Father and Son – sounds like a universal language to me.
Of course it does.
This is the reason I am an Arian…
So you do have an agenda! Can’t you see you should have begun with that? And then explained how you came to that conclusion.
The Gates of Hell are always open wide just as the Road to Hell begins everywhere. Always room for one more on that Sad Path. But Hell is in the mind and the only ones who go are the ones who believe in it. And they’re already there.
Stephen said
Father and Son – sounds like a universal language to me.
Of course it does.
This is the reason I am an Arian…
So you do have an agenda! Can’t you see you should have begun with that? And then explained how you came to that conclusion.
-
- The Textual Baseline: Decades were spent strictly dismantling the text of the Apocalypse using scripture alone.
- The Faith Gap: As a believer, I am looking to reconstruct a true understanding of the divine voice, while an atheist perspective is content to just leave it dismantled, the wave aka deconstructing the faith.
- The Logical Conclusion: Embracing positions like Arianism isn’t a hidden plot. It is the natural consequence of a believer rejecting the Alexandrian, state-enforced narrative.
Stephen said
I only recently took the Arian position to defend it by actively questioning the official narrative. The same goes for my defense of Nestorius and others. My agenda is not hidden at all—it is built right into my nickname, Adam the First, and 1st Antiochian.
To begin with what? I have spent decades revealing that the Book of Revelation is false. All of these specific historical figures and theological labels were completely irrelevant to me during that entire period.
You agenda is hidden to those of us who don’t know about it! And we’re supposed to recognize you by your nickname? We haven’t known you for “decades” and the Book of Revelation is not relevant to this here thread.
Describe what you mean by “Arianism”. Tell us why you take this position. That might be useful.
I don’t want to disrespect anyones topic. Already looks like I am jumping out from nowhere. Regarding Arius, I even have two distinct approaches: the historical and the textual, pick the one you’re interested in to read it completely. Later “Arianism” evolved, and it is highly debatable how much of that shift happened because of his enemies, and how much we can actually label the original stance as heresy.
Arius did not use those four words by accident. He stacked them deliberately to build a protective legal wall around his “if-then” framework. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
He knew the Alexandrian faction would try to find a linguistic loophole to say, “Well, the Son wasn’t ‘created,’ he was ‘begotten,’ so your rule doesn’t apply to him!” To prevent them from playing word games, Arius intentionally quoted the exact Greek verbs used for the Messiah across different parts of the Scripture: [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
Twisting Arius’s Words: Alexander sent circular letters to all bishops in the empire in which he presented Arius’s words in the worst possible light, accusing him of making Christ out to be a “mere man” or a “pagan god”—which Arius never claimed. Arius simply maintained that the Father is the only unbegotten and beginningless source of all, a theology that fits perfectly with the words of Christ Himself from the Gospel: “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28).
Alexander was the one who hatched the plan: to turn a theological debate into a crime against the state. Athanasius merely took over that position of power when Alexander died in 328 AD. The Alexandrian school had to destroy Arius because his theology was too simple, too focused on Scripture and the people, and it left no room for creating that complicated imperial mysticism used later to control the masses.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)