Talk:Arianism

Please, can someone review what is supposed to mean the second paragraph after "Fourth Century", where it reads "At one point... ... but Arians".? Should that be refrased?

"Christological" points to Jesus Christ--do we infer that "Christological" is jargon that simply means "of or relating to Jesus Christ"? --Larry Sanger

I 'spose. At least it wasn't one of the Pneumatological heresies. --MichaelTinkler

Yes, then we would have to go through the "pneumatic" drill. b-dum tss!! ;-) --LMS

Did the Aryans really invade India?

Yes, around 2000 B.C. they invaded and started making a civilization that produced many works of Hindu sacred literature such as the Rig Vedas and Upanishads. (feel free to put this on the actual page, or start a new topic)

Yes, the Arians lost at the church council, but (as the article notes) there are still Arians today. Is "heresy" NPOV? If not, is there a better term? Vicki Rosenzweig

Well, but none of these modern Arians or semi-Arians traces an actual connection to the early Christian Arians. It's a similarity or a 'nothing new under the sun' or a re-invention. "Heresy" is certainly problematic given the - ahem - 'broad' way we have defined things here. --MichaelTinkler

I revised this sentence: The Jehovahs Witnesses continue to espouse a form of Arianism today, explicitly agreeing with Arius. It seems to imply that JWs have always existed and have continuously agreed with Arius. Nope. --MichaelTinkler (although do THEY themselves believe they have always existed?)

I vaguely recall reading that the Nestorian church was Arian, and they were influential in Asia later than this article refers to--converted some significant number of Genghis Khan's followers, I think. Anyone remember this, or do I need to do the research?

The article suggests Gene Roddenberry is a Mormon...uhhhhh, Idon'thinkso. B 14:21, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The Great Hoax that Led to Arianism

Arius was of true coptic african egpytian origin. He disagreed with the roman/greek spin being put on the triad/trinity story. He stayed true to the original deities,(osiris, isis, & horus) vs. The vicar of serapis which gave this great fake, osirian features. Then replaced the sun-god, with the created creature. They were upset that the majority of the real coptic african egyptians wouldn't accept the man created deity. Isn't it funny that the great arianism of today, don't even like africans, and their for father was african? It pays to research before jumping on a band wagon!!! This article states arius was a christian. Wrong!! Christianity wasn't even formed a such yet. It was still being transformed from its original creation story to one that would give honor to roman/greek image vs. The jet black gods whom have not forgotten, and will still ressurect!! Whoa to all the demons who took part in this great switch to allow ra's chosen people to become slaves/servants.. Osiris will live again & right(always over left)the wrong... Ho tep! -- Ra child

Deeply Confused Paragraph

I began copy-editing the following 'graph, and then realized i had no idea what the author is trying to convey. Can someone with comparative-religion expertise make some sense out of it, and rewrite at a level consistent with the rest of the article? As it stands, it stalls most readers and intereferes with the usefulness of the article.

In terms of comparative religion, Arianism is seen as an common example of where Christian theology became culturally merged with Eastern religious, "pagan" influences, which tend to have distinct divinities manifesting separated divine and elemental powers. The conflict with the Church, being the vessel by which this past "conflict" is viewed today, was a simple factor of the Church's unique power, growing and far-reaching at the time.

--Jerzy 18:04, 2004 Feb 4 (UTC)

JW and Islamic beliefs

Unless I'm mistaken, Jehovah's Witnesses believe Christ should be worshipped. Also the summary of Islamic beliefs about Muhammed is incorrect, although its unclear to me whether this incorrectness is believed by the source cited.

I think that you are mistaken about JW beliefs. There may be some subtlety involved here, but the JWs believe that Jehovah, the Father, is the only object of worship. People and angels may bow down before Jesus, but JWs do not believe that they worship him; and the Holy Spirit is not to be worshipped.

"No, Jesus did not teach his disciples to pray to him, to his mother Mary, or to any other person. But God now requires that we recognize the position of his Son and offer all our prayers in Jesus' name. That is why Christ told his followers: "No one comes to the Father except through me."-John 14:6. For prayers to be acceptable to God, then, they must be addressed to Jehovah God through his Son, Jesus Christ. That is, they must be said to God in the name of Jesus. (Watchtower, 3/15/1988, p.6)

Mkmcconn — 23:35, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Arianism Swindle

Arianism and the Arian heresy was actually the belief that Jesus was not divine, but a regular person who was nothing more than a prophet. It was Rome who instead rephrased his argument as a philosophical one. As a matter of fact, the belief that Jesus was some kind of divine being akin to that of Crishna was the minority position prior to Nicea. This constubstantial business was hogwash designed to put words in the mouth of Arius, who was assassinated. The original christians did not believe jesus to be a god, it was Rome who wanted christians to adopt a pagan religion( Roman Christianity ) in order to reestablish control. The idea that everyone immediately adopted a highly complex philosophical idea in relatively short time is ridiculous considering the mass of christians were illiterate. Finally, the trinity is a egyptian/babylonian concept, that was, at the very least, against what Jesus taught.

that's all very correct, but you'll have to rephrase it without "hogwash" or "swindle" if you want to say that in the article. dab 09:24, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removed section

I removed the following section from the article, as it is POV. Feel free to reword it and reinsert it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 14:55, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Really? In that case all of Christianity is a POV, more importantly the minority POV prior to Nicea! These things were simply stated historical fact. The trinity is the Horus/Osiris/Isis Father/Son/Holy Ghost theology of egypt-babylonia. This information should be in the article! The Catholic Church does not own Wikipedia! Those people who are interested in what Jesus taught should know that he did not necessarily teach the trinity. History indicates that he did not.

hello? he didn't say the info shouldn't be included. He said you should rephrase it to sound less like a pov crusade. The point you are making is valid indeed. This is about the style of the paragraph (you cannot always rely on other people to fix your text for you). dab 21:57, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

also, there is an important distinction between an avatar Krishna (not Crishna) and God incarnate as seen by post-Nicean orthodox Christianity. Again, sometimes people will fix your inaccuracies for you, and sometimes they will just dump your paragraph on Talk with an encouragement to try again. dab 22:00, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Other Views

Arianism and the Arian heresy was actually the belief that Jesus was not divine, but a regular person who was nothing more than a prophet. It was Rome who instead rephrased his argument as a philosophical one. As a matter of fact, the belief that Jesus was some kind of divine being akin to that of Crishna was the minority position prior to Nicaea. This framing of Arianism as a particular view of the Trinity ( 'consubstantial' ) was propaganda designed to put words in the mouth of Arius, who was assassinated. The original Christians did not believe Jesus to be a god, it was Rome who wanted Christians to adopt a pagan religion ( Roman Christianity ) in order to reestablish control of the disintegrating empire. The idea that everyone immediately adopted a highly complex philosophical idea in relatively short time is ridiculous considering the mass of Christians were illiterate. Finally, the trinity is a Egyptian/Babylonian concept, that was, at the very least, against what Jesus taught.

Errors and omissions.

The article fails to mention that the Arians believed Christ to be a divine, pre-existent being. It is therefore wrong to say that they saw him as "a man like other men."

The claim that Arianism was "brutally enforced upon the Christian community" is patently false. Arianism was never forced upon anybody.

There are other points which need to be mentioned. I shall return to this article and correct it when I have more time. --Teutonic Knight 09:57, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think this sentence (about "brutal enforcement") is supposed to refer to Trinitarianism, not Arianism. It's been inserted badly (or mangled by editing). I will comment it out. Gwimpey 01:26, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Answering a question about the Nestorians.

Somebody asked:

I vaguely recall reading that the Nestorian church was Arian, and they were influential in Asia later than this article refers to--converted some significant number of Genghis Khan's followers, I think. Anyone remember this, or do I need to do the research?

Nestorianism was definitely not Arianism, for the Nestorians believed that Jesus Christ is God incarnate. However, Nestorius was accused of dividing the Son into two separate persons (which he vigorously denied.) See the article on Nestorianism for an excellent summary of the Christological issues involved. Nestorianism is alive and well today in some of the Eastern churches - most notably the Assyrian.

In passing, it is interesting to note that Nestorianism was the first form of Christianity to reach China. --Teutonic Knight 14:11, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arianism and the JWs.

The article currently states:

For example, the modern Jehovah's Witnesses have some similar beliefs. However, Arius viewed the Holy Spirit as a person, whereas Jehovah's Witnesses do not attribute personality to the spirit.

The Arians did not ascribe personality to the Holy Spirit.

Jehovah's Witnesses also, unlike Arians, deny belief in a disembodied soul after death, eternal punishment of the unrepentantly wicked, and episcopacy: doctrines to which the Arians did not obviously object.

This is irrelevant. Belief in the immortality of the soul, eternal punishment and episcopy is not what makes a person Arian. Arianism is a doctrine about the nature of Christ and his relationship to the Father; anyone who confesses that doctrine is therefore Arian by default, regardless of whatever else they might believe on any other subject. Since the JWs subscribe to the Arian formula (namely that Jesus pre-existed as the firstborn of God; that the creation was formed through him; that he was raised from the dead to the Father's side, yet remains distinct from Him; that he is a superlative divine being, but not Almighty God) they are Arians by definition.

In some respects, there is a closer analogy to Socinianism, than to Arianism, in Jehovah's Witness theology (Socinians similarly were called "Arians" by their detractors; see also Unitarianism). Jehovah's Witnesses, unlike Arians, do not direct prayers to Jesus.

There is no evidence that the Arians ever directed their prayers to Jesus. --Teutonic Knight 16:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hello! PLEASE STOP THE CHRISTIAN CRUSADERS FROM ERASING THE VERY PERTINENT INFORMATION REGARDING THE NATURE OF ARIANISM. The original christians DID NOT BELIEVE JESUS WAS DIVINE OR BORN OF A VIRGIN. It is an absolute tragedy of history that the truth of what happened at nicea cannot at least be represented on Wikipedia.PLEASE STOP ERASING THE INFORMATION ABOUT ARIANISM YOU STUPID IGNORAMUS. The roman empire is over. Get over it you idiot.