“To his most dear lord, the man of God, the faithful and orthodox Eusebius, Arius, unjustly persecuted by Bishop Alexander on account of that all-conquering truth which you also defend, sends greeting in the Lord.

Since Ammonius, who is coming to Nicomedia, appeared to offer a good opportunity for writing, I thought it my duty to greet you, and through you to remind your deep charity and natural affection for your brethren, how greatly the bishop harasses and persecutes us. He leaves no stone unturned against us. He has driven us out of the city as atheists, because we do not concur with him when he preaches publicly:

‘Always God, always Son.’
‘At the same time Father, at the same time Son.’
‘The Son co-exists unbegotten with the God.’
‘He is ever-begotten, yet unbegotten-begotten.’
‘Neither by thought nor by any interval does God precede the Son.’
‘Always God, always Son, the Son is from God himself.’

Since Eusebius, your brother bishop of Caesarea, Theodotus, Paulinus, Athanasius [of Anazarbus], Gregory, Aetius, and all the bishops of the East say that God exists before the Son without a beginning, they have been condemned—except only Philogonius, Hellanicus, and Macarius, who are heretical and untaught men…

But what do we say and think? What have we taught, and what do we teach?

We teach that the Son is not unbegotten, nor a part of the unbegotten in any way, nor is he derived from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has existed before time and before the eons, as perfect God, only-begotten and unchangeable.

And before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten.

We are persecuted because we say, ‘The Son has a beginning, but God is without a beginning.’ For this we are persecuted, and because we say, ‘He is from nothing.’ And this we say, because he is neither a part of God, nor of any essential matter. For this we are persecuted; the rest you know.

Farewell in the Lord, remembering our afflictions, my fellow-Lucianist!”

• • “By His own Will and Counsel”: This is exactly your “Voila!” moment. The Son doesn’t emanate naturally or accidentally; God willed Him into existence to do a job.
  • “Before he was begotten… he was not”: There is Arius’s exact boundary line. Before that action at the Arhe, the distinct entity of the Logos did not exist.
  • The “Eastern” Support: Notice how Arius explicitly claims that “all the bishops of the East” agree with this logic. He is relying on that exact Antiochian/Syrian tradition you mentioned to back him up against Egypt.

• • Phase 1: Immanent (The Unspoken Word): In eternity, the Logos exists completely within the Father. It is God’s own internal reason and thought. There is no separation, no timeline, and no second entity. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
  • Phase 2: The “Voila!” Moment (The Spoken Word):
     
     

    The exact moment the Father speaks, the Logos is externalized. That sudden utterance is the Arhe.

  • The Fusion of Christ and Time: The speaking of the Logos and the creation of time happen at the exact same cosmic millisecond. Therefore, Jesus is the Arhe—He is the very anchor point, the first pixel, and the starting line of reality. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]

ALEXANDRIA'S MODEL:
Platonic Allegory ➔ 6 Days are Symbols ➔ Logos is an Abstract Eternal Being

ANTIOCH'S MODEL:
Semitic Literalism ➔ 6 Days are Real ➔ Logos is God's Spoken Creative Power

• Rejection of “Platonic Leakage”: Thinkers like Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia argued that Alexandrian theologians were corrupting scripture with Neoplatonism, treating God like a passive source leaking out emanations.
• The Power of the Spoken Word: Antioch focused heavily on the physical action of speech in ** you do not have permission to see this link **]
• A True Start-Line: For Antioch, if Genesis says “In the Beginning,” it means a definitive, literal start line for reality. Trying to invent complex theological concepts like “eternal generation” (the idea that the Son is being eternally born in a timeless loop) was viewed by Antioch as word games that destroyed the clear, narrative truth of creation. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]

Stephen said
1stadam, I appreciate that you have certain axes to grind.  That’s what the thread is for.  But just so you’ll understand why I don’t readily respond to your comments let me reiterate that my primary focus of interest is ante-Nicene Christology.  By the time you get to Arius I begin to lose interest simply because it’s such well worn ground.   But a couple points.
First, the main point I would make about Arius is that far from being the wild-eyed rebel, his thinking was a variation on what was in fact the current majority view of Christians.  What’s come to be called “Hierarchical Subordinationism”.  Nicene Trinitarianism was the “new-fangled” idea.  Arianism lasted for centuries east and west and was only rooted out finally at the point of a sword. 
Second, when I discuss “Trinitarianism”, I invariably mean Nicene Trinitarianism; what became the orthodox viewpoint of the Church.  Three Persons, one Substance.  I fully understand that some quibble about the use of the term.  My own view is that trinitarianism in its various forms begins to apply only when we discuss the ontological relationship between its members.  Consequently I don’t think there is any real trinitarianism within the New Testament or for most of the second century for that matter

• 1. On Arius and the Narrative: I agree that what we know about Arius has been heavily researched through the lens of narratives written by his enemies. Even figures like Athanasius eventually became enemies of the Empire. However, a total reversal ultimately took place, and the official Church secured its victory with the help of the sword.
• 2. On Hierarchical Subordinationism: You mention “hierarchical subordinationism,” but isn’t every form of subordinationism inherently hierarchical? This phrasing confuses me.
• 3. On Nicene Trinitarianism as a Novelty: I do not understand your point that Nicene Trinitarianism was a “new-fangled idea” or a novelty.
• 4. On Three Persons and One Substance: The concept of “Three Persons” is not the issue here. The problem lies with “substance” (substantia), which is a material concept as opposed to a spiritual one. In my view, it should never have been introduced in the first place—it was weaponized precisely as a linguistic sword.
• 5. On Ontological Relationships and Motives: You state that trinitarianism applies only when discussing the ontological relationship between its members. This is my central objection to the Nicenes: who put them in heaven to even be in a position to debate the relationship between the Father and the Son? Furthermore, why did they forget the Holy Spirit, the third member, at that time? Therefore, we absolutely must investigate their motives [and I would continue from here]…
• 6. On Trinitarianism in the New Testament: You claim that real trinitarianism does not exist within the New Testament. This is exactly where we disagree.

because early on the nature of these entities was expressed functionally rather than ontologically.  The NT is concerned with Christ’s soteriological role not his nature.  That said the Triad of the Father, Son & Holy Ghost appears quite early.  But it is a mistake to refer to this Triad as a Trinity for the reasons I just elaborated.  
Third, any scholastic worthy of the name will admit that there is an aspect of mystery to the Trinity. A component that transcends our ability to quantify logically.  Now that certainly can become a tactic to ward off close examine of the doctrine’s inner incoherencies but it’s a mistake to think that the doctrine’s formulators were unconscious of that aspect.  As I’ve already pointed out elsewhere, their motives are occluded but contemplation of the Trinity can certainly function as a way to experience Divine Mystery.    

• 7. On Greek Philosophy and Semitic Roots: Terms from Greek philosophy, such as “substance” and “ontology,” were introduced, but it is highly questionable how much they actually have to do with religion. We replaced the Semitic concept of Memra with the Greek philosophical concept of Logos. As a result, our entire framework of logic became theirs. I am no scholastic, and I have no love for “mysteries.”
• 8. On Soteriology vs. Nature: Your statement that “The NT is concerned with Christ’s soteriological role, not his nature” is an excellent point. However, this line of thought needs to be thoroughly expanded and elaborated upon
• Ultimately, you leave me confused. Are we simply not going to investigate their motives? You accept the orthodox definition of ‘Three Persons, One Substance,’ but you choose to call the early framework a ‘Triad of entities’ instead of a ‘Trinity of Persons.’ Why split hairs over these terms? If you acknowledge the three entities exist from the beginning, why is it a mistake to call them the Trinity?
• On the other hand, I accept 3 Persons, but reject “substance” because it is material term.

I can’t find any ideas similar to those of Athanasius before the late Third Century and early Fourth.   Nobody in the NT or the Second century thought like Athanasius.  (This is a common strategy when introducing innovations into the tradition.  Claiming that you’re “getting back to the original” apostolic teaching.  See the Protestant Reformation.)  

Who do you compare with Protestants, me or Athanasius? I am trying to be logical: the reason why I am getting back to the roots is exactly Athanasius.

Take it up with Aristotle although ** you do not have permission to see this link ** predates him.  Once again this just shows how essential Greek philosophy was to Christianity. 

If we are intellectually honest, we have to decide whether substance means in a general sense material, or living being. If we are talking about BEINGS, then we are looking at what is common to, at least, 2 PERSONS if not more. If that is how we define “substance” or”essence” – OF LIVING BEING, that has to be added. Otherwise, it means material, without any spirit. I’m driving you, of course, toward the definition of God – Spirit.

The early church Fathers used Hellenistic concepts to formulate their views of Christianity.  This was the sea they swam in.  Second Temple Judaism was thoroughly Hellenized.  By this time the Aramaic Memra and the Greek Logos were functionally identical.  Both described a divine intermediary between the transcendent God and the material world, God’s active principle at work in creation and salvation.   Some thought the Word was an emanation of God which achieved a kind of independent existence.  Some thought the Word itself was the “Firstborn of all Creation”. 

This is very wide subject, huge.

Surely you would prefer someone more adept at it than me?   

No, I like you historians, to debate with you about religion. History is my weakest point, and I am always willing to learn, just pickiness is my problem.

You claim that real trinitarianism does not exist within the New Testament. This is exactly where we disagree.

OK, can you provide an example? 

I don’t know how we don’t understand each other? The doctrine of Trinitarianism explains Trinity. You have to reject the Gospel in order to reject the doctrine of 3. [TRI]: tri explicitly means the number 3 (from the Greek tria and Latin tres).

** you do not have permission to see this link **

Frank who? Why don’t you brief me, if think, I am missing something?

1. Trias (Trinity) was explicitly used by Theophilus of Antioch around 180 AD – do you see my nick-name? This I accept;
2. by 200 AD, Tertullian explicitly formalized the logic of ‘One Substance, Three Persons. – this is a potential problem: PERSONS I accept, and “substance” we need to define, as said above.

Why problem you may ask. We have to make a clear distinction between celestial beings and earthly creatures. Earthly creatures are material, but celestial beings are Spirit, which is totally another level of existance.

Porphyry said
>> The doctrine of Trinitarianism explains Trinity. You have to reject the Gospel in order to reject the doctrine of 3. [TRI]: tri explicitly means the number 3 (from the Greek tria and Latin tres).
Of course everyone know what tri- means. You think that by embracing the term Trinity, all educated tinitarians openly committed themselves to tritheism? 
Come on. You can’t be serious. 
  

They lied about there being only one God just to defend themselves against accusations of polytheism, when in reality they are practicing the worship of three.

I am not only serious, but honest, and they are NOT. ELOHIM IS THE PLURAL.

lOOK THE EVIDENCE IN PROLOGUE OF JOHN’S GOSPEL:

• The First Entity: The text says the Logos was pros ton theon (with the God, using the definite article ton), which refers strictly to the Father as the Supreme God.
• The Second Entity: It then states kai theos en ho logos (and god was the Logos, deliberately dropping the definite article), which means the Logos possessed a divine quality or status, but was legally and separate from the God he was with

By using this specific Greek phrasing, the text clearly outlines a hierarchy between two distinct realities rather than describing one single being.

Seriously, because I don’t get you people,- why is so wrong to believe in 3 Gods? I was baptized in orthodoxy in the name of the 3, father, son and hg. Makes no sense to deny there are 3 GODS.

Porphyry said
>> why is so wrong to believe in 3 Gods?
I have absolutely no problem with you believing in three gods. I’ve actually gotten rather sympathetic to polytheists. 
But I do bristle at the manner in which you have chosen to defend that belief. 
  

Sorry Porfy, I’m not the Highlander—”there can be only one”, lol!

Stephen said

I SAID: Are we simply not going to investigate their motives?
YOU REPLIED: How would you do that?

  

• The Alexandrian Inversion: By minimizing the literal, historical humanity taught by Antioch, Alexandria successfully shifted the focus to a cosmic, interchangeable divinity.
• The Linguistic Bait-and-Switch: This is exactly where the Logos and homoousia frameworks were weaponized to erase the clear boundaries between Father and Son.
• The Institutional Motive: A purely cosmic, divine monarch provides the ultimate blueprint for a supreme, centralized state power. A relatable, historical human Messiah does not.