape, that God is someone we can never see till we die, is too difficult a concept for most people to bear. This is a physical need, which is similar to the need to use a cross in worship. We need something tangible in order to worship. The Israelites clung to the physicality of the law in the same manner. Once we begin to let go of these things is when we have an opportunity to see things more spiritually.

Plus, who really knows what God looks like, what form he takes? These are spiritual things that are minds cannot grasp. Remember, no man can see God, only those in the spirit realm can.

 

[COMankind]

This concept of 'Arianism' (which frankly I'm not comfortable referring to a teaching as labelled by its teacher) is tough to disprove scripturally.

Without even citing verses, there are some logical roadblocks:
- Jesus said the Father was greater
- Jesus did not know things his Father knew
- Revelation shows Jesus in subordinate positions (Lamb, child born from woman, King riding on horse (like a general sent into battle), and on a throne with his Father in New Jerusalem.
- Satan tempted Jesus, who needed strengthening by angels afterward. Jesus claimed that, remember...it was just the two of them, that they both were accountable to God. Satan could not presume to tempt God.
- Visions by Ezekiel, Daniel and others always had a distinction between the Almighty and the King/Lord/Messiah.

The book of Enoch, interestingly enough, refers to multiple 'Elect Ones' in heaven, above all spirit life, but beneath the Almighty. If we wanted to think even more broadly, you could imagine that Jesus was given Earth, while other Elect Ones were given other planets of life. It IS possible that we are not the center of created life.

Aside from this, only-begotten:
This means that the only-begotten creation was formed with God's own (figurative) hands. That all other created life was through that creation. In the case of God and the Logos...when God created man, he did it with his Son. Thus, Jesus is a divine being who was capable of building or generating life, but the Father is the Almighty engineer of life, who gave power (through spirit) to his Son, the Logos, to build.

Cases for the Trinity:
There are only two points that support the case for the Trinity in my mind. 1) That Jesus accepted worship when no other angel would and 2) That some verses use the word God when referring to Jesus.

1) If Jesus was a King, with authority over the Earth, then all mankind would be his subjects, thus worship is permitted.
2) Verses have been twisted (1John 5:7,8) over time to support doctrine. We have to get away from reading into specific words, and grasp the overall themes.

Men want to see God. To think of God as a being that has not taken shape, that God is someone we can never see till we die, is too difficult a concept for most people to bear. This is a physical need, which is similar to the need to use a cross in worship. We need something tangible in order to worship. The Israelites clung to the physicality of the law in the same manner. Once we begin to let go of these things is when we have an opportunity to see things more spiritually.

Plus, who really knows what God looks like, what form he takes? These are spiritual things that our minds cannot grasp. Remember, no man can see God, only those in the spirit realm can.

 

[COMankind]

I stayed pretty close with that one, because it was very hard to disprove.

Adam was given a breath of life. The first six days were Gods, yes...but Moses (who wrote those accounts) didn't know anything about Jesus being there with his Father, working with him. That insight came later. There was a lot about heaven and God that Moses didn't know, and mankind was on a need-to-know-basis. Abraham didn't know about Jesus, Michael, Gabriel, etc.. but Jesus said he was there when Abraham was.

Its the Almighty Father who is ultimately responsible, regardless of who he employs to do his work. This actually isn't far from the Trinity when you think about it. Jesus is divine, has power above all creation, he is in effect God/King/Lord of earth - he just isn't Almighty.

 

[Korah]

From the Student's Guide to NT Textual Variants, there is an obscure Western reading that supports Arianism. No modern translation accepts it, but a few give it a footnote, namely the Revised Standard Version and the New English Bible.

"You are my beloved son; today I have fathered you."
EVIDENCE: D most lat
TRANSLATIONS: RSVn NEBn

Luke 3:22

 

[he-man]

Human, explain the words only begotten son for me in your own words. Do you mean God begets Jesus or what is the meaning of it. Waiting for answer.

You got it right. God brought the Messiah into being, born right between the legs of Mary.

 

[he-man]

-But if you say Jesus is the only begotten because God brought the messiah into being. How is it then with Adam, God brought Adam also into a human, with a soul and everything without father and without mother. Why is Jesus then called the only begotten, and not Adam or Eve.

- And you say all people are "sons" but why Hebrew 1:1,2 says
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.

Why the verse is then not, God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the sons, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his only begotten Son.

The verse cleary says that Jesus is a son, and the other are prophets..

Read the Greek:
Heb 1:1
πολυμερως και πολυτροπως παλαι ο θεος λαλησας τοις πατρασιν εν τοις προφηταις επ εσχατου των ημερων τουτων ελαλησεν ημιν εν υιω

God, after having in many parts and many ways spoken in ancient times to the fathers <&#960;&#945;&#964;&#961;&#945;&#963;&#953;&#957;>, in the prophets <&#960;&#961;&#959;&#966;&#951;&#964;&#945;&#953;&#962; >, has in the end of these days spoken to us by [his] Son<&#965;&#953;&#969; >

2 &#959;&#957; &#949;&#952;&#951;&#954;&#949;&#957; &#954;&#955;&#951;&#961;&#959;&#957;&#959;&#956;&#959;&#957; &#960;&#945;&#957;&#964;&#969;&#957; &#948;&#953; &#959;&#965; &#954;&#945;&#953; &#949;&#960;&#959;&#953;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#965;&#962; &#945;&#953;&#969;&#957;&#945;&#962;
whom he has appointed heir of all things, for whom also he made the ages,

 

[he-man]

What must i with this Greek text? It's the same as in english right so why must i read the Greek? This is not a answer on my question, or you simply can't answer my questions or something?

Because you daid:

Why the verse is then not, God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the sons, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his only begotten Son.
The verse cleary says that Jesus is a son, and the other are prophets..

You need to go to a school that studies Greek.
Read the Greek: It says to the fathers in the prophets and has in the end of these days spoken to us by [his] Son.
Heb 1:1
&#960;&#959;&#955;&#965;&#956;&#949;&#961;&#969;&#962; &#954;&#945;&#953; &#960;&#959;&#955;&#965;&#964;&#961;&#959;&#960;&#969;&#962; &#960;&#945;&#955;&#945;&#953; &#959; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; &#955;&#945;&#955;&#951;&#963;&#945;&#962; &#964;&#959;&#953;&#962; &#960;&#945;&#964;&#961;&#945;&#963;&#953;&#957; &#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#953;&#962; &#960;&#961;&#959;&#966;&#951;&#964;&#945;&#953;&#962; &#949;&#960; &#949;&#963;&#967;&#945;&#964;&#959;&#965; &#964;&#969;&#957; &#951;&#956;&#949;&#961;&#969;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#965;&#964;&#969;&#957; &#949;&#955;&#945;&#955;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#951;&#956;&#953;&#957; &#949;&#957; &#965;&#953;&#969;

God, after having in many parts and many ways spoken in ancient times to the fathers <&#960;&#945;&#964;&#961;&#945;&#963;&#953;&#957;>, in the prophets <&#960;&#961;&#959;&#966;&#951;&#964;&#945;&#953;&#962; >, has in the end of these days spoken to us by [his] Son<&#965;&#953;&#969; >

2 &#959;&#957; &#949;&#952;&#951;&#954;&#949;&#957; &#954;&#955;&#951;&#961;&#959;&#957;&#959;&#956;&#959;&#957; &#960;&#945;&#957;&#964;&#969;&#957; &#948;&#953; &#959;&#965; &#954;&#945;&#953; &#949;&#960;&#959;&#953;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#965;&#962; &#945;&#953;&#969;&#957;&#945;&#962;
whom he has appointed heir of all things, for whom also he made the ages,

 

[The Gregorian]

Its an abominable heresy that teaches that Jesus Christ was a created being. It is pretty much extinct, glory be to God.

... Arius was one of the many members of the Nicaean council who was not trinitarian. He believed 1 Corinthians 8:6 "There is for us only one God, the Father." ... that yes, Jesus was lord, and the son of God... but that being the "son" of God... didn't make Jesus "God" ... considering how Jesus consistantly stated that "The father is greater than I."

Arius and all members who believed in only one God were excommunicated (and some tortured and executed) for the heresy of not being the popular opinion. The belief has never died out, and even during the reign of the catholic church, people such as Isaac Newton retained the belief that there is only one God... unfortunately, for a very long time, anyone who publically admitted it was silenced (often burned alive).


There are, in fact MANY "arian" groups out there (go wikipedia):

American Unitarian Conference
Arianism
Bible Students
Christadelphians
Two by Twos (aka, The Truth; publish no doctrinal statements; classified as nontrinitarian by observers)
Church of Christ, Scientist; that is, the Christian Science religion
Church of God General Conference (Abrahamic Faith)
Church of God (Seventh Day)
Church of the Blessed Hope (also known as the Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith, but not part of "General Conference")
Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church (Not to be confused with the Seventh-day Adventist Church)
Doukhobors
Friends of Man
Jehovah's Witnesses
Living Church of God
Molokan
Monarchianism
Muggletonianism
New Church
Oneness Pentecostals
Polish Brethren
Quakers
Shakers
Socinianism
Swedenborgianism
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church; see also Mormon)
The Way International
Unification Church
Unitarian Christians
Iglesia ni Cristo
True Jesus Church
Members of the Church of God International
United Church of God
Unitarian Universalism


Just to give you an idea of "majority rule" ... most people would agree that Catholicism is one of (if not THE) largest sect of Christianity out there with about 400,000 ministers world-wide. The Jehovah's Witnesses, on the other hand only have 7,300,000 ministers.

I'm not entirely sure that the belief in only one God is "extinct"

 

[Der Alte]

... Arius was one of the many members of the Nicaean council who was not trinitarian. He believed 1 Corinthians 8:6 "There is for us only one God, the Father." ... that yes, Jesus was lord, and the son of God... but that being the "son" of God... didn't make Jesus "God" ... considering how Jesus consistantly stated that "The father is greater than I."

Arius and all members who believed in only one God were excommunicated (and some tortured and executed) for the heresy of not being the popular opinion. The belief has never died out, and even during the reign of the catholic church, people such as Isaac Newton retained the belief that there is only one God... unfortunately, for a very long time, anyone who publically admitted it was silenced (often burned alive).[ . . . ]

At the close of the Nicaean council only two (2) of the 300+ bishops, i.e. .0062%, who attended refused to sign the symbols and were excommunicated and banished. NO, NONE, ZERO were tortured and executed, etc!

 

[he-man]

At the close of the Nicaean council only two (2) of the 300+ bishops, i.e. .0062%, who attended refused to sign the symbols and were excommunicated and banished. NO, NONE, ZERO were tortured and executed, etc!

What you don't give a source? Where did you get that false information?
A council was, therefore, assembled in Nicaea, in Bithynia, which has ever been counted the first ecumenical, and which held its sittings from the middle of June, 325.

It is commonly said that Hosius of Cordova presided. The Pope, St. Silvester, was represented by his legates, and 318 Fathers attended, almost all from the East. Unfortunately, the acts of the Council are not preserved

A letter was received from Eusebius of Nicomedia, declaring openly that he would never allow Christ to be of one substance with God. This avowal suggested a means of discriminating between true believers and all those who, under that pretext, did not hold the Faith handed down. A creed was drawn up on behalf of the Arian party by Eusebius of Caesarea in which every term of honour and dignity, except the oneness of substance, was attributed to Our Lord.

The "consubstantial" was accepted, only thirteen bishops dissenting, and these were speedily reduced to seven. Hosius drew out the conciliar statements, to which anathemas were subjoined against those who should affirm that the Son once did not exist, or that before He was begotten He was not, or that He was made out of nothing, or that He was of a different substance or essence from the Father, or was created or changeable. Every bishop made this declaration except six, of whom four at length gave way.
Eusebius of Nicomedia withdrew his opposition to the Nicene term, but would not sign the condemnation of Arius.

Constantine now favoured none but Arians; he was baptized in his last moments by the shifty prelate of Nicomedia; and he bequeathed to his three sons (337) an empire torn by dissensions which his ignorance and weakness had aggravated.
http://www.newadvent.org/ http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm

 

[Der Alte]

At the close of the Nicaean council only two (2) of the 300+ bishops, i.e. .0062%, who attended refused to sign the symbols and were excommunicated and banished. NO, NONE, ZERO were tortured and executed, etc!

What you don't give a source? Where did you get that false information?
A council was, therefore, assembled in Nicaea, in Bithynia, which has ever been counted the first ecumenical, and which held its sittings from the middle of June, 325.

It is commonly said that Hosius of Cordova presided. The Pope, St. Silvester, was represented by his legates, and 318 Fathers attended, almost all from the East. Unfortunately, the acts of the Council are not preserved

A letter was received from Eusebius of Nicomedia, declaring openly that he would never allow Christ to be of one substance with God. This avowal suggested a means of discriminating between true believers and all those who, under that pretext, did not hold the Faith handed down. A creed was drawn up on behalf of the Arian party by Eusebius of Caesarea in which every term of honour and dignity, except the oneness of substance, was attributed to Our Lord.

The "consubstantial" was accepted, only thirteen bishops dissenting, and these were speedily reduced to seven. Hosius drew out the conciliar statements, to which anathemas were subjoined against those who should affirm that the Son once did not exist, or that before He was begotten He was not, or that He was made out of nothing, or that He was of a different substance or essence from the Father, or was created or changeable. Every bishop made this declaration except six, of whom four at length gave way. Eusebius of Nicomedia withdrew his opposition to the Nicene term, but would not sign the condemnation of Arius.

Constantine now favoured none but Arians; he was baptized in his last moments by the shifty prelate of Nicomedia; and he bequeathed to his three sons (337) an empire torn by dissensions which his ignorance and weakness had aggravated.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Arianism

OBTW there NO source cited in the post I replied to! Nothing you quoted disproved my statement that at the close of the Nicaea council only two (2) refused to sign the symbols and were excommunicated and banished! Your own source says there were initially thirteen who refused to sign, then six, at the last only two. One of those was Arius whom Constantine tried to reinstate a few years later. Thus he was not tortured or executed!

 

[he-man]

OBTW there NO source cited in the post I replied to! Nothing you quoted disproved my statement that at the close of the Nicaea council only two (2) refused to sign the symbols and were excommunicated and banished! Your own source says there were initially thirteen who refused to sign, then six, at the last only two. One of those was Arius whom Constantine tried to reinstate a few years later. Thus he was not tortured or executed!

Whoa, back up and look again!

The "consubstantial" was accepted, only thirteen bishops dissenting, and these were speedily reduced to seven.

Hosius drew out the conciliar statements, to which anathemas were subjoined against those who should affirm that the Son once did not exist, or that before He was begotten He was not, or that He was made out of nothing, or that He was of a different substance or essence from the Father, or was created or changeable.

Every bishop made this declaration [the conciliar statements] except six, of whom four at length gave way.

Eusebius of Nicomedia withdrew his opposition to the Nicene term, but would not sign the condemnation of Arius.

Constantine now favoured none but Arians; he was baptized in his last moments by the shifty prelate of Nicomedia; and he bequeathed to his three sons (337) an empire torn by dissensions which his ignorance and weakness had aggravated.

 

[Der Alte]

Whoa, back up and look again!

The "consubstantial" was accepted, only thirteen bishops dissenting, and these were speedily reduced to seven.

Hosius drew out the conciliar statements, to which anathemas were subjoined against those who should affirm that the Son once did not exist, or that before He was begotten He was not, or that He was made out of nothing, or that He was of a different substance or essence from the Father, or was created or changeable.

Every bishop made this declaration [the conciliar statements] except six, of whom four at length gave way.

Eusebius of Nicomedia withdrew his opposition to the Nicene term, but would not sign the condemnation of Arius.

You back up and look again. 13 - 6 = 7. Then 7-1=6. And last 6-4=2. One of those 2 was Arius. All you have to do is look at your own quote. And as I said before NO, ZERO, NONE of the two dissenters was tortured or executed.