Відео

Arianism makes sense to me, Trinity not

So close yet so far away

Response to the lies you told in around minute 11: “At times Jesus speaks from his own authority” Jesus has *already* told us “I Have not spoken of my own authority” John 12. That is a universal statement concerning whose authority and behalf he is speaking on, everything he says will be understood in that light. He doesn’t have to preface every individual statement with “God told me to tell you” because he has already set the precedent. “Jesus forgave sins only God can do that” No, that’s what the Pharisees said. Jesus corrects them(“that you may know” is a correction) that Jehova can delegate that authority to whom he pleases: “That you may know the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins, I say unto you take up thy bed and walk” Matthew 9. And “the Father hath *committed* all judgement to the Son” John 5:22 Jesus directly corrects yours and the Pharisees belief that Jehova cannot commit/delegate judgement to anyone else, and you just don’t believe him. “Only God can heal” Nope, he can commit that power to whom he pleases. The apostles were given the power to heal. “Only God can change the law and Jesus changed the law” Jesus did not change the law, he specifically told us “think not that I have come to destroy the law and the prophets, I come not to destroy but to fulfill” Matthew 5:17. The catholic/orthodox Jesus would never have said this. 11:44 The woman taken in adultery story was added in and is widely recognized among scholars as being fraudulent.

The endless pit of human interpretations .

Athanasius has to beat Arius so the empire could slay fellow Christians without dividing their new religious structure they'd painted onto the one that was already there. Argue that, hoss. Nice tie.

Thank you. Brilliantly explained

Your arguments for icons are identical to the arguments pagans make for idols. The idol is a representation of their God and their prayers and partitions go through the idol to their god. It's exactly the same .

I like taking the newest version of English translation (NET), and comparing it with the NWT and seeing all of the contradictions. How can someone read John 1:1-5 in the NWT and not realize its own words contradict Arianism? The Word “was A(?) god”? How can you justify a god created God, as verse 3 states? I also see major contradictions with John 8:58 and its connection to Exodus 3:14-17, within the NWT. Thank you sir, for this video. I appreciate the historical note and insight in regards to how this split in doctrine happened.

What a jip! He talks about the titles but fails to name any of them them, or discuss them one by one!

Funny how Mohamed got the same “revelation” from “Allah” himself. Was it from god? Or did the heretical stories made their rounds in the East?

Monastery icons is not christian, they are hindus

So basically, the same thing happened to him that happened to Pelagius. Pelagius was never a Pelagian or semi-Pelagian; Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism were strawmen of what he actually taught (that we are all sinners by choice and inherit death from Adam rather than guilt). The Council of Ephesus was messed up in so many ways.

You are very creepy.

When Jesus, as man God can forgive sins, then why Father alone, as Almighty God, cannot forgive our sins?

After going through a lot of videos on UA-cam on this matter , it seems like the whole of christianity would either unite or fall apart completely simply if Jesus had a twin brother 😅

Isaiah 42:8

The only problem is that God could have given Jesus the grace to always and every, freely, fully, and completely followed the will of God right?

From Egypt i send my greetings. God bless you very informative and very simple way of discussion

If you receive the Holy Spirit from God the Father, you are not equal to the Father, even though you may share divine nature with Him. See Matthew and Jesus´baptism. Also, if you are the Father, you do not pray to yourself, do not say things like "Father why have you abandoned me" and "the Father is greater than I", and "your Will be done not mine" and "Only the Father knows the hour" In fact, if Gods greatest commandment is "Hear o Israel, the lord our God is ONE" and you make another 2 Gods co equals, you are doing exactly what Satan did, trying to make himself equal to God. And attirubting Jesus statements of Father-like attributes to full divinity are absurd. I can forgive sins comitted against me, does that make me divine too? If my will is harmonic with the Fathers, and I am one with Him, am I fully God too? absurd. Orthodoxy sounds more and more like heresy, significant mental gymnastics and twisting of scripture is necessary to defend that position. The enemy is a master deceiver and political victory determines who is a heretic and who is not.

Thank you so much.I just subscribed and I'm looking forward.To sharing this with other christians

Both are wrong… The Father is God, alone. The Father is the only one eternal, in both directions of time. Always was, always will be! The son was a man, which did not literally exist before conception. He existed before creation began, but only in the logos and mind of God. He was the planned messiah and redemption of mankind, before there was mankind. The Holy Spirit or Paraclete, is a created spirit, like other spirits in be scriptures, but with a very important and special purpose. All of the verses that appear to be saying Jesus preexisted, are misunderstood or lacking context. For example: Jesus was the bread that came down from heaven, like the mana during the exodus… only the mana was left on the ground after the dew evaporated. The mana didn’t float down from heaven, but all good gifts are from heaven. The trinity doesn’t fit the whole concept of reconciliation to God in the Old Testament. To satisfy the death punishment for sin, man would sacrifice an animal to God. Not just any animal, but a perfect example of that animal. Without blemish! Not once did God sacrifice himself for mankind… the Old Testament is full of man sacrificing to God. To completely reconcile man’s sins to God, a man sacrificed himself, being perfect, without blemish, the best example of mankind. Jesus was a man… not a god, not an angel, not anything else. A man… No other doctrine fulfills the Old Testament example and requirements.

God has no mother. If God ( including Christ pre incarnate as God the Son) created Mary she CANNOT be God's mother. She is the mother of Jesus as human but is not the mother of His Deity. She was simply God's chosen vessel to bear His Son into the world . If Mary was actually " The Mother of God" she would have to have existed BEFORE God which we know she did not. Mary existed before Jesus as a human being and gave birth to Him as a human being but He was her Creator and Savior as God. Explain to me again how an externally existent Person of the God head could have a mother especially when Jesus is the Creator of all including his human mother

Nestorian denied that Christ is consubstantial with the Father but held that he is homoiousios with the Father (that is "of like substance" not similar substance). This compromises Jesus divinity.

In begin god say let there be light. Light is created. Gos separated the light and dark. Apotle creed/neician creed claims jesus is light from the light. Did god created the light? Aries was right. There was time god was not the father he was only god. Make a lot of senses . There was time me and my wife just husband wife. Parents to no one. When we got a kid than new time begen as parent. Jesus was created just like a light created.

You are a good teacher

You are a good teacher

Aren't we all believers saints?

The trinity is biblical monotheism.

Are you saying if Christ were perfect he need not be God?

Responsibility for the destruction of the library of Alexandria and the murder of Hypatia does not qualify one as a crank.

You said "every time you see one of the persons of the Trinity, you see all the three present". Does that mean that when we have the Eucharist, we have all the three persons of Trinity and not alone Jesus's " body, blood, soul and divinity" ? If you say Trinity is present in Eucharist, isnt it Sebellianism, Patripassianism? Or in other words, when the Son was incarnate, was Trinity also present in womb or Son alone? Also at the cross, when the Son suffered, did Trinity also suffer??

what confuses me is do we humans then not share a common ousia? if so why do were not say there is only one human in 8 billion persons?

The greatest sin in today's world is manufacturing & using weapons against civilian populations etc. As Christians when are we going to stop these dogmatic arguments & demand an end to weapons manufacturing?

Christianity today faces problems which are indicated rather than answered in the New Testament. Dogmas came to be es­tablished for just this reason, because of the constant demand for intellectual clari­fication. The question was: “What think ye of Christ?” But what good could come from the ‘clarifiers’ and establishers of dogma at the synod of Ephesus in 449 who, in fury, abandoned the discussion and went for each other with cudgels, until one party was defeated and accepted the ruling of the stronger party. The Church Assembly was terrorised by a crowd of fanatical monks, and brute force prevailed. That is why Leo the Great spoke of a “Synod of Robbers’. And there were other Synods during which the enraged Church Fathers threw copies of the Gospels at each others’ heads. The dispute concerning the status of Jesus Christ became particularly fierce when those Church Fathers who sided with Arius took a stand against the doc­trine of the Trinity, which was then being formulated. The dispute focused on an essential problem which the Church in those days had not yet clarified. While certain ecclesiastical authorities were at­tempting to establish the doctrine of the Trinity, Arius presented a different view: “The Father begat His only begotten Son many aeons ago, and through Him created the Aeons and the universe. The Son is begotten timelessly by the Father, made and created before the Aeons, not that he could exist before having existed, before having been begotten, but rather that it is He alone who was timelessly begotten be­fore all else.” (This is precisely the same spiritual teaching that we now receive through our divine messenger of truth.) Following this, Arius was branded as a heretic. Athanasius, his greatest antago­nist, was quite categorical in placing Christ on an equal footing with God, though this was not at that time a view generally accepted by the Church Fathers. The dispute concerning the Trinity be­came increasingly momentous. In his ‘Book of Heretics’, (Das Buch der Ketzer) the writer Walter Nigg has this to say: “Not only Bishops from different coun­tries but also the ordinary Christian people were deeply disturbed by this. Soon there was no single city or village in which ar­guments did not take place concerning the relationship between God and Christ. Families were bitterly divided, and there were many public scenes of violent up­roar. Christians fought each other in the streets on the issue of Christ’s divinity. They did not stop at injuring each other, and their monstrous behaviour brought Christianity into disrepute amongst the heathen, whose dramatists made fun of these events.” “The Emperor Constantine felt obliged to do something about this quarrel, and in order to resolve it he convened the Council of Nicea in June, 325. It was to be the Church’s first triumphant display - an event sure to impress those people who loved pageantry and liked to see Bishops in their finery.” “The false splendour”, Nigg continues, “soon faded on closer inspection. Even then, true Christianity was to be found with Anthony of Egypt in the dessert, and not with the well-dressed people in the king’s palace where the assembly was tak­ing place. There, braggarts pushed them­selves into the foreground, for at such meetings the participants would often scream at each other ferociously, not bothering to preserve their episcopal dig­nity. The Council Fathers were not con­cerned about mutual understanding, or the promotion of Christian brotherhood. Lacking understanding, many of the une­ducated bishops took to scheming, so much so that one eye-witness named that Council ‘The Synod of Perfect Fools’. Amongst the bishops, those who sympa­thised with Arius were in a minority, and when Constantine brought pressure to bear it was the central party, with its statement that Christ was to be seen as ‘One in essence with the Father’, that gained supremacy. Literal minded Christians should note that this statement does not originate in the Bible.” After this, Constantine exiled all bishops who were unwilling to give their assent to the new dogma. Commenting on this in his book “The Emperor Constantine and the Christian Church”, Edward Schwartz writes: “It was quite unheard of that a uni­versal article of faith should come into be­ing merely on the authority of the Emperor, who as a catechumen was not even admitted to the mystery of the Eucharist, and who had not the slightest right to take part in discussions concern­ing the most profound mysteries of the Faith. Yet not one Bishop dared to speak a word in opposition to this monstrous hap­pening.” The Council of Nicea gave assent to this dogma, not as a result of Christian delib­erations but through the force of imperial politics. It can hardly be called a sacred assembly. But since too small a majority had overpowered too large a minority, the resulting victory rested on a fragile foun­dation. Wishing to restore peace within the Church, Constantine sought reconcil­iation with the offended Arian bishops, even going so far as to recall Arius in or­der to recompense him for the injustice he had suffered. The Emperor gave Arius a gracious reception, but his command was not obeyed by Athanasius, the most pow­erful opponent of Arius, and the hoped-for reconciliation between these two did not take place. Not long afterwards Arianism was granted the status of a true doctrine; the opposition party was charged with heresy, and its leader, Athanasius, was ex­iled. However, before he could be officially installed Arius was poisoned by his oppo­nents, who openly rejoiced at what they had done. Even Bishop Athanasius stood by this deed, thus showing to what depths Christians had sunk in their doctrinal struggles. the final ratification of the Doctrine of the Trinity took place at the Synod of Constantinople in 553. In so far as we Christians think for our­selves and refuse to let ourselves be pre­vented from seeking the truth by a reliance upon dogmas thought up by human beings and argued about for centuries, we are following good advice: “Seek and you shall find!” We have found. But it often seems as though the world has to be put off with falsehood for a time because it is not yet ready for the truth. There is, nevertheless, a noticeable wave of interest in the religious quest, particularly amongst young people who are seeking truth and higher knowledge. The religious quest keeps humanity from lapsing into a sense of static finality. Arthur Brunner 
The Spiritual World 1980 p.81

You said two contradictory things taken in comprehensive view support only one of the two contradictory things. This is very confusing. It would make much more sense to believe in just one pure God who does not assume human form. This whole Trinity thing is too convoluted and clearly man made. Also, I think all the reasons you gave about taking on sin are still perfectly plausible in arius worldview. The fact is two competing ideological factions battled and one won while the other was erased. That is why Athanasius is called a saint and Arius a heretic.

well actually arius's argument make more sense than athanasius's even so both are wrong according to the Bible

I think part of the problem with your presentation, which was pretty good, is that the Aramaic view of nature and what nature is is a little bit different than the Greek view. View. So the Aramaic view is is that things can have their own nature, not just part of a class. So you have two red apples? They're both part of the class of red apples and therefore they have the nature of red apples. But the two apples are not identical, so each Apple can have its own nature. That nature is specific to that Apple. So this actually applies to Theodore's discussions on part of this as well as some other things. Calling Mary, the Theo tocos is considered to be kind of a fallacy since while Jesus is God, he is not the Trinity, and he is not eternally begotten of the mother. So she is a vessel and a handmaiden but she is not the source of God, so in one of the catechisms it says this would make her the mother of the father in Jesus would be her grandson, not her son

In fact, nobody ever practiced nostorianism as described by Cyril. About 150 years ago, the bazaar of heraclades became available again, which you can find online. In that nostorius in his own hand describes his own position. So in effect this is a heresy that never was

I think people misunderstood Arius here is what I THINK happened: what he meant was that God was above its creation. God is God because he is immortal and has unique characteristics that are infinite. How could the all powerful being die? And interestingly you said "suffer and die" which is absolutely against the definition and properties of God. Arius knew what the church was doing. The church was pleasing the Greco-Roman pagan ideas and entertaining their mythology. If you think about it Arius was right. That is what ended up happening ultimately. You got idols in churches and people worshiping Mary and what not. Furthermore, I am interested in why Arius or what was the resource that he used to back up this claim. If you think about it from a rational perspective I believe it should be clear that he possessed a strong academic weapon or support otherwise he would not have been able to establish his position in such a fashion. It is highly likely that the church got rid of all the supporting documents that Arius may have possessed as well as twisted his words to maintain or make sure what they preach remains. Either way, its interesting, why if trinity was so clear would anyone differ. Considering there are lunatics in every generation. People barely pay any attention to them unless they fear them. Even if anyone would differ you would think people would dismiss him if there is no evidence or his rationale is weak however this does not seem to be the case. I think a better way to understand homoiousios would be to think of it as someone who is a godly person (pious). As Jesus himself said I do the work of my father. God is all just and Jesus was also just; in that sense they could be thought of as one in purpose meaning Jesus fulfilled the wishes of the father (God) by his commands and his permission alone. Jesus by himself could not have been just why because justice (right and wrong) comes down from God. The same God that splits the ocean through Moses could have done the miracles through Jesus and it should not be surprising. Finally, the bible has clearly been played with. It does not make sense how Jesus never spoke to Moses or any other before him and said worship three? Here O Israel your Lord is One. To put it in a nutshell, I believe that Arius must have had a strong proof which was later wiped out as he was labelled a heretic. Perhaps he had a bible that was close to the bible of Jesus that had more sense but it possessed a threat to those who were in power.

Wow what mess, do you guys think early Christian understand all this? Why god is so complicated 😂

Constantine after the Council of Nicaea is supposed to have had doubts he made the right decision in opposing the Arians. He was later baptised by an Arian bishop called Eusebius towards the end of his life.

Geeez-Uss. Huh?

Both were wrong in the light of the Bible's hermeneutics and (absolute) logic (and philosophy. 1) IN THE BIBLE, the title "God/theos" refers only to "father" and not to "son" with a few exceptions: not the best Greek, and 6th cent. manuscript of 1 J 5' ending). 2) The meaning of the terms "father" and "son/daughter" implies the eternal relation between both terms,i.e., there is no "before" and 'after" in the existence of being they refer to; hence, Arius was wrong applying "son fo God" as "later" in time than "father"-a logical absurd! St.Mark 10:18- almost certainly the historical Jesus' view on his relation to YHWH plus his lack of simple knowledge of the Bible hermeneutics made absurd the claim he was God: he@St.Hohn the BAtpist taught to pray to God and not to themselves! The Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" is perfectly understandable as a ..description and not a name singular or general - B.Russell,PM, AD 1910: there is only one meaningful term that makes a sentence or sentences true; e.g. d/dx in itself is only a complicated sign but the df(x)/dx=the definition of derivative and for a concrete function: the sentence df/dx=f'(x=a)= e.g. b (any number) is a true sentence! Applying to God/YHWH and titles: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, this description expressed the action of one YHWHEx3:14)as "father" (originator), Son: referring to the historical Jesus from Nazareth,a dn the spirit among and in believers and Curhch; hence, the metaphor of "God-man" is now useless logical term!

You are the heretic here! Genocide supporter!

that was absolutely on point well done

Historical records shows that Athenatius is a bad man compared to Arius. He is the flagship of ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. He won by popularity because he was possessed by outside principalities Look what happened? Pagan tradition was merge in their religion and Bible is co-equal with church traditions. If Arius won there’s only one spiritual God of the Jews and one religion Christianity from Jesus Christ. The ruler of the world won’t allow it . He formed the Roman & Greek mixed religion called ROMAN CATHOLIC. Idolatry with gods and goddesses combined. Images and Queen of Heaven, mother of god covered with blasphemous names. That is the fruit of Athenatius.

Luckily, christians do not need to listen to godless theologians

You made a huge mistake when you said since he’s God/man he survived the crucification. That means… nobody actually died. If Jesus didn’t die, then we are all lost.

Good theology, but lacks spirituality.

I am fascinated by the Nestorian heresy because it is a heresy that survived all the way to today, within the Church of the East and later the Assyrian Church of The East. The Assyrian Church of the East is most likely misrepresented for actually being this Nestorian as Nestorianism. But likely less than that.