Was the Pre-Nicene Church Orthodox?

[Gettingtalents]

I was off on the date, I believe it was 269 AD not 275 AD.... Have to check my sources again... Dunno why I was thinking 275

 

[Gettingtalents]

The city of Alexandria (boasting a population upwards of one million) was the second most important city within the entire Roman Empire. Only the capital city of Rome itself was considered to be greater. Consequently, the single bishop who presided over Alexandria wielded almost insurmountable influences within the Christendom and, under Constantine, within the politics of Rome itself.

In the beginning of the 4th century a man named Achillas served only one year as the bishop of Alexandria before appointing his predecessor. One of the candidates for the position was a presbyter named Arius (being at that time about 56 years old):

Arius was the parish priest, as he may be described, of the church of Baukalis, the oldest and most important of the churches of Alexandria ... He had been a possible successor at the...vacancy of the “Evangelical Throne.” (- A Dictionary of Early Christian Biography, pg. 12)​

Nevertheless, in 312 AD, Achillas assigned the position of bishop to an elderly man named Alexander instead, and Arius remained the presbyter over the most important church of the city. Shortly after Alexander became bishop, while he was standing by a window at his beach house waiting for some guests to arrive, he saw a group of boys playing on the shore, pretending to baptize one another in the sea.

He therefore sent for the children and had them brought into his presence. In the investigation that followed it was discovered that one of the boys, who was no other than the future Primate of Alexandria [Athanasius], had acted the part of the bishop, and in that character had actually baptized several of his companions in the course of their play. Alexander, who seems to have been unaccountably puzzled over the answers he received to his inquiries, determined to recognize the make-believe baptisms as genuine; and decided that Athanasius and his playfellows should go into training in order to fit themselves for a clerical career. (-The Catholic Encyclopedia, entry for Athanasius)​

Athanasius, the boy who was pretending to be a bishop on the beach, was born sometime around in 296 – 298 AD, so he was only 14 – 16 years of age at this time (312 AD). Not long thereafter, Alexander invited Athanasius to be his secretary and to share in his meals. Thus, Athanasius had a growing relationship and influence upon the Alexandrian bishop. While still a teenager (or, at the most, 20 years old), Athanasius composed two works: Against the Pagans and The Incarnation. It was in these works that Athanasius declared his heretical views that confounded the Son of God with the Father.

The young Athanasius declared that the Son did not have a beginning, but instead always coexisted with the Father as a second person who was the same God as the Father. However, unlike Athanasius, Arius was teaching that the Son did not exist from eternity past, but instead began to exist when God begot him. Realizing that the two men were teaching contradicting doctrines, Alexander summoned Arius to himself in order to discuss the subject of Christ’s origin. Arius declared his beliefs to Alexander and afterwards went back to his duties as a local presbyter. Yet, apparently the issue was still up for debate in Alexander’s mind, because he decided to hold a council of the Alexandrian clergy in order to discuss the matter further.

In order to prepare for the meeting, Alexander sent for a statement of faith from those regional clergymen who believed as Arius did. Accordingly, a letter was sent from them declaring that the Father existed before the Son.

The letter contained the following words:

To our blessed pope and bishop, Alexander. The presbyters and deacons in union with the Lord bid you greetings. Our belief, which comes from our forefathers and which we have learned from you as well, blessed pope, is as follows: ... God, who is the cause of all, is the only one without beginning. The Son, on the other hand, who was begotten of the Father (though not in time) and who was created and established before the ages, did not exist prior to his begetting ... And therefore [God] is also before Christ, as we have learned from you when you have preached in the congregation. (-Letter from the “Arians” to Alexander of Alexandria,Epiphanius LXIX, 7:2-8:5 & Athanasius, De Synodis, 16. LNPF ser.2, Vol. 4, pg. 458)​

Two Egyptian bishops (Theonas of Marmarica, and Secundus of Ptolemais), Arius, five other presbyters, and six deacons signed this document as witnesses to the fact that Alexander previously taught the beliefs which they now held to. Yet, apparently desirous of reconsidering the accurateness of his own previous beliefs, Alexander proceeded to call the aforementioned meeting of the Alexandrian clergy. Arius was present. This meeting is where the conflict between Arius and Alexander explodes.

Sozomen, a 5th century Trinitarian historian whose works covered Christian events from 323 – 439 AD, describes how Alexander was not even certain of what he himself believed during the controversial meeting of Alexandrian clergy:

According to Sozomen, Alexander seemed to waver between the Arian and anti-Arian positions. Ultimately he asserted in strong terms the coequality of the Son; whereupon Arius criticized his language as savouring of the Sabellian error which had “confounded the persons.” (-A Dictionary of Early Christian Biography, pg. 12)​

Sozomen’s description of the meeting in Alexandria reads as follows:

During the debate, Alexander seemed to incline first to one party and then to the other; finally, however, he declared himself in favor of those who affirmed that the Son was consubstantial and co-eternal with the Father, and he commanded Arius to receive this doctrine, and to reject his former opinions. Arius, however, would not be persuaded to compliance, and many of the bishops and clergy considered his statement of doctrine to be correct. Alexander, therefore, ejected him and the clergy who concurred with him in sentiment from the church. Those of the parish of Alexandria, who had embraced his opinions, were the presbyters Aithalas, Achillas, Carpones, Sarmates, and [another] Arius, and the deacons Euzoius, Macarius, Julius, Menas, and Helladius. Many of the people, likewise, sided with them: some, because they imagined their doctrines to be of God; others, as frequently happens in similar cases, because they believed them to have been ill-treated and unjustly excommunicated. (-Sozomen, book 1, chapter 15)​

Amazing! Sozomen records the apostasy of the Alexandrian bishop! And now, having become fully acceptant of Athanasius’ theology, the metropolitan bishop of Alexandria too began proclaiming openly that Christ coexisted with the Father throughout eternity past as one God. And, because Arius would not conform, Alexander flexed his political muscle and began persecuting the presbyter and those other clergy who sided with him.

Arius wrote a letter to the bishop of Nicomedia, describing his plight as follows:

We are vehemently opposed and persecuted, and every engine is set in motion against us by the bishop ... Eusebius, your brother, bishop of Caesarea, and Theodotus and Paulinus, Athanasius [bishop of Anagastus], Gregorius and Aetius, and all the bishops of the East, affirm, that God, who is without a beginning, existed before the Son. ... We are persecuted, because we have said that the Son has a beginning. But God is without a beginning. On this account we are persecuted, and because we said that he is of things not existing. Thus we have said, because he is not a part of God, nor of any subject matter. On this account we are persecuted. (-Letter of Arius to Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia. Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, pg. 414)​

After hearing of Alexander’s apostasy, the bishop of Nicomedia then sent a subsequent letter to the bishop of Tyre, saying:

We have never heard, my Lord, of two beings unbegotten, nor of one divided into two; nor have we learnt or believed that he could suffer anything corporeal, but that there is one unbegotten, and another truly from him. (-Letter of Eusebius, Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, pg. 415)​

Nevertheless, although it was previously unheard of, this new doctrine of Athanasius was now being promoted by the super-bishop of Alexandria himself and was causing major dissension in Constantine’s Roman Empire.

In 325 AD, Constantine assembled a council of 250 bishops at Nicea to settle this divisive dispute. However, the council’s proceedings were far from fair. Constantine presided over the council himself, and, being the Emperor of Rome and therefore an advocate of subordination, he unsurprisingly wanted the authoritative decision to go to the ranking metropolitan bishop rather than the subservient priest. Eusebius of Caesarea, one of the bishops in attendance at the council, describes Constantine’s interference in the following excerpt:

[After reading a written statement] of our faith [aloud], there was no pretense for contradiction. But our pious emperor himself was the first to declare, that it was extremely well conceived, and that it expressed his own sentiments, exhorting all to assent to, and sign it, that they might unite in its doctrines, with the addition only of the single word consubstantial (homoousios). (-Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, pg. 417)​

Constantine wanted unity among his empire, and he was himself trying to assure that unity by siding with the Alexandrian bishop’s views. At this point in time, those who opposed the Alexander in favor of Arius would have been opposing Constantine himself (who announced during the meeting that anyone refusing to sign the creed would be exiled).

Arius was about 70 years old during his “trial” at Nicea. During the council’s procession Nicolaus, the bishop of Myra, struck a blow to the seventy-year old presbyter’s head. This gives us an adequate picture of the dominating attitude towards Arius during the council’s procession. Arius was not even allowed the dignity of presenting his defense––his written presentation was torn to pieces, and Constantine immediately exiled him for refusing to sign the creed.

Of the 250 bishops present at Nicea, only two bishops initially stood up to the Emperor’s threats. They were exiled along with Arius for not signing the Nicene Creed. Three of the bishops who did sign the creed afterwards recanted for having done so, as they subsequently stated in a letter addressed to Constantine himself, saying:

“We committed an impious act, O Prince, by subscribing to a blasphemy from fear of you.” (- Excerpt from Eusebius of Nicomedia’s letter to Constantine, as it reads in Jesus the Evidence, Ian Wilson, Harper and Row, 1984, p. 168)​

Although many of the bishops that signed the Nicene Creed first required an interpretation that would rule out the literal meaning of Constantine’s addition (homoousios), they, notwithstanding, did sign the creed. And thus you have the first imperial judgment given in favor of the Trinitarian doctrine. This final acceptance of the homoousios terminology is quite astonishing, because the Christian Synods of Antioch (264 – 272 AD) previously condemned this exact same term over fifty years prior to its acceptance at the Council of Nicea (325 AD).

The Catholic Encyclopedia records the rejection of homoousios by the Synods of Antioch, saying:

Origen ... expressed the anti-Sabellian sense of Dionysius of Alexandria by calling the Son “Heteroousion.” The question was brought into discussion by the Council of Antioch (264–272); and the Fathers seem to have rejected Homoousion, even going so far as to propose the phrase heteras ousias, that is, Heteroousion, “of other or different ousia (substance).” (-Catholic Encyclopedia, entry for Homoousion)​

The Dictionary of Early Christian Biography even concedes that these Synods of Antioch voted in favor of Arius’ beliefs, saying:

The question of the exact relation between the Father and the Son had been raised some 50 years before the Nicene controversy arose... So far as the earlier controversy could be said to have been decided, it was decided in favour of the opinions afterwards held by Arius. (-A Dictionary of Early Christian Biography, pg. 41)​

Unlike the more ancient Synods of Antioch who favored Arius’ views and rejected homoousios, the 4th century Council of Nicea (at the exhortation of the Roman Emperor) passed a resolution against those tenets by subscribing to the non-biblical Nicene Creed, which states that God and Christ are consubstantial.

Subsequent to the confirmation of the same-substance terminology at Nicea, Constantine issued letters to the Christian communities within his empire, urging them all to be unified under the doctrine approved at Nicea. Yet, there was such an objection to the new doctrine that he eventually reversed his position. Constantine thought that he would be successful in uniting Christendom under Alexander and Athanasius’ homoousios doctrine . . . he was wrong. Two years after the Council of Nicea, Arius was recalled from exile after finally being given a fair trial at the Council of Nicomedia.

In 341 AD, another Council was held at Antioch, where ninety-seven bishops announced that Arius was orthodox.

Another council was held at Rimini in 359 AD, where over four hundred bishops––That’s more bishops than were at Nicea!––signed a creed renouncing the homoousios doctrine altogether.

In any case, the council [of Rimini] was a sudden defeat of [Trinitarian] orthodoxy, and St. Jerome could say: “The whole world groaned in astonishment to find itself Arian.” (-The Catholic Encyclopedia, entry for Council of Rimini)​

In 380 AD, Emperor Theodsius began a public persecution of "Arians," promoting the Trinity doctrine by force.

 

[Gettingtalents]

I wrote that history account. Furthermore, I wrote a book on the Biblical proof of the Arian doctrine (it was the original doctrine).

The Book can be read here absolutely free:

Restoring the Biblical Christ (Vol.1)

Hope it helps.

 

[Der Alte]

Why would I give anti-Christian accusations when I'm a Christian?

I don't know but you do. Your posts attack historic Christianity with no, zero, none evidence.

 

[Der Alte]

. . . Shortly after Alexander became bishop, while he was standing by a window at his beach house waiting for some guests to arrive, he saw a group of boys playing on the shore, pretending to baptize one another in the sea.

He therefore sent for the children and had them brought into his presence. In the investigation that followed it was discovered that one of the boys, who was no other than the future Primate of Alexandria [Athanasius], had acted the part of the bishop, and in that character had actually baptized several of his companions in the course of their play. Alexander, who seems to have been unaccountably puzzled over the answers he received to his inquiries, determined to recognize the make-believe baptisms as genuine; and decided that Athanasius and his playfellows should go into training in order to fit themselves for a clerical career. (-The Catholic Encyclopedia, entry for Athanasius)​

. . .

When you copy/paste stuff from second hand sources you should check them for yourself. Just a few lines after what is quoted here the Catholic Encyclopedia entry reads,

But whether in its present form, or in the modified version to be found in Socrates (I, xv), who omits all reference to the baptism and says that the game was "an imitation of the priesthood and the order of consecrated persons", the tale raises a number of chronological difficulties and suggests even graver questions.

Perhaps a not impossible explanation of its origin may be found in the theory that it was one of the many floating myths set in movement by popular imagination to account for the marked bias towards an ecclesiastical career which seems to have characterized the early boyhood of the future champion of the Faith.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Athanasius​

Concerning the 325 Synod of Antioch I found a copy online here is what it says about the nature of Christ. It certainly does not condemn the use of the word "homoousia." Nor does it support the use of the word "heteroousia." May I suggest that you personally verify anything you post as fact because more than likely I will, and when you misquote, misrepresent, or quote out-of-context, as you have done here, I will let you know.

(A copy of a letter written by the Synod which assembled at Antioch, sent to Alexander, bishop of Constantinople*) date:Beginning of 325

Our faith is as follows:
To believe in one God, Father, almighty, incomprehensible, unchangeable and unalterable, administrator and governor of all, just, good, maker of heaven and earth, and all that is in them, the Lord of the Law and the Prophets and the New Testament. (9.) And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son, begotten not from nothing, but from the Father; not made, but a genuine offspring. He was begotten inexpressibly and unspeakably, because only the Father who begot and the Son who was begotten know it, “for no one knows the Father except the Son, or the Son except the Father” [Matt 11:27]. (10.) He always exists and never before did he not exist, for we have been taught from the holy Scriptures that he alone is God’s image. He is not unbegotten, for he is clearly begotten of the Father. This status has not been placed upon him; in fact, it would be godless blasphemy to say so. But the scriptures say that he is the real and truly begotten Son, so we believe him to be unchangeable and unalterable. He has not been begotten or come into being merely by the Father’s will, nor has this status been placed upon him, which would make him appear to be from nothing. But he was begotten as was fitting for him, not at all according to the impermissible idea that he resembles, is of similar nature to, or is associated with any of the things that came into existence through him. (11.) But, because this transcends all thought, conception, and expression, we simply confess that he has been begotten from the unbegotten Father, God the Word, true Light, righteousness, Jesus Christ, Lord of all and Savior. He is the image not of the will or of anything else except the actual being (hypostasis) of the Father. This one, the Son, God the Word, was also born in the flesh from Mary the Mother of God and was made flesh. After suffering and dying, he rose from the dead and was taken into heaven, and he sits at the right hand of the Majesty of the Most High. He is coming to judge the living and the dead. (12.) Just as the holy writings teach us to believe in our Savior, so also they teach us to believe in one Spirit, one catholic church, the resurrection of the dead, and the judgment which will pay back to each man according to what he has done in the flesh, whether good or evil. (13.) We anathematize those who say or think or proclaim that the Son of God is a creation (ktisma); has come into being (genētos), or was made (poiētos), or was not truly begotten; or that there was a time when he did not exist (for we believe that he was and that he is Light); still also those who think he is unchangeable only by his free will [i.e., not according to his essence], as with those who think he did not exist before he was begotten and that he is not unchanging by his nature as the Father is. He has been proclaimed as the Father’s image in every respect, especially in this respect, that he does not change.

Fourth Century Christianity Home » Letter of the Synod of Antioch (325)​

 

[Gettingtalents]

When you copy/paste stuff from second hand sources you should check them for yourself. Just a few lines after what is quoted here the Catholic Encyclopedia entry reads,

But whether in its present form, or in the modified version to be found in Socrates (I, xv), who omits all reference to the baptism and says that the game was "an imitation of the priesthood and the order of consecrated persons", the tale raises a number of chronological difficulties and suggests even graver questions.

Perhaps a not impossible explanation of its origin may be found in the theory that it was one of the many floating myths set in movement by popular imagination to account for the marked bias towards an ecclesiastical career which seems to have characterized the early boyhood of the future champion of the Faith.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Athanasius​

Concerning the 325 Synod of Antioch I found a copy online here is what it says about the nature of Christ. It certainly does not condemn the use of the word "homoousia." Nor does it support the use of the word "heteroousia." May I suggest that you personally verify anything you post as fact because more than likely I will, and when you misquote, misrepresent, or quote out-of-context, as you have done here, I will let you know.

(A copy of a letter written by the Synod which assembled at Antioch, sent to Alexander, bishop of Constantinople*) date:Beginning of 325

Our faith is as follows:
To believe in one God, Father, almighty, incomprehensible, unchangeable and unalterable, administrator and governor of all, just, good, maker of heaven and earth, and all that is in them, the Lord of the Law and the Prophets and the New Testament. (9.) And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son, begotten not from nothing, but from the Father; not made, but a genuine offspring. He was begotten inexpressibly and unspeakably, because only the Father who begot and the Son who was begotten know it, “for no one knows the Father except the Son, or the Son except the Father” [Matt 11:27]. (10.) He always exists and never before did he not exist, for we have been taught from the holy Scriptures that he alone is God’s image. He is not unbegotten, for he is clearly begotten of the Father. This status has not been placed upon him; in fact, it would be godless blasphemy to say so. But the scriptures say that he is the real and truly begotten Son, so we believe him to be unchangeable and unalterable. He has not been begotten or come into being merely by the Father’s will, nor has this status been placed upon him, which would make him appear to be from nothing. But he was begotten as was fitting for him, not at all according to the impermissible idea that he resembles, is of similar nature to, or is associated with any of the things that came into existence through him. (11.) But, because this transcends all thought, conception, and expression, we simply confess that he has been begotten from the unbegotten Father, God the Word, true Light, righteousness, Jesus Christ, Lord of all and Savior. He is the image not of the will or of anything else except the actual being (hypostasis) of the Father. This one, the Son, God the Word, was also born in the flesh from Mary the Mother of God and was made flesh. After suffering and dying, he rose from the dead and was taken into heaven, and he sits at the right hand of the Majesty of the Most High. He is coming to judge the living and the dead. (12.) Just as the holy writings teach us to believe in our Savior, so also they teach us to believe in one Spirit, one catholic church, the resurrection of the dead, and the judgment which will pay back to each man according to what he has done in the flesh, whether good or evil. (13.) We anathematize those who say or think or proclaim that the Son of God is a creation (ktisma); has come into being (genētos), or was made (poiētos), or was not truly begotten; or that there was a time when he did not exist (for we believe that he was and that he is Light); still also those who think he is unchangeable only by his free will [i.e., not according to his essence], as with those who think he did not exist before he was begotten and that he is not unchanging by his nature as the Father is. He has been proclaimed as the Father’s image in every respect, especially in this respect, that he does not change.

Fourth Century Christianity Home » Letter of the Synod of Antioch (325)​

Those were the Synods at Antioch much later. The first Synods at Antioch, in 269 AD are the ones I referred to. The two are not the same. The earliest one rejected the homoousios argument.

 

[RevelationTestament]

And your point is?

That you need to read the secular historians besides the church historian Eusebius. There is tons of historical evidence to support my claims. There is a saying: "History is written by the victor." Well that applies here. As a church historian Eusebius left out the negative aspects of Constantine and painted him in the most positive light he practically could.

Constantine was not the head of the Nicaean council! Other than the opening ceremony he did not speak at the council. And he was not a pagan priest. If you think so start digging up some credible, verifiable, historical not the unsupported anti-Christian rhetoric you keep posting over and over.

He was investitured with the office of Pontifex Maximus. That is not just a title. That was the office of the chief pagan priest of the Roman religion. On the other hand what evidence do you have he was a Christian? The evidence shows during the whole of his reign he was not reborn, and was not baptized. He was a murderer, and his actions show he was motivated by a desire to gain popularity and power - to consolidate his power rather than out of a desire to be a Christian example. He did not make himself Christian by winning battles under a "Christian" emblem either. Christ did not teach us to take up the sword.

Post your evidence. I'm tired of your empty rhetoric.
No, zero, none evidence. The same ol' empty rhetoric.

I don't think the rules will allow me to do that. But I wrote a book which quotes several historians on Constantine:
Barnes, Timothy D. Constantine and Eusebius (Harvard Univ. Press; Cam., Mass. 1981), p. 226.
Boak & Sinnigen. A History of Rome to A.D. 565 (Macmillan Co., N.Y., 1965), p. 506.
The Cambridge Medieval History, v.I, p.140.
Gibbon, Edward. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, v.5 (Kelmscott Society, NY), p.21.
Grant, Michael. Constantine the Great (Charles Scribner's Sons, NY. 1993), p.86.
Holsapple, Lloyd. Constantine the Great (Sheed & Ward, NY 1942), p.354.

Who are these so-called objective "historians" and what evidence do they have for their conclusions? What 20th-21st century scholars say about historical events is worthless without evidence.

See above. May I suggest you go examine them for yourself since it is thousands of pages of evidence?

 

[Der Alte]

I wrote that history account. Furthermore, I wrote a book on the Biblical proof of the Arian doctrine (it was the original doctrine).

The Book can be read here absolutely free:

Restoring the Biblical Christ (Vol.1)

Hope it helps.

I read about a page when I found the first errors.

Alexander (the bishop of Alexandria who apostatized in the early 4th century and thereafter began the persecution against his subordinate presbyter, Arius) describes the Arian belief regarding how Christ is called Wisdom, saying:

[Arius teaches that] he is neither like the Father in regards to his essence, nor is he by nature either the Father’s true Word, or true Wisdom. He is one of the things made and produced, but he is called Word and Wisdom inexactly, since he himself came into being by God’s own Word and by the Wisdom of God, whereby God made not only all things, but him also.

Athanasius (Alexander’s “bulldog” and successor) agreed that Proverbs 8:22 referred to Christ, but he refused to accept the literal meaning of the text.​

This shows your bias, Arius was the apostate, not Alexander. Alexander could not have apostasized from Arianism because it was not the prevailing belief. And you apparently do not understand your own quote. Everything you quoted in the second paragraph which begins [Arius teaches that] was spoken by Arius not Alexander. Then more bias you use an insulting epithet, "bulldog" to refer to Athanasius. Here are some quotes from Alexander showing the heresy of Arius and his followers.

Letter of Alexander to Melitius and all bishops.

Both Arius and Achillas and those with them have become hostile to these teachings and have been driven out of the church for teaching things which are foreign to the orthodox teaching. As the blessed Paul says, “If anyone preaches a gospel besides the one you received, let him be accursed (ἀνάθεμα ἔστ&#969”. [And after other things…]

(4.) In fact, according to this saying they must deny both “in the beginning was the Word” and “Christ is the Power of God and the Wisdom of God,” or they must teach that he is not the Word and Wisdom of the Father, or they must believe that God has never begotten Wisdom or Word. Understand that these ideas could only come from an unbelieving soul; they are completely foreign to a disciple of Christ.

Fourth Century Christianity Home » Letter of Alexander of Alexandria Sent to Melitius and All Bishops

Letter of Alexander of Alexandria to all bishops (Henos sōmatos)

(6.) These then are those who have become apostates: Arius, Achillas, Aithales, and Carpones, a second Arius, Sarmates, who were all once priests; Euzoïus, Lucius, Julius, Menas, Helladius, and Gaius, who were all once deacons; and with these also Secundus and Theonas, who were once called bishops. (7.) The dogmas which, going beyond Scripture, they have invented and asserted, are the following:

“God was not always the Father, but there was once when God was not the Father. The Word of God was not always in existence, but came into being from nothing, for ‘the God who is’ made ‘him who did not previously exist’ out of nothing. For this reason, there was once when he did not exist; for the Son is a creature (ktisma) and a created being (poiēma). He is neither like the Father in essence (kat’ ousian), nor is he by nature either the Father’s true Word or his true Wisdom, but rather one of the things he made (poiēmatōn) and one of those he begot (genētōn). He is called Word and Wisdom only by analogy, since he himself came into being from the actual (idios) Word of God and the Wisdom which is in God, by which God made all things including him. (8.) His nature is mutable and susceptible of change, as are all rational beings. And thus the Word is alien to, other than, and excluded from the essence (ousia) of God; and the Father is invisible to the Son. For the Word neither knows the Father perfectly and accurately, nor can he see him perfectly. For the Son does not even know his own essence as it exists, (9.) since he was made for our sake, in order that God could create us through him, as through an instrument, and he would never have existed if God had not wanted to create us.”​

Fourth Century Christianity Home » Letter of Alexander* of Alexandria to all bishops (Henos sōmatos)​

 

[RevelationTestament]

I wrote that history account. Furthermore, I wrote a book on the Biblical proof of the Arian doctrine (it was the original doctrine).

The Book can be read here absolutely free:

Restoring the Biblical Christ (Vol.1)

Hope it helps.

Thank you for your link and your contributions.
However, I will state that I am not Arian nor Unitarian. I firmly hold that Christ is YHWH Elohim with the Father or LORD God in the KJV.
I did peruse your book. How do you hold Christ is the begotten Son of the Father?
You have a whole chapter "Begotten of God" yet, I could not satisfy my question.
You state: "The Father and the Son cannot be the same individual, and therefore (since God
is an individual) the Son cannot be the same God as the Father."
Hmmm. I disagree. Christ cannot be the same individual and He is not El Elyon, the Most High God.
However, that does not mean He cannot be the same God or Elohim, a plural word. After all Psalm 82 and Christ declare that the Hebrews were elohim.
Let us examine further what you say: "The Hebrew Masoretic text says something slightly different: “Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forsaken God[what Hebrew word is used here?] that formed thee.” (Deuteronomy 32:18 KJV) Instead of saying “God” begot the Israelites the Hebrew text says that “the Rock” begot them. However, since God is declared to be “the Rock” in verses 3-4 of the same chapter (Deuteronomy 32) then the thought remains the same––'God begot the Israelites.'”

What did Christ call Himself? "The chief Cornerstone." Who created man? Elohim or El Elyon?

 

[Der Alte]

Those were the Synods at Antioch much later. The first Synods at Antioch, in 269 AD are the ones I referred to. The two are not the same. The earliest one rejected the homoousios argument.

Even if the 269 council did reject the homoousios it was not unanimous.

The Christology of the Council of Antioch (268. C.E.) Reconsidered

Paul of Samosata, who succeeded Demetrianus as bishop of Antioch in 260 C. E., faced heresy charges early in his career and formal interrogations in 264 and 268 at synods in Antioch. The second of these condemned him. This study seeks to reinterpret the Christological position of the faction opposing Paul and to analyze its implications for the later development of eastern Christian thought. Of course, the bishops and presbyters who met at Antioch in the 260s to discuss the morals and doctrines of Paul did not represent a unified doctrinal position. Gathered from various regions, they revealed a diversity of motives and concerns. Even the label “Origenists,” often used to characterize the group, is misleading. Although many of the attending prelates followed Origen and his school, there is no record of conscious appeal to the writings of the Alexandrian master.

Cambridge Journals Online - Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture - Abstract - The Christology of the Council of Antioch (268. C.E.) Reconsidered​

 

[RevelationTestament]

The Hebrew scriptures use:
Adon(i) . . . . . . . . . YHWH . . . . . . . . . . .Eloah
El Shaddai(Almighty in KJV) . . . . El Elyon(Most High). . . . . . . .Avinu (our father)

Adonai . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . Elohim

 

[LegacyJB]

I don't know but you do. Your posts attack historic Christianity with no, zero, none evidence.

I'm not attacking Christianity. I simply said it's false about Constantine being a Christian other than on his death bed. That's not anti-Christian, that's a historical fact. The guy was a Pagan, that is very well documented. Just because you disagree doesn't make it anti-Christian. I'm a Christian who supports the truth. I don't follow Constantine's lead nor do I follow any of the councils that were held for none of them were led by God through the Spirit. These councils resulted in banishment after banishment with Constantine showing support to whoever seemed to be winning their view point.

 

[Gettingtalents]

Even if the 269 council did reject the homoousios it was not unanimous.

The Christology of the Council of Antioch (268. C.E.) Reconsidered

Paul of Samosata, who succeeded Demetrianus as bishop of Antioch in 260 C. E., faced heresy charges early in his career and formal interrogations in 264 and 268 at synods in Antioch. The second of these condemned him. This study seeks to reinterpret the Christological position of the faction opposing Paul and to analyze its implications for the later development of eastern Christian thought. Of course, the bishops and presbyters who met at Antioch in the 260s to discuss the morals and doctrines of Paul did not represent a unified doctrinal position. Gathered from various regions, they revealed a diversity of motives and concerns. Even the label “Origenists,” often used to characterize the group, is misleading. Although many of the attending prelates followed Origen and his school, there is no record of conscious appeal to the writings of the Alexandrian master.

Cambridge Journals Online - Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture - Abstract - The Christology of the Council of Antioch (268. C.E.) Reconsidered​

These were the same things. The Synods spanned a few years. There is nothing in here that says they did not reject the homoousious terminology. To the contrary, I showed you that they did. Nicene Trinitarianism is not the original doctrine of the Bible or the early Christians. It didn't even start being mentioned, that is the Three are one God, until a response to Sabellianism was needed, and Tertullian and Hippolytus addressed the issue. However, they were not "Trinitarians" as in "Three persons who are one being through the sharing of a divine nature" but used emanation terminology, which is reflective of Valentine's doctrine of several emanations who were all God. Before that, no Trinity. In the Bible, no Trinity. Widespread Christianity, no Trinity until after Nicea. As I quoted, some never even heard of one being divided into two (much less three) before the Nicene Crisis.

Blessings,
Jason

 

[Der Alte]

These were the same things. The Synods spanned a few years. There is nothing in here that says they did not reject the homoousious terminology. To the contrary, I showed you that they did. Nicene Trinitarianism is not the original doctrine of the Bible or the early Christians. It didn't even start being mentioned, that is the Three are one God, until a response to Sabellianism was needed, and Tertullian and Hippolytus addressed the issue. However, they were not "Trinitarians" as in "Three persons who are one being through the sharing of a divine nature" but used emanation terminology, which is reflective of Valentine's doctrine of several emanations who were all God. Before that, no Trinity. In the Bible, no Trinity. Widespread Christianity, no Trinity until after Nicea. As I quoted, some never even heard of one being divided into two (much less three) before the Nicene Crisis.

Blessings,
Jason

You have not showed me that the Nicaean canons were not the original doctrine, etc. You evidently do not even know what the Nicaean canons say. The word Trinity NEVER occurs in the canons of the council. The Trinity was never discussed or imposed by Nicaea. The rest is the same ol' anti- rhetoric with no, zero, none evidence.

Just a suggestion, try doing what I do. When I say something I almost always quote at least one credible, verifiable, historical source which supports my assertion.

 

[Der Alte]

That you need to read the secular historians besides the church historian Eusebius. There is tons of historical evidence to support my claims. There is a saying: "History is written by the victor." Well that applies here. As a church historian Eusebius left out the negative aspects of Constantine and painted him in the most positive light he practically could.

Why should I read any secular historian? Were any of them there when Constantine lived? Unless they lived at that time or they have credible, verifiable, historical evidence their opinions are worthless. And that you don't have.

He was investitured with the office of Pontifex Maximus. That is not just a title. That was the office of the chief pagan priest of the Roman religion.

Wrong again.

The Pontifex Maximus #Latin, literally: "greatest pontiff"# was the high priest of the College of Pontiffs #Collegium Pontificum# in ancient Rome. This was the most important position in the ancient Roman religion, open only to patricians until 254 BC, when a plebeian first occupied this post. A distinctly religious office under the early Roman Republic, it gradually became politicized until, beginning with Augustus, it was subsumed into the Imperial office. Its last use with reference to the emperors is in inscriptions of Gratian[1] #reigned 375–383# who, however, then decided to omit the words "pontifex maximus" from his title.

The word "pontifex" later became a term used for Christian bishops, including the Bishop of Rome, and the title of "Pontifex Maximus" was applied within the Roman Catholic Church to the Pope as its chief bishop. It is not included in the Pope's official titles, but appears on buildings, monuments and coins of popes of Renaissance and modern times.

"Pontifex Maximus" Lacus Curtius retrieved August 15, 2006

"Gratian." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Feb 3, 2008

"Pontifex Maximus" Livius.org article by Jona Lendering retrieved August 21, 2011​

On the other hand what evidence do you have he was a Christian?

The writing of two contemporary historians, Eusebius and Lactantius. Want to disprove them produce evidence recorded at or near the same time, not the biases and suppositions of modern "scholars," 1700+ years after the fact. You got any of that?

The evidence shows during the whole of his reign he was not reborn, and was not baptized.

Nonsense!

He was a murderer, and his actions show he was motivated by a desire to gain popularity and power - to consolidate his power rather than out of a desire to be a Christian example.

Rubbish!

He did not make himself Christian by winning battles under a "Christian" emblem either. Christ did not teach us to take up the sword

.

That is correct.

 

[RevelationTestament]

Why should I read any secular historian? Were any of them there when Constantine lived? Unless they lived at that time or they have credible, verifiable, historical evidence their opinions are worthless. And that you don't have.

I see how this is going to go....
You're all about arguing whatever you need to argue to "protect" orthodoxy. K' man. You're free to be in denial. Just showing you there's a whole world outside the likes of Eusebius' stilted version of things - it becomes obvious when you notice he left negative facts out of his second edition that he had in his first. Y'know if you don't even crack those books you may be able to avoid acknowledging there are other ancient sources for facts besides Eusebius.

Wrong again.

The Pontifex Maximus #Latin, literally: "greatest pontiff"# was the high priest of the College of Pontiffs #Collegium Pontificum# in ancient Rome. This was the most important position in the ancient Roman religion, open only to patricians until 254 BC, when a plebeian first occupied this post. A distinctly religious office under the early Roman Republic, it gradually became politicized until, beginning with Augustus, it was subsumed into the Imperial office. Its last use with reference to the emperors is in inscriptions of Gratian[1] #reigned 375–383# who, however, then decided to omit the words "pontifex maximus" from his title.

The word "pontifex" later became a term used for Christian bishops, including the Bishop of Rome, and the title of "Pontifex Maximus" was applied within the Roman Catholic Church to the Pope as its chief bishop. It is not included in the Pope's official titles, but appears on buildings, monuments and coins of popes of Renaissance and modern times.

"Pontifex Maximus" Lacus Curtius retrieved August 15, 2006

"Gratian." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Feb 3, 2008

"Pontifex Maximus" Livius.org article by Jona Lendering retrieved August 21, 2011​

What does this have to do with proving Constantine didn't hold the office of Pontifex Maximus? All the emperors from the time of Caesar did. Caesar even moved into the house of the pontifex maximus. They all became the head of the pagan religion showing themselves as gods to the people. This is the custom Constantine came out of and kept complete with ceremony.

The writing of two contemporary historians, Eusebius and Lactantius. Want to disprove them produce evidence recorded at or near the same time, not the biases and suppositions of modern "scholars," 1700+ years after the fact. You got any of that?

No, to be honest my purpose is not to please you. If you want to acknowledge truth, I've published plenty of it, and there are thousands of pages you can sort through to dig out all the ancient sources to satisfy yourself. I've seen them. I know they are there. Problem is I can't read them well, so yes, I do crazy things like rely on English historians.

Nonsense!
Rubbish!

You know the saying, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."
.

That is correct.

That and a lot more.

 

[Gettingtalents]

You have not showed me that the Nicaean canons were not the original doctrine, etc. You evidently do not even know what the Nicaean canons say. The word Trinity NEVER occurs in the canons of the council. The Trinity was never discussed or imposed by Nicaea. The rest is the same ol' anti- rhetoric with no, zero, none evidence.

The Nicene Creed states that God and Christ are homoousious. I never said they said "Trinity." I addressed the term homoousious. This term, which DOES appear in the Nicene Creed (and was put there at the insistence of Constantine) was REJECTED at the Synods of Antioch around 50 years BEFORE Nicea.

I documented a bunch of sources in the history I wrote. Very clear. Sounds like you are missing what is actually being said and fabricating things that were not said (i.e., that I believed the word Trinity was in the Creed). I addressed the beginnings of the Doctrine, but that was after I showed that the Nicene Creed contained a word that described the relation of Christ to God that was formerly rejected at the Synods of Antioch. This is fact. History. Not even up for debate.

 

[Gettingtalents]

You know the saying, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

I am still holding out hope for him...

I don't get it though...

Facts are facts

 

[RevelationTestament]

I did see the reference in your book to
Deuteronomy 32:18
18 Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee.

Here the name being used is Eloah which is a singular form. What is it's plural?

 

[Gettingtalents]

I did see the reference in your book to
Deuteronomy 32:18
18 Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee.

Here the name being used is Eloah which is a singular form. What is it's plural?

The plural is Elohim. Which, if taken as a plural, means "gods." But is used of God, I believe, to denote a plural of majesty.

Hebrew grammar allows for this nominally-plural form to mean "He is the Power (singular) over powers (plural)", or roughly, "God of gods". Rabbinic scholar Maimonides wrote that the various other usages are commonly understood to be homonyms.[5] The plural form ending in -im can also be understood as denoting abstraction, as in the Hebrew words chayyim ("life") or betulim ("virginity"). If understood this way, Elohim means "divinity" or "deity"​

It is also used of pagan gods in the OT, even when a singular entity was the referrent (Judges 11:24, 1Kings 11:5).

Some have argued that the plural form denotes a Trinity, but the plural literally means "gods" not "persons."

Honestly, I am not very familiar with Hebrew. But believe it to refer to God in the plural of majesty.