The Arians tempory control of the Eastern Church(326ish-361)

[JAYMZ]

Heres my question regarding this period in Church History.

Do some ( or all ) JWs that know their history, see this as Gods first attempt to " restore " the Church from those that affirmed Christs complete essense as deity ? Even though you may not like the term " Arian, " you guys are the biggest group that carry on Eusebius of Nicomedia and Arius of Alexandria theology that Christ is a creation of God.

This quote from Church Historian, Phillip Schaff pretty-much sums up my feeling on the matter -

" Arianism was a religious political war against the spirit of the Christian revelation by the spirit of the world, which, after having persecuted the church three hundred years from WITHOUT, sought under the Christian name to reduce her by degrading Christ to the category of the temporal and created, and Christianity to the level of natural religion. "

.....that is so point-on in my humble opinion.

[JAYMZ]

....oops, that should be " temporary " control....

[apostoli]

Heres my question regarding this period in Church History.

Do some ( or all ) JWs that know their history, see this as Gods first attempt to " restore " the Church from those that affirmed Christs complete essense as deity ? Even though you may not like the term " Arian, " you guys are the biggest group that carry on Eusebius of Nicomedia and Arius of Alexandria theology that Christ is a creation of God.

This quote from Church Historian, Phillip Schaff pretty-much sums up my feeling on the matter -

" Arianism was a religious political war against the spirit of the Christian revelation by the spirit of the world, which, after having persecuted the church three hundred years from WITHOUT, sought under the Christian name to reduce her by degrading Christ to the category of the temporal and created, and Christianity to the level of natural religion. "

.....that is so point-on in my humble opinion.

JWs can hardly be considered Arian as they do not acknowledge the deity of Jesus whereas the Arians did! To quote Arius in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia


(from Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, I, IV. LPNF, ser. 2, vol. 3, 41.

To his very dear lord, the man of God, the faithful and orthodox Eusebius, Arius, unjustly persecuted by Alexander the Pope, on account of that all conquering truth of which you also are a champion, sendeth greeting in the Lord.

Ammonius, my father, being about to depart for Nicomedia, I considered myself bound to salute you by him, and withal to inform that natural affection which you bear towards the brethern for the sake of God and His Christ, that the bishop greatly wastes and persecutes us, and leaves no stone unturned against us. He has driven us out of the city as atheists, because we do not concur in what he publicly preaches, namely, God always, the Son always; as the Father so the Son; the Son co-exists unbegotten with the God; He is everlasting; neither by thought nor by any interval does God precede the Son; always God, always Son; he is begotten of the unbegotten; the Son is of God Himself. Eusebius, your brother bishop of Caesarea, Theodotus, Paulinus, Athanasius, Gregorius, Aetius, and all the bishops of the East, have been condemned because they say that God had an existence prior to that of his Son; except Philogonius, Hellanicus, and Macarius, who are unlearned men, and who have embraced heretical opinions. Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that He is a production, others the He is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe, and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten; and that He does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by His own will and counsel He has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, He was not. For He was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning. This is the cause of our persecution, and likewise, because we say that He is of the non-existent. And this we say, because He is neither part of God, nor of any essential being. For this are we persecuted; the rest you know. I bid thee farewell in the Lord, remembering our afflictions, my fellow-Lucianist, and true Eusebius.
http://arian-catholic.org/arian/arian_letters.html

[JAYMZ]

....the Arians denied that Christ was of the same essence of the Father, but still called God. So they in essentially believed in two Gods, just like the JWs do.

" and that before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, He was not. For He was not unbegotten. "

Arius really seems to use a lot of double-speak, because he seems to be saying two different things. Plus, how the Arians interpreted " begotten " was different than how the Orthodox interpreted the word. When creeds were submitted to the Emperor, words were used in a misleading way to give a certain impression and leave it for open interpretation all threes sides of the homoousius issue.

....but anyway, the JWs must of areed with some aspect of Arian theology...

"Arius, Waldo, John Wycliffe, and Martin Luther were part of God's organization." (Watchtower, May 15, 1925, p. 149)

[apostoli]

....the Arians denied that Christ was of the same essence of the Father, but still called God. So they in essentially believed in two Gods, just like the JWs do.

" and that before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, He was not. For He was not unbegotten. "

Arius really seems to use a lot of double-speak, because he seems to be saying two different things. Plus, how the Arians interpreted " begotten " was different than how the Orthodox interpreted the word. When creeds were submitted to the Emperor, words were used in a misleading way to give a certain impression and leave it for open interpretation all threes sides of the homoousius issue.

....but anyway, the JWs must of areed with some aspect of Arian theology...

"Arius, Waldo, John Wycliffe, and Martin Luther were part of God's organization." (Watchtower, May 15, 1925, p. 149)

No offense meant JAMZ, but you are barking up the wrong tree. As far as my analysis can deternine the JWs' theology dates to pre-christian eras. Imu, there was in Judean circles the idea of the worship of "the angel of yHWH", in aramaic the "memra of God" in John 1:1c the "Word was God".

Imu, Trinitarianism, at least from the basis of documentary evidence, from the 2nd/3rd century, identified the Son, as the God of Israel, but as Jesus evidenced, he himself had one over him, 'my father and your father, my God and your God" (Jn 20:17).

If you rid yourself of catechist perceptions and read the Gospel of John without prejudice it is clear how the Council of Nicea came to their conclusions. The father and son are not unity via hypostasis (individuality) (Heb 1:3) but in physis/ousia (activity/essence=essentiality=homoousia).

In short, as far as we are concerned there is not one God as a personage, nor is the one God personifing himself three different ways but three individuals who display all that can be known of God (the father) in perfect unison. Know one, know the three!

As the RCC, EOC, OOC etc (99.9% of Christianity) made evident in their statement of common faith (lat 1990s), the Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Spirit. And as Athanasius suggested in the 4th century (paraphrase of 4th discouse), by definition, there is no time in eternity, so there cannot be a time in which either the son or spirit came to exist, as both come forth from eternity.

The trouble with the JWs, INC & Christadelpians, imo, is their theology is based on pure pre-christian and pagan philosophy.

[RevTestament]

I have been around this issue somewhat with a JW. I never could fully understand their position. Although it seems to agree somewhat with Christianity as documented by Arius, it is not the same. The Son was not a created being. I asked her to point in the scriptures anywhere that taught otherwise, and she soon closed her forum account. However, having said this, the scriptures do teach that the Son was begotten by the oath of the Father when he said "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." This shows 2 things. He existed before He was begotten(not just by itself but with other scriptures on point), and that before this day he was not the only begotten Son, but "a son." Now the orthodox Christians who have been taught the doctrines of the trinity their whole lives are going to scream "heresy!!" Read about the oracles of God in Hebrews.

[RevTestament]

JAMZ,
I would also posit that the Arian Christians as you refer to them did not have "temporary control" over the eastern church. Arius was just a mouthpiece for their position against unscriptural teachings creeping into the church. The western bishops in fact went through several terms in trying to describe the nature of God, but seemed to hit upon homoousios (one substance) because many of the eastern bishops including Arius objected to it because it could not be found in the scriptures.

[Sparko]

The JW's believe that Jesus was the Archangel Michael in his premortal existance, and is again now that he has risen back to heaven. They believe Michael is God's greatest and first creation. Sounds pretty close to Arian to me.

[RevTestament]

I think you are following me around like a lost puppy dog - how cute.

[Chrawnus]

I think you are following me around like a lost puppy dog - how cute.

And I think you're either paranoid, or that you have an inflated sense of the impact you have on the lives of certain people on this forum. Or quite possibly both.

[Sparko]

I think you are following me around like a lost puppy dog - how cute.

I was just bored and did a New Post search and saw this thread. sorry to disappoint.

You said you didn't quite understand the JW idea about Christ, so I thought I would explain it to you. I studied with them for a few years long ago.

[RevTestament]

I am glad you saw the error of your path. I still can't say that I fully understand their position. However, I know someone who has started going to their Bible class, so in an effort to help her, I'm sure I will learn more.

[One Bad Pig]

However, having said this, the scriptures do teach that the Son was begotten by the oath of the Father when he said "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." This shows 2 things. He existed before He was begotten(not just by itself but with other scriptures on point), and that before this day he was not the only begotten Son, but "a son." Now the orthodox Christians who have been taught the doctrines of the trinity their whole lives are going to scream "heresy!!" Read about the oracles of God in Hebrews.

I'm not seeing it. I'm not even seeing an actual referent for "this day".

On a side note, the Arians never had temporary control of the Eastern Church. They may have briefly been in the majority, and held several key positions, but it takes more than that to attain control in a non-hierarchical church.

[RevTestament]

I'm not seeing it. I'm not even seeing an actual referent for "this day"..

From the KJV:
Psalms 2:7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Hebrews 5:5

5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

[One Bad Pig]

From the KJV:
Psalms 2:7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Hebrews 5:5

5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

Help me out here. Are you alleging that Jesus was not the only begotten Son until His resurrection?