Talk:Arianism/Archive 1

message: 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
:Do you know something we don't? If anyone has any original writings of Arius, please, by all means, tell the newspapers or an Archaeologist or something. Thanks. 24.176.6.165 06:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Great Hoax that Led to Arianism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  JW and Islamic beliefs 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removed section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Errors and omissions. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Answering a question about the Nestorians. 

message: 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 unrep
entantly 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)
thread_title:  Arianism and Jehovah's Witnesses 

message: A recent edit, among many fine additions, introduced this sentence:
"Constantine is said to have renounced trinitarianism in favor of Arianism on his death bed, although this conflicts with the rumours that he converted to Christianity on his death bed (as he would have to have converted to trinitarianism then changed his mind within seconds) - Constantine was not a Christian for the majority (or possibly all) of his life."
In fact, Constantine saw himself as a Christian -- that is, as a believer in Jesus Christ as divine -- for most of his adult life after 312 AD.  Since he knew very little about the religion at first, in the period just after 312 his beliefs are a bit eclectic.  What happened on his deathbed was his baptism.  At the time, since baptism was viewed as washing away all sins that the baptisee had committed, it was common to delay one's baptism until late in life -- especially for an emperor, for whom sin was part of the job.  The "conversion" to Arianism was also not a deathbed experience -- after Nicea, Constantine began to associate himself with Eusebius of Caesaria and other Arian or non-Nicene bishops, and it was from one of these that he received baptism.  I've moved the original sentence down to put it into historical context and edited heavily. --Jfruh 15:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constantine and Arianism 

message: A recent  edit changed "which" to "who" with the edit note: 
 "which to who, following the appropriate subjective voice of the sentence 
 (the Holy Spirit is considered human by Arians and Christians alike"
The reason  is certainly wrong - no one that I know of considers the Holy Spirit to be human - not even the LDS.  But, the eit may be correct.  I don't know.  Most modern non-trinitarians do not believe that the Holy Spirit is an entity with its own personality, but rather the personal influence of God.  While I had supposed that the modern view could not be ascribed to Arians, I don't actually know. Does anyone else know? Mkmcconn (Talk) 15:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personality of the Holy Spirit 

message: Hello to all the friendly wikipedians who have been working on this page:
A lot of you have put a lot of thoughtful work into the "Parallels to later groups" section.  However, I think it exemplifies a common Wikipedia problem, in that it represents the beginning of some article drift.  What you often see is that an almost throwaway sentence about something peripheral to the article's main topic rubs someone the wrong way, and they expand it.  And then someone else, to clarify, expands that expansion.  And so on.
Now, admittedly, my perspective is definitely colored by my academic interests, which are focused on late antiquity.  But it seems to me that the section on parallels to later groups is way too long. None of these groups self-identify as Arians, and there is no historical continuity between the Arian churches of the fourth and fifth centuries and, say, the JWs or Mormons.  I suppose a devout (Nicene) Christian of a certain mindset would have the POV that Arianism is a concrete, definable heresy that can be identified even in those groups that do not call themselves Arians. However, it seems to me that, after the last of the Germanic Arians converted in the 6th century AD, the term "Arian" was only used as a term of abuse against those Christian groups that deviated from Nicea, and is therefore not really that useful a term for analysis.
I would propose the following refactoring of this section.  This explains why the modern use of the term is still important for Nicenes, while still emphasizing the term's somewhat anachronistic nature and keeping the focus on the self-identified and historically continuous movement of late antiquity.
(begin proposed text...)
In many ways, the conflict around Arian beliefs in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries helped firmly define the centrality of the Trinity in mainstream Christian theology.  As the first major intra-Christian conflict after Christianity's legalization, the struggle between Nicenes and Arians left a deep impression on the institutional memory of Nicene churches.  Thus, over the past 1,500 years, some Christians have used the term Arian to refer to those groups who do not hold to the Nicene creed, but who see themselves as worshipping Jesus Christ or respecting his teachings.
Like the Arians, many groups have embraced the belief that Jesus is not the one God, but a separate being subordinate to the Father, and that Jesus at one time did not exist. Some of these profess, as the Arians did, that God made all things through the pre-existent Christ. Some profess that Jesus became divine, through exaltation, just as the Arians believed. Drawing a parallel between these groups and Arians can be useful for distinguishing a type of unbelief in the Trinity. But, despite the frequency with which this name is used as a polemical label, there has been no historically continuous survival of Arianism into the modern era. The groups so labelled do not hold beliefs identical to Arianism. For this reason, they reject the name for their self-description, even if they acknowledge that their beliefs are at points in agreement with, or in broad terms similar to, Arianism.
Those whose religious beliefs have been compared to or labeled as Arianism include:
*Unitarians, who believe (blah, blah: a one sentence precis of why others see them as Arian-esque)
*Jehovah's Witnesses, who...
*Those churches in the Latter-Day Saint movement, who...
*Muslims, who believe ...
(end proposed text...)
What do you all think?  In my mind, the little one-sentence descriptions don't need a "defense" explaining why these groups aren't "really" Arians; I think the lead-in text covers the fact that calling these groups Arians is the POV of others, not the groups themselves (or the article).
:Jfruh's suggestion seems balanced to me, for one. History of ideas is the hardest to write. --Wetman 6 July 2005 18:57 (UTC)
::Did it.  Hopefully won't piss anyone off too much... --Jfruh 00:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Parallels to later groups" section -- can it be cut ''way'' back? 

message: I have removed (again) the "but there were other councils ..." passage. These other councils are already included in the text, at places where they should be mentioned. I also moved the list of exiled from the opening paragraph (where they don't belong - this article is about the doctrine of Arianism) to the section where the exiling is mentioned. I also clarified the reasons why each cleric was exiled.
Str1977 09:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundancy

message: OK, can someone explain the reason for the slow-motion edit war on the name of the youngest Person of the Trinity? (That's an Arianism joke, for those not paying attention.) Hmmm, anyone?  This seems like a candidate for Lamest_Edit_Wars_in_Wikipedia, if you don't mind me saying so.
I've contributed a lot to this page, but I'm about to drop it from my watchlist because I find some of the disputes here so damn exasperating.  Ditto with Zoroastrianism, where some of the players are the same.  --Jfruh 02:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus vs. Jesus Christ -- Can there be only one? 

message: Hey back, yo're right I should have posted explanations. Here they come:
:Hi Str, back at ya -- my answers are indented.
I changed "These moves did not stop the controversy within the church, however, and Constantine tried to pacify the situation and became more lenient towards the Arians."
to: "Though unwavering in his adherence to the Nicean creed, Constantine tried to pacify the situation and became more lenient towards the Arians."
The council at first stopped the open controversy and Constantine did not allow anyone to meddle with the Nicea defintion. However, he was not a theologian and was in the end more interested to achieve peace. The Nicean definition he considered the basis but he was not so bent on probing into the genuity of declarations offered by Arius or others. Hence their return. But no open debate until after his death.
:Well, yes officially, argument was forbidden, but obviously all the intriguing and exiling and un-exiling indicated that it was still happening, at least privately.  I think this can be fixed in the article by emphasizing that open debate was forbidden, but tension seethed beneath the surface.
You wrote: "the fact that he kept on a known Arian or semi-Arian (Eusebius of Caesaria) as his personal theologian, eventually receiving baptism from him, seems like it might cause one to question the statement."
You are confusing two persons: 
* Eusebius of Caesarea, was a close to the Emperor and could be considered his personal theologian and biographer
he had some Arian leanings, he was the actual occasion for the Nicean council but he also provided the basis for the definition and didn't hesitate to sign. Later however he was involved in banishing Athanasius 
* Eusebius of Nicomedia, bishop first of Beirut, then Nicomedia, later (after Constantine's death) Constantinople, was the closest religious advisor of Constantius II and the leader of the Arian party until his death.
He also baptized Constantine on his death bed, but that has more to with his being close geographically and because of family ties
:No, I'm thinking of E. of Caesaria -- his Nicene bona fides were never fully accepted by Nicene hard-liners like Ambrose and the Cappadocian fathers.  And if Constantine were really "unwavering," in his personal devotion, would he have really accepted baptism from a suspect bishop?  Surely there was someone politically less problematic close at hand.
:I think my problem with this is that the phrase "unwavering in his adherence" implies a lot about Constatine's personal theology, which I don't think is knowable at this remove.  Perhaps the sentence can be reworded to say that he always politically remained committed to the agreement within the church that was reached at Nicea?
I changed "The dispute continues"
to "The dispute resumes"
I'm not insistent on this, but since there was no open debate under Constantine, I consider that it resumed under his son.
:Again, just because it wasn't open didn't mean it didn't happen.  If we earlier change things to make it clear that disputes were officially banned, this heading becomes less problematic.  Maybe we can change it to "Public debate resumes"?
I changed "As debates raged in an attempt to come up with a new, more universally acceptable formula..."
to: "As debates raged in an attempt to come up with a new formula..."
It was not universally acceptable since it stood against the Nicean creed. The entire west could not adhere to anything going against that, Egypt could not so it's hardly acceptable to everyone. I agree that they were looking for a compromise, but sometimes that is impossible and you cannot turn back the clock.
:Well, yes, obviously it wasn't universally accepted, because not everyone accepted it ;).  My point is that the purpose of the debate was to attempt to come up with a new formula that everyone could accept.  Some of those in the debate (the hard-line Nicenes who ultimately prevailed) felt that the formula established at Nicea was (or should have been) universally accepted.  Would you accept (ha ha) the wording "As debates raged in an attempt to come up with a universally acceptable formula" (leaving out the "new")? --Jfruh 13:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Jfruh on my recent "wording" edits

message: Substituted at 08:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment comment 

message: A large portion of the latter half of this article describes Theodosius and his role in early Christianity.  Isn't this information extraneous in an article specifically about Arianism? -- DH
:Thedosius forms a critical part of the history of Arianism, especially in Italy. Removing it would leave a huge question mark as to why it disappeared in Rome. 24.247.157.122 01:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely.  Theodosius essentially ended the Arian-Nicene conflict by bringing the apparatus of the Roman state decisively down on the Nicene side. --Jfruh 01:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theodosius and Arianism in this Article 

message: "Most orthodox or mainstream Christian historians define and minimize the Arian conflict as the exclusive construct of Arius and handful of rogue bishops engaging in "heresy." Of the roughly three hundred bishops in attendance at the Council of Nicea, only three bishops did not sign the Nicene Creed."
Would be useful to add here the information about the total of bishops at that time was about 1800, as shown at Heresy:Early Christian heresies and First Council of Nicaea:Attendees? I think that to say that only 3 bishops out of 318 did not sign the Nicene Creed would be more properly understandable if this info is added. What do you think?
ZackTheJack 18:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arianism 

message: This was added and removed: "Trivia In Chilean TV Programm "Tertulia" broadcast in Canal 13 Cable is a recurring joke between José Luis Rosasco and Monseñor Luis Eugenio Silva to say that Rosasco is "Semi-Arian""
In order to underrstand the banter one needs to known what "Arian" means: i.e. "Arian" is relevant at Canal 13 Cable. The converse however is not true: this statement is vacuous (a technical term, not just a "pejorative"). This needs to be re-explained a thousand times at Wikipedia: relevance is not a concept taught in public schools. --Wetman 07:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree. If someone wants to set up a wiki on the subject of television programming in Chile, then they can include this reference. As it happens, I recall an abstruse joke being made about Arianism at a faculty cocktail party I attended more than a decade ago. I forbore to include a retelling of the incident in this article. . . . --Michael K. Smith (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "relevant" and "irrelevant"

message: Arianism is a Trinitarian heresy, not a christological heresy.  That is, Arianism is fundamentally about how the Father is related to the Son (the doctrine of the Trinity), not about how the divine and human are related in the person of Christ (the Christological doctrine).  Yes, as in most trinitarian controversies, there are Christological implications -- but the issue was fundamentally understood as dealing with the relations of the persons of the Godhead.  -- Pastordavid 11:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I very much urge you to read the following links about Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Secondary sources and Wikipedia:Verifiabilityl, since your additions are exclusively based on primary sources, especially the Bible, and not on any sources mentioning Arianism at all. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Your method of using talk pages doesn't exactly inspire confidence in your claim that "you know Wikipedia policy". Also your blatant disregard of the fact that the edit I reverted was basically sourced with Scripture, as well as your closing comment, does not really speak in your favour. Ãnd please refrain from conjectures about my personal opinion of Arianism. Not only is your guess way off, you shold know better than to comment on the editor rather than the content. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  For clarity's sake 

message: Does Arianism refer to the teachings of Arius of Alexandria in particular,  to the various concerns of the school of Lucian, or to the various different-substance, similar-substance, and like-substance groups of the 4th-6th centuries? In the first case, the article should stick as closely as possible to Arius, and should limit references to other teachers (e.g. Auxentius) propounding other not-same-substance teachings. In the second case, the article should focus much more on Lucian, much less on Arius, and much more on different teachers addressing recurring concerns, some with teachings closer to Nicaea, and some with teachings farther from Nicaea. But that could be another article (Co-Lucianism?). In the third case, I don't know. Jacob Haller 20:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some General Concerns 

message: [I asked about this on talk: Naming conventions.] The term Arianism is very common, but suffers several problems. It is a derogatory name given by its opponents; it has acquired additional meanings (e.g. teaching that Jesus was not divine) that would exclude Arius et al.; and it describes two larger overlapping groups ((1) the critics of Nicaea and (2) Lucian of Antioch and his followers) as well as one smaller subgroup (Arius of Alexandria and his followers). So it's hard to tell when the article means "Arians, as in Arius, Eusebius, George, Aetius, Wulfila, etc." or "Arians, as in Arius, but not these other guys." Jacob Haller 04:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Issues Persist 

message: It should probably be stated that “even, there has been no historically continuous survival of Arianism into the modern era, there are in the modern times, religious that held the arian point of view, such as Jehovah Witness, and others”.
:Oh man, please read the entire previous section of this talk page for the troubles that starts.  Thanks.  --Jfruh (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To call a modern view "Arianism", in addition to being horrible POV, is an anachronism.  Please read above.  -- Pastordavid 01:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern times arianism? 

message: This article says three bishops voted in favour of Arianism at the First Council of Nicaea, but that page itself says only two. Which is wrong, or have I misunderstood? Larklight 16:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict

message: I don't see much of a discussion of this death.  I've read at least 3 accounts, including the classic, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" that suggest he was poisoned as he went to baptize Constantine.  The poison caused his bowels to dissolve and he died on the toilet according to each of these accounts.  That he was poisoned seems to indicate that he still had great power at the time.  I may come back and add this discussion with references if I have the time. Gvharrier 00:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspected the same thing. PalindromeKitty (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I thought I'd read that he died around the time of the Nicene Council (325). It was really 336? Date of death? Sources? Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Arius' death

message: It seems to me, in general, that a thing should be defined first in terms of itself, and only secondly in terms of its relationship with other things. Thus, I am rearranging the intro sentences first to describe Arianism itself, and second to describe it as a heresy with regard to the Council of Nicea. Also I plan to correct the grammatical error. --Ginkgo100talk 23:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to intro paragraph 

message: The current intro section contains the statement:
Also, an "arianism" is usually used to indicate a feat of failure. An "arianism" would be followed by the line "0 for (insert absurdly high number here)"
This is both confusing - an example would be helpful - and unsourced.  It also appears somewhat dubious. --J. G. Graubart (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Arianism" as idiomatic expression 

message: The following statement in the overview/introduction section is incorrect:
"This teaching of Arius conflicted with trinitarian christological positions which were held by the Church (and subsequently maintained by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches and most Protestant Churches)."
PROTESTANT churches did not exist in this time period.  There may have communities that existed that did not agree with Church teaching however they were not known as "Protestant" as the way most understand these denominations today.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mckfouch (talk • contribs) 13:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course protestant churches did not exist yet. Therefore the section writes subsequently, to indicate that these views did not change when the Church split into its current streams. I don't think the current phrasing is confusing on that point, but feel free to replace 'subsequently' with 'later' if you think that helps. (BTW: I moved your comment to the bottom of the talk page, as they are normally ordered chronologically.) Classical geographer (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction  / Overview 

message: Although I have read the whole Wikipedia on the Arianism issue, as well as other sources, I haven't read anywhere a clear analysis about the practicalities of the problem nor the relationship between the whole "heretic" issue and the political motivations.
Philosophically speaking, and having studied eastern and western mysticism and philosophy, it is most probably that Arianism is more accurate to the truth about Christ, Logos, God, etc. than the politically motivated "official dogma".
The Church's Fathers and Doctors were, most probably, good men, but not sages. And many of their dogmas, if not reinterpretations of old doctrines, were mere convenient opinions: If Jesus is God, then the Church would have the monopoly on spirituality. And in a time where Religion is the official knowledge (in the same way that today's official epistemology is scientific) this would be a source of earthly power.
Why this specific issue doesn't arise on the study of heresies and dogmas?--Giordano1507 (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Religion is not and has never been knowledge is a rational-modernist sense, it has always been faith in a supernatural sense. The Church has always been against Gnosticism, which is an early form of Scientism, since it puts everything on a naturalistic scale. ADM (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Church has also been against anything that threatened its power base, including Arianism. 69.51.152.180 (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heresy as a method of disqualifying the Enemy 

message: Is there any evidence to suggest that Arius advocated a personalist form of christology and an accompanied doctrine on freedom of conscience ?  According to Fr. Romanides, Arius insisted that the Father is related to and generates the Son not by nature, but by will. Athanasius insisted that the Father is related to and generates the Son not by will, but by nature.  ADM (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Personalist christology and Freedom of conscience

message: I have removed from the footnotes several pages worth of material taken from Michael Pomazansky, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. I haven't found any indication that the original (much less the foreign language translation) are public domain. We can't quote extensively from copyrighted texts even in footnotes--certainly not when that extensive quotations basically amounts to several pages worth of material. This is inconsistent with WP:NFC. If it can be verified that the original and the translation are both PD, please feel free to restore. Otherwise, it may be appropriate to paraphrase as long as the paraphrase doesn't follow too closely on the original. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: References and [[WP:NFC]]

message: We need a section on modern examples of Arianism. Something like experts in a field that attempt to edit Wikipedia Articles and are accused of Vandalism and generally being East Geman. Also any attempt at humor on a users own talk page is another example of Arianism.66.236.143.130 (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples in Modern Culture 

message: During the 400's and 500's were there distinct Arian and Nicene congregations in Constantinople, Ravenna and other places? If so, how did the congregational hierarchies work? 118.208.238.98 (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arian and Nicene (Catholic) congregations?

message: The claim that "Arius' own bishop" prayed for Arius' death was added on 23 Oct 2008. It seems to be an attempt to weaken the suggestion that Arius was poisoned while also insinuating that Arius' death was a divine act. I doubt a proper citation can ever be produced, and I suspect the statement should just be removed.TrippingTroubadour (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arius' bishop's prayer 

message: Interesting enough to be dumped here:
It was also one of the earliest apostasies away from the teachings of the Christ, and his apostles. While the so-called doctrine of "Arianism" was among the earliest Christian doctrines disputed by the early Catholic religion, it was only one of many that defy the teachings of the Bible.
It is said to be based on John 14:28 and Proverbs 8:22. That may be true of the position taken by Arius, but in fact other scriptures also support the doctrine. In particular, Colossians 1:15-16, where the Christ Jesus, "the Son"( of verse 13), is referred to as; "He is the image of the invisible God, the <I>firstborn</I> of all creation". Other scriptures that disprove the "Trinity" doctrine and support the more ancient teaching of a "Unitarian" God include Acts 7:55-56, Matthew 26:39, John 8:17-18, Revelation 3:14, Mark 13:32, Matthew 20:20-23, Matthew 12:31-32, 1 Corinthians 11:3, 15:27-28, John 17:1-3, 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, 1 Peter 1:3, and others.
A number of reference works also indicate that the so-called "orthodox" view is in error include <I>The New Catholic Encyclopedia</I>, which states:
:“The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.
<I>The Encyclopedia Americana</I> reads: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L. [See <I>Reasoning From the Scriptures</I>, pp. 405-423.]
There are a few troubles with the text: 
* the writing style is not neutral,
* the text is somewhat valid and true, but it partially duplicates information already elsewhere in the text,
The possible benefits:
* the tertiary references, Catholic Encyclopedia, —(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299 and —(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L. [See <I>Reasoning From the Scriptures</I>, pp. 405-423.] can be salvaged for relevant passages already in the article,
* it  the widely known secret that original Christianity was undefined regarding trinity, christology etc..
Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 11:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arianism&diff=next&oldid=428822923 216.240.249.190 contribs] 

message: There is an information box for "Germanic peoples" located at the bottom of this page. Most likely this was placed here due to confusion with the "Aryanism" page. If nobody can give a good reason why this box is located on the page, it needs to be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.86.219 (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information box for "Germanic Peoples" at bottom of page 

message: I know this has been discussed already, but the Latter-Day Saints should be mentioned at least somewhere on this page. I don't know who it was that suggested that Mormons still believe in some kind of trinity or accept parts of the Nicene Creed, but we most definitely do not. We believe that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are three separate beings with a unity of purpose but a separation of substance. This may not be exactly what Arius taught but we are certainly closer to Arianism than we are to Nicene trinitarianism. I am not ashamed of this label because I personally have great respect for Arius—anyone who was persecuted by the Catholic Church for "heresy" is a hero in my book. --Antodav2007 (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct that the LDS understanding of the Godhead differs from the Nicene (Trinitarian) view.  But it also differs from Arius' view.  Arius believed that the Father is eternal, outside of time, not subject to any change; he was not created or begotten by anyone, and there is no other being who existed before him or alongside him, as he is the only being outside of time and before all time.  This differs from how most Mormons understand the "Heavely Father".  Moreover, Arius believed that the Son was a kind of super-angel, created by the Father, subject to time, and doing the bidding of the Father without any free choice in the matter; the Son (whom Arius preferred to call "the Logos" or "the Word") was not truly the Father's "son" in any real sense, nor was he "God" in any real sense, but was entirely a creature.  This differs from how all Mormons understand the Son.  You are certainly free to respect anyone whom the Church called a heretic, just as you are free to respect anyone who disbelieves in modern science.  But not everyone who disagrees with the Catholic Church agrees with each other, any more than everyone who disbelieves in modern science agrees with each other. — Lawrence King (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mormonism 

message: The icon in the main body described as  depicting Arius actually depicts Saint Spyridon (the name is written in greek on the icon).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.40.225.38 (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right! I looked into it also and it is as you say. When I came to this article it looked a little weird, went to comment section to see if anyone talked about it, and there you are! It indeed says "O ΑΓΙΟΣ ΣΠΥΡΙΔΩΝ". Perhaps the information for the picture could have been changed to have it say that he was a great opponent of Arius (he debated against him during the ecumenical council) but it does not feel right to have that as the first picture. The icon of him debating Arius would have been more fitting, but I just left it all blank so the modern Arians would not go insane ;P (A JOKE!)75.73.114.111 (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erroneous pictures description 

message: I'm not sure if this is accurate, as the centuries differ. However, there seems to be a similarity with the dispute of the holy trinity and the East–West Schism. Clearly the movement of Christianity was widely accepted, but changed dramatically on the continent of Africa and the Middle East. Anyone have information about this relationship and its correlation with Arianism? Twillisjr (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't any major connection.  Arianism lived on for a few centuries in some of the Western European Germanic tribes, but it eventually died out there.  In Rome, Greece, Syria, Egypt, and Persia it never had any significant presence after the fourth century.  There were later theological disputes (such as the disputes over Nestorianism and Monophysitism) in the fifth century that proved long-lasting.  But even on those disputes, Greece and Rome were on the same side.  The great East-West Schism between the Catholic Church (based in Rome) and the Orthodox Churches (based in Constantinople) was primarily political; it did have a theological element, but that was the Filioque, a controversy that arose later.  All of these controversies can be seen as similar, insofar as they all involved the nature of God or the nature(s) of Jesus Christ, but they were very different controversies.  — Lawrence King (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree regarding the schism between Rome and Constantinople, but Arianism did not "die out" in the West. It was removed by force. On the one hand, Vandals and Ostrogoths were crushed by Roman armies, and then, after a bloody civil war, the young Visigoth king, Reccared I, publicly announced his conversion to Catholicism, and the Arian faith was outlawed after the 3rd Council of Toledo (589). One point in common, although most probably non-influential, was that this Council included the filioque formula in their new official (Trinitarian) creed. --Jdemarcos (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship with East-West Schism 

message: The article as it stands is a muddle. I have removed statements from the section "Origin" which do not correspond to it; but there are far more major defects. The fundamental problem is that there is no current agreement among academics as to the contents of Arius' teaching.  Rowan Williams goes as far stating that Arianism is an invention of Athanasius (Arius page to be supplied later)  I am not clear as to how the article should be reworked, but I sense that its revision should be part of a project which includes the other two main articles Arius and Arian controversy.  It is hardly worth trying to tidy up the missing citation references until the overall structure of the article has been rethought. Jpacobb (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving this article 

message: I reverted this edit (again) because it is solely sourced by Scripture. The Bible is a primary source and cannot be used to back up distinct claims about Arian beliefs. The Bible is used by all Christian nominations, so it does not in itself support one or another. We will need some reliable secondary sources that supports claims distinct to Arianism. Thanks. Also please do not add sections in the main text like these: "See also Colossians 1:15—"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;"; also, Revelation 3:14—"These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God"; and Proverbs 8:22–29.". That is not encyclopedic and is a direct violation of WP:NPOV as well as WP:OR. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible as only source 

message: I came across this passage in St. John of Damascus' critique of Islam, and he says that Muhammad may have possibly conversed with an "Arian monk," which later influenced influenced how he formulated is doctrine.  St. John of Damascus' critique is mentioned in the Medieval Christian views on Muhammad Wikipedia article, but I figured it'd be helpful for that influence to be mentioned on this page as well. Thoughts? Yadojado (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence upon the founding of Islam 

message: The article as it currently reads states that modern Christian groups which may be seen as espousing some of the principles of Arianism include, among others, Oneness Pentecostals.  This is incorrect as they espouse modalistic monarchianism or Sabellianism.  The article seems a bit muddled in that it seems to view all non-trinitarian views as being a form or variation of Arianism, which is incorrect.
I will make some edits in the future to clarify this and improve the wording on the differences between the various non-trinitarian views of the Godhead.  Happy to discuss any of the edits related to this issue. Taxee (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion with Sabellianism 

message: After reading the article and the talk pages it appears that there's a bit of an emotional issue surrounding the use of "heresy" to describe Arianism, arian's (potentially possibly reconstructed) teaching, and related concepts.  I think it's because of the charged nature of these words that connote very negative tones.  The word "heterodox" was a very interesting choice in one of the sections that does not seem to have the same emotional charge.  The dictionary definition of heresy provided at one point was a bit flat and didn't capture the gut feeling reaction it evokes that means not only are you in the minority, you are a dangerous crazy person for holding said belief.
I think that it is clear from the cited sources that Arian-like (to be non specific) teaching and teachers were a strong minority in many areas, and a strong majority in many other areas.  Later they were named, grouped, and condemned as heretical by the majority view in one place, that through shrewd political efforts, prostelityzing, and sometimes coercion spread their view to became the dominant and majority view in most places and for most teachers.
So the view that Arian = heresy grew and changed over time, eventually becoming commonplace and core enough to several Mediterranean ecclesiastical power structures to be used as an epithet or slur in debates against each other.
This is analysis of the sources.
Calling something "heresy" or "heretical" outright hurts feelings of people who share similar beliefs today in earnestness and with good intentions.  I think it's somewhat unnecessary except to describe the view of party A towards party B, and to provide the context of actions.
it may be like using a racial slur when talking about Africans, because the dominant groups of Europe at a point in history considered Africans inferior morally, mentally, societally, etc.  obviously writing an article thus this would be offensive to earnest people on both sides.  Clearly passion gets involved with word choice in articles like these occasionally.
just a thought.  TL:DR heterodox might be a better way to refer to something like this gererally, which withholds the implied moral judgement of calling something a heresy, except for in cases when You're talking about a historical figure's specific view or providing context for their actions.
Hugs not flame wars 
Trebor42k (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I added a link to heterodoxy in the first line of the article.  Taxee (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heretics, cults, apostates, and negative words 

message: Reading through this article, the longer inset quote of SDA beliefs on the trinity isn't very relevant to Arianism, and seems more like a user's plug for their religion rather than something that enriches the Wikipedia entry. I move to remove it-- anyone have any objections before I do so? I'll try to return in a week or so and see?
Flyingmoses (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that I agree with you as the quote is not a reference to SDA beliefs but rather to the beliefs of the Church of God (7th day) - Salem Conference which does appear to be Arian in its beliefs.  Taxee (talk) 06:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I should clarify. It's a long quote, but the only thing that has to do with arianism from the quote itself is the line "He is a separate being from his son, Jesus." The rest is more about a rejection of Trinitarianism that it is about a positive example of Arianism, which is more specific than just refusing to believe that the Father and the Son are the same being. That's why I don't think it adds much to the article and should be removed for brevity's sake. Any thoughts?Flyingmoses (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate quote? 

message: As many people have commented over the years this article is a bit of a mess. I think one of the major confusions is to whether the article is about the Christology of Arian and the early Christians that he directly influenced, or just about non-Trinitarian Christologies generally. I strongly believe it should be about the former and all the text concerning other Christologies that bear a passing similarity but or not directly related should be excised or moved to a small 'similar Christologies' section near the end. Ashmoo (talk) 10:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article confusions and structure 

message: Currently simply states: "Arianism is a nontrinitarian Christian belief that asserts that Jesus of Nazareth." wolf (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Ashmoo (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentence needs fixing  

message: to begin with I have a website arianismtoday dot come that could shed some light to questions. And I will add as I can. There is alot right about this article as it is today. and alot missing. I have tried to edit this before but people hate Arianism alot. So nothing has changed in history as I can tell. :) Let me say that a few intresting things. Arius had a trinity a group of three but they were not mixed within each other so the word "trinity" or "triad" is not exclusive to trinitarians. Also shocking to most of you is the fact that Arius called Yeshus "Jesus" the Only Born God so Arius called Yeshua God is a lower sense of the word. The confusion is the understanding of the word "god" which in ancient times was used of many things biblically from kings, angels, false gods, and even the stomach as a god. Arius called Yeshua "god" because he is a mighty one in the kingdom of GOD but is not GOD himself. He also belived Yeshua had the same king of substance as GOD "spirit" but was not mixed with him. In other words like my sone has the same kind of flesh as i do and is from me but we are not mixed nor Siamese twins. Just a all humans are like beings and share flesh from Adam we are not all one being, we are many. The mistake of the Counicl was to assume that GOD took part of himself and made Yeshua then he would share in always existing because what he was made of has always existed. But Arius said that Yeshua was created into the identical kind as GOD but not from a part of GOD, because GOD can not be broken or split or portioned. Its not impossible for GOD to create a being after his own kind, but it is always understood that the creation is always lesser than the Creator.  So which case Yeshua would have a GOD to thank for his existence.  17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (Joh 20:17 KJV) 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. (Joh 17:3 KJV)  (maybe someone can relate these things to the article in an unbiased way? maybe?)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by R035173z (talk • contribs) 10:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello I am one of very few Arians still in existence today. I would like to contribute some to the discussion  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Arianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110819215807/http://www.fourthcentury.com:80/index.php/urkunde-33 to http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-33
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150629141505/http://www.fourthcentury.com:80/urkunden-chart-2007 to http://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunden-chart-2007/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080925171026/http://www.fourthcentury.com:80/index.php/urkunde-chart-opitz to http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-chart-opitz
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080925041017/http://www.fourthcentury.com:80/notwppages/arius-supporters-map.htm to http://www.fourthcentury.com/notwppages/arius-supporters-map.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is one of the worst talk pages I've seen. Endercase (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved this to the bottom of the page, which is where new comments should be made.  Generally talk pages should not be "cleaned" but they can be archived.  See WP:TPG Taxee (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we should do so, due to the debates from 10 years ago and such. I may have learned my wiki etiquette from the wrong people, they argued that "cleaned" items remain in the history anyway.Endercase (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk page needs cleaned/archived

message: For a discussion of this subject please see the page Talk:Arian controversy#Arian controversy and related articles — Jpacobb (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship with related articles 

message: There is a group of individuals that call themselves the Arian and Orthodox Church their website is Arianismtoday.com. I think there's about 1000 of them that you can see their activity on their Facebook group of the same name. And they have their own Creed and they have some other stuff. I'm wondering if there is a threshold that needs to be met before they can be identified in the category churches that adhere to Arianism. It's just a thought because they're the only active Arian church professing the word Arianism today. There is a Arian Catholic Church but I think they're not even active any further. Just wondering if it's something they lack as to why they're not identified. Maybe thousand members is not high enough I'm just wondering what would be the holdback. https://www.amazon.com.br/Arian-Statement-Faith-Creed-English-ebook/dp/B01M581530  — Preceding unsigned comment added by R035173z (talk • contribs) 03:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Known Church that adhere to Arianism 

message: "is distinct from the Father and is therefore subordinate to, and not the same as, God." This quote although for all accurate in a generalized way. I would like to interject that a better way to describe what Arianism believes is to say quot "is identical to the father in regard to nature and form but is not conjoined or mixed in essence, therefore Christ is a separate being who is like his God his father but is created existing this way originally. Therefore Christ is a subordinate creation who shares the nature of God" 
This comes from Arius's own words
" that he made him subsist at his own will, unalterable and unchangeable, the perfect creature (ktisma) of God, but not as one of the creatures; offspring, but not as one of the other things begotten" Fourth Century Christianity Home » Confession of faith from Arius and his followers to Bishop Alexander of Alexandria
Fourth Century Christianity Home » Confession of faith from Arius and his followers to Bishop Alexander of Alexandria. (2017). Fourthcentury.com. Retrieved 14 February 2017, from http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-6''
and also 
'At God’s will the Son has the greatness and qualities that he has.
His existence from when and from whom and from then — are all from God.
He, though strong God, praises in part (ek merous) his superior .
In brief, God is inexpressible to the Son.
For he is in himself what he is, that is, indescribable,
So that the son does not comprehend any of these things or have the understanding to explain them.
For it is impossible for him to fathom the Father, who is by himself.
For the Son himself does not even know his own essence (ousia),'Fourth Century Christianity Home » Arius – Thalia
Fourth Century Christianity Home » Arius – Thalia. (2017). Fourthcentury.com. Retrieved 14 February 2017, from http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/arius-thalia-intro''''
So if you see what Arius is saying here is calling him the perfect creature of God than is using the word offspring. So he saying that he's like a child of God to have the same kind of nature. In the second quote it says that at God's will Jesus is given the same greatness and the qualities that God has but obviously because Arius believes that he is a created being there only a couple of things that he's not identical to God in the greatest of these is that he's not always existed like God has so he's a creation that's very very very similar to God. And then later on he starts talking about how God is indescribable to Jesus and how Jesus doesn't understand even his own nature. The reason he says this is because he understands that Jesus is like the father in nature and that nature is so wonderful and so glorious that Jesus can't absolutely understand his own nature because it's the nature of God and God is hard to understand. So with all of that I'm trying to support the idea that it Arianism the idea is that Jesus is like God in nature and kind to be someone made after God's kind but to not be part of the father part of the Almighty God concept but a creation ROM the Almighty but as identical a son as any of us know. A man and his son are two separate beings and they are identical in nature but are not the same person and one will have greater authority than the other. This is the concept it Arianism that Jesus was a literal child of God even sharing the nature of God but was created by God and therefore is not who the true God is. I don't know Wikipedia very well and I think I have time to figure it out. I have in the past try to make changes in the always been undone. So I'm not going to change any of the wording in the actual article. I'm just to give this information out and if someone wants to use it great someone doesn't want to use it great on display my two cents 
R035173z (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your post, but this talk page is not a place for personal interpretations, nor is the WP article. Please see the policy, WP:OR.  What we do here in Wikipedia is find reliable, scholarly secondary sources (something written by a scholarly theologian or someone in the field of the history of ideas) and we summarize what they say.  Please don't post further personal interpretations of primary sources here.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have corrected the article in view of https://ehrmanblog.org/the-controversies-about-christ-arius-and-alexander/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

text: About the Holy Spirit: I think we don't know what Arius thought of the Holy Spirit, since Ehrman stated "Yup! But I don’t think Arius talked much about the Spirit." Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

text: Are you saying that a primary source is no good? from the horses mouth is not good enough?R035173z (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No that is not what i am saying. Please read  WP:OR, particularly the part (redundantly) labelled "Policy" in the WP:PRIMARY section. Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on distinction.  

message: One source I could find is:  This seems a bit too old. Does someone else know a newer source? Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Froude is not now a reliable source. The whole academic understanding of Arianism has changed since his time. In 1958 Kelly made the point that those who objected to the decisions of Nicea were divided into two major groups. The great majority were not Arians but traditionalists who felt that the homoousion favoured Sabellianism and wanted to avoid terminology not found in the Bible. (Early Christian Doctrines pp. 238ff).  Between 357 and 360 the minority Arian group gained imperial support which obliged synods both in the East and in the West to subscribe to Arian credal statements. This provoked Jerome's rhetorical complaint that "the whole world groaned and marvelled to find itself Arian". However, the majority of bishops and leading thinkers were not and the official situation was reverted well before 381. Since no sociological surveys were carried out, any attempt to determine the position of the laity is little more than pure speculation although it seems reasonable to assume they mostly reflected the positions of their priests and bishop in so far as they understood the debate at all. In 1987, Rowan Williams produced a major work on Arius and he makes the same point as Kelly even more forcibly. I don't think the claim can be responsibly sourced if it is taken to mean anything like the majority of Christians in a given period (XXX - YYY) were Arians. The maximum that could be claimed is that the Germanic tribes which irrupted into the former Roman Empire had been evangelised by Arians and were therefore Arians. As it stands the whole claim is a vague generalization and I am inclined to remove it unless it can be adequately developed and properly sourced. — Jpacobb (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I have replaced it with a quotation saying that the majority of Christians had no dog in this fight. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arians were the majority 

message: According to the Ehrman blog, Arius believed that Jesus was God, namely God the Son. Which "serious sources" deny this? Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps you should actually list Ehrman's rationale for claiming that Arius believed that Jesus was God, given that there are no existing copies of Arius writings?  And perhaps that should go in a subsection on various theological partisan's speculation on the matter, since there are so many diverse opinions on it?  24.176.43.70 (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehrman claims that just an iota separated orthodoxy from heresy (in the case of Arianism). That was the view of the sources contemporary with the theological dispute. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  God the Son 

message: Arius (initially) has not rejected Homoousianism; Homoousianism was a reply to Arius's teachings; he could not have rejected something which did not exist yet. It would be like saying that Isaac Newton has rejected Darwinism. Arius was a pioneer who ventured into unexplored territory; Alexander followed him in unexplored territory in order to offer a response to his teachings; they both could not be right, so only one view has prevailed as orthodoxy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rejection of Homoousianism 

message: I apologize, I thought I was simply bringing the article into compliance with the “neutral pov” position of Wikipedia by simply rephrasing the existing statement regarding the “equally orthodox” status of the Arian and Homoousian interpretations. Categorizing the two positions as “equally orthodox” seemed to make a value judgment whereas “potential interpretations” seemed to leave out such a judgment, especially given that the question of orthodoxy was what was under dispute. ScottSmith1983 (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Ehrman's judgment, not ours. Our own judgment is prohibited per WP:OR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: So be it, although that seems a bit silly on the face of it. Perhaps, then, a better edit might be something along the lines of “according to Bart Ehrman...” rather than making a bald statement?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottSmith1983 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Show me your WP:SOURCES that Ehrman's view is contested/controversial. No sources means no allowable edits. This is Ehrman's whole point: initially Arius's view was completely orthodox, it was deemed a heresy later, when it was formulated it wasn't heresy. Arius has advanced a neat explanation for what orthodox Christians already believed. He devised the explanation, but he did not invent their beliefs. Arius wasn't writing a dissenting opinion, he wasn't writing in order to divide the orthodox community (like Paul the Apostle before the Sanhedrin), we was simply giving an orthodox account of orthodox beliefs. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that this is Ehrman’s point... That’s why I think it ought to be attributed to him. The problem that I’m finding is that ‘x’ pages of reading and citation to deal with one quick quip from Ehrman on his blog. I only posited the rephrasing, and I might emphasize that it was a rephrasing, is because in all of my studying thus far, the presupposition of church history is that “orthodoxy” as a category is something established after the fact. That is, after the decision is made. Up until that point, there are “potential” interpretations within the accepted realm of orthodoxy, but calling two interpretations within that realm both “equally orthodox” is something of a misnomer. ScottSmith1983 (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in the beginning Arius viewpoint was orthodoxy. Then it was opposed by Alexander and orthodox theologians were divided upon this issue. Then at the council one side had prevailed, and only then Arius's view became heresy.  See also pp. 250, 253-255, 259 of the same book: briefly, all bishops there were orthodox since other brands of Christianity had been already excluded, suppressed, reformed or destroyed; then the former orthodox theologians (proto-orthodox) were vanquished by the newer orthodox theologians with their own weapons, not because the proto-orthodox opposed views seen as orthodox, but because they missed the theological refinement needed for rubber stamping contradictory theses simultaneously accepted by the orthodox. Also, Berndt and Steinacher nowhere deny Ehrman's view, their work is available on Google Books, they dedicate more text to it than Ehrman's blog. So, yes, Arius's view was orthodox at a certain moment, later it became controversial and then it became heresy. This agrees with what you say about potential interpretations, it just wasn't a static situation, but it was changing dynamically. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

text: It was a clash between homoousian trinitarians and homoiousian trinitarians. Before Arius, it was not fully thought out what the Trinity might be like. Both homoousianism and homoiousianism were interpretations of orthodox teachings. During their initial clash, they were regarded as having equal claim to orthodoxy. Homoiousianism became a heresy due to losing this clash. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not true to say that "they were regarded as having equal claim to orthodoxy"; the Council affirmed what had always been taught and repudiated the novel teachings of Arius. That some had been deluded by the errors does not give them equal weighting or validity. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying "That some had been deluded by the errors" is saying the Council was right and Arius wrong. Wikipedia has to be neutral, not take sides. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Homoousianism was more novel than Homoiousianism. It seems therefore that the later innovation was accepted as orthodoxy, to the detriment of the older teaching. Let me rephrase it: before Arius Homoousianism and Homoiousianism did not exist. Arius noticed that the orthodoxy of his time left some stuff about God unexplained and he offered an explanation which seemed perfectly orthodox to him and to many other Christians. Alexander disagreed with Arius's explanation, so Alexander devised Homoousianism as a response to Arius's teachings. So, Homoiousianism was first, Homoousianism appeared only as an alternative explanation in order to challenge Homoiousianism. Obviously, theologians noticed that they could not be both right, so they had to choose between the two views. But the choice wasn't easy and was not in any way foreseen by the orthodoxy previously to Arius. Homoousianism was a political choice which made many orthodox Christians unhappy; the choice was dictated by Constantine's wish of having a united Christianity, instead of a Christianity split between two major parties. He had no understanding of the details of the debate, he merely wanted that one side prevails and defines what Christianity means. Later, he wanted to conciliate the two factions, so he advocated for the exoneration of Arius, which got rubber stamped by the bishops. And it was merely a caprice of history that Homoousianism won in the long term, it wasn't written in the stars that Homoousianism would win and historians of Christianity have no access to the will of God, so they cannot tell us if this is what God wanted. The idea that Homoousianism prevailed because this was the will of God is theology, it isn't history. Historians have no access to God, as Bart Ehrman emphatically stated. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re:edit on Arianism 

message: The vandalism by the IP is rather subtle, but it is nevertheless vandalism (the phrase no longer makes sense). Also, he is outright negating what WP:RS are supposed to WP:VERify, it is sheer WP:OR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subtle vandalism 

message: Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ehrman 

message: The last Arian kings in Europe were not the Lombards kings Grimoald and his young son and successor Garibald, but Rothari (636-652) and his young son and successor Rodoald (652-653). King Grimoald was probably Catholic. To verify.--31.37.155.16 (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Arian kings in Europe