Talk:Arianism

Talk:Arianism/Archive 1 21:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Please make more accessible to the the lay reader

Hello I came across this article and found the introduction very difficult to understand even though I know a little about the history of the christian church. I appreciate that theological concepts can be difficult to describe but I found the intro completely opaque. Please could you describe it in more simple language. Thanks 85.210.13.213 19:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Theodosius and Arianism in this Article

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)

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)

Idiots' guide

I may have misunderstood this concept when I studied it at Uni, but I thought it could be summed up for idiots (like me) as follows:

First God was the Father... then the Son... and then he became the Holy Spirit

Is that simplistic rendering totally inaccurate? Or just usefully simplistic? Or just a waste of a couple of minutes' typing? --Dweller 14:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about the views of mainstream Christianity, or Arianism? Christians who follow the Nicene creed (which is pretty much anyone who calls him or herself a Christian today) believe that Jesus has always existed (beginning of Gospel of John: "In the beginning was the Word...", the Word being Jesus). Some early Christians (who tend to be lumped together as Arians, though they wouldn't have all necessarily called themselves that) believed that the Son was created by the Father at some point after the beginning of time, though they did not agreed on whether that made Jesus "inferior" in some way to God the Father.

I admit that I don't really understand how the Holy Spirit fits into all this. But both Nicenes and Arians don't believe that one person of the trinity replaced another. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are believed to all coexist and yet together make up one God. --Jfruh (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was clear that I was trying to give an Idiot's Guide to the Arian doctrine. I also thought that a central plank of that was that the entities didn't co-exist. I must've been wrong. --Dweller 15:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea is that in Arian beliefs they didn't always coexist. That is, at some point there was just the Father, and later the Father and the Son. But one did not replace the other.

Again, I don't know how the Holy Ghost fits in. He is a wily character, that one. --Jfruh (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

lol --Dweller 15:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Arianism, in a nutshell: "There was when he [the Son], was not" (an Arian slogan). The issue (from Arius' perspective) is that the 1st person of the trinity (Father) most in some some way "produce" (whether creation or begetting) the 2nd person of the Trinity -- and thus there must be a time when the 2nd person was not. The Spirit was not really considered until after Nicaea, other than to acknowledge that the SPirit is also divine. Pastordavid 11:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously Jesus believed he was younger than Yahweh. Why the heck would he call himself the Son, if he didn't believe he was younger than the Father? If he thought he was the same age as Yahweh, he would have used the word "brother" instead of "son" in Matthew 21:37, Mark 12:6 and Luke 20:13.

If believing that Jesus is younger than his Father makes you Arian, then Jesus himself was Arian. --WillJ 70.168.185.11 04:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the idea is that while Jesus as Jesus was born in 4 BC or whenever, the Word, as the beginning of the gospel of John says, had always existed and was co-eternal with the Father. Jesus was the Word made flesh. I'm not a Christian, so this all has a certain angels-dancing-on-a-pin quality for me, but the belief that all three persons of the Trinity have always existed in one form or another has defined mainstream Christianity for the last 1700 years. --Jfruh (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Arianism

"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)

"relevant" and "irrelevant"

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)

For clarity's sake

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)

Some General Concerns

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)

IIRC, some authors suggest that the Logos may be not uncreated, and not created at some specific time, but continually created, and perhaps changible (within limits) or perhaps unchangible. Thus the idea of the created Logos does not imply the idea of a time before the creation of the Logos, although Arius probably taight that "there was a time when He was not" early in the controversy. Eunomius of Cyzicus considers and rejects the theory of continual creation in his First Apology (chapter 23). Jacob Haller 20:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Name Issues Persist

[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)

Mormons Support Arius?

I have to question the addition of Mormonism in the list of faiths prescribing to Arius' teachings. Without reference side by side with what Arius taught vs. what Mormons believe, it seems as though this section is trying to find ways to prove Mormons follow Arius' teachings. In fact, I can prove via cited reference that they do *not* subscribe to Arius' teachings. Please see http://www.geocities.com/essays12/UScreeds.pdf for a great explanation on Mormon beliefs on the subject. Without cited evidence to the contrary, I suggest Mormons be removed from the list, as I think more than anything, Mormons support the Catholic belief that Arius was a Heretic.Jstayii 22:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, did you read the paragraph leading into that list at all? Or the headline, "'Arian' as a polemical epithet"? The point is not that the groups on that list are Arians -- in fact, the intro material states exactly the opposite. The point is that the groups don't follow the Nicene Creed, and thus have been labelled Arians by others. --Jfruh (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the example I provided? It makes very good evidence that Mormons do support the Nicene creed. We may have different interpretations of what 1 in 3 and 3 in 1 actually mean, but Mormons agree with the sections of the Nicene creed and others that were added to contradict Arianism. Should Mormons be in that list, Catholics should as well for the same reasons as Mormons. Catholics and Mormons are very much in agreement with not following any of the teachings of Arius. Jstayii 22:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, I think we're arguing at counterpurposes here. I, and more importantly, this article, is in no way arguing that Mormons (or Jehovah's Witnesses or Muslims or whatever) are really secret Arians or something. I'm not that familiar with Mormon trinitarianism, so apologies if I misspoke. But such accusations have historically been a feature of anti-Mormon polemic. The interesting thing from the standpoint of this article is that the Arian controversy so marked the early Church that "Arian" became frequently used insult or attack word in debates about the trinity, centuries after the last Arians (in the strict sense of "those who follow the teachings of Arius") died out. To summarize: This article is not trying to say that Mormons are Arians. This article is only noting that others have called Mormons Arians.

Frankly, this whole section is a bother and it may need to be eliminated or seriously rewritten. The problem is that this exact thing keeps happening over and over: someone sees their religion on this list, feels that Wikipedia is insulting them by calling them Arians, and adds some elaborate theological argument proving that they aren't, really. I'm pretty sure I wrote this section way back when, and it originally just noted that "Arian" was used in theological debates about the trinity, and then mentioned in passing some of the groups that have been so accused. Then everyone wanted to add descriptions. The rest is sorry history, and I'm open to suggestions on how it can be reworked to make it more obvious that Wikipedia isn't in the business of deciding who's an Arian and who isn't. --Jfruh (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I would say cut the section. The fact is, any non-trinitatian or subordinationist group will always be compared to arianism. Indeed, throughout the middle ages it was a common term to through around as an accusation against one's theological opponents. Arians are Arians - and that is what this article should be concerned with. Not who is like arians, or has been accused of being like arians. -- Pastordavid 02:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep. And there are very different non-trinitarian theologies. Jacob Haller 03:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I do honestly think it's worthwhile to keep the part that points out that "Arian" is a frequent term of abuse in theological disputation -- it may be the first context in which most people will encounter the term, so they'll be confused if they come here and find that they all died out in the firth century. I think the list of not-Arians can be safely cut, though. --Jfruh (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree - thanks for cutting it. It either needs to be rewritten to state your purposes, or removed to avoid any evidence of bias. I realize it wasn't the intent, but the wording made it look as so. I think if it were to be shown again, references of people calling certain religions "Arian" should be cited, along with cited references of both sides of the story on why people claim such, and why the particular religion does not agree that they subscribe to Arian teachings. So long as it remains neutral there should be no complaints on either side. That, unfortunately is not an easy thing to do - hence why I think it's just a good idea to remove the section. Jstayii 04:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to grumble, but I did state my purposes -- the text said clearly that there was no historical continuity between Arians and the listed groups and that the members of those groups didn't consider themselves Arians. I'm not sure how much clearer I could have made it. I just got sick of the endless fights and the pointless "they say"-"they say" accretions of text to this section. --Jfruh (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Modern times arianism?

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)

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)

Arianism as heresy

I don't know why this is covered up. According to heresy and the source quoted in it:

Heresy, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is a "theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the Roman Catholic or Orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church, or, by extension, to that of any church, creed, or religious system, considered as orthodox. By extension, heresy is an opinion or doctrine in philosophy, politics, science, art, etc., at variance with those generally accepted as authoritative."

Moreover, the scholarly sources invoked in this page study Arianism under the sign of heresy. Is any ground to consider Arianism not a heresy? Daizus 11:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should cover the issues. Nicaea condemned Arianism as heresy. Wikipedia should state that Nicaea did so (and the article does). Wikipedia should not, however, condemn any tradition as heresy, as that violates NPOV (as the category tag would). Jacob Haller 11:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

A personal issue: I am not an Arian (closer to Anomean) but my own position is also condemned by Nicaea. I try not to push my own POV, but to stay neutral and stay close to the sources. If our positions were reversed, if history had gone another way, and people were tagging Athanasianism as heresy, I hope I would not be doing so. Jacob Haller 11:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia simply has to follow the sources and the sources say Arianism was a heresy. To say it was not it means to engage in original research. Also to say it is a NPOV violation it means there's another POV represented by reliable sources. Yet I don't see it. Is any scholarship claiming Arianism was not a heresy? Is any scholarship claiming the Nicene creed was not mainstream/orthodox at that time? Daizus 11:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

For the first question, it depends how we define Arianism. For the second question:

Eunomius' First Apology?

Philostorgius's Church History?

Auxentius' Letter?

Of course these are partisan works. Athanasius' and Sozomen's are also partisan works, as are Newman's, Schaff's and Kelly's IIRC. Jacob Haller 12:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice try. I asked for reliable sources, I asked for scholarship. Let's leave aside the theologicians (though some of them were/are professors of Church history, as well), check Edward Peters (present in the article's bibliography), check Mircea Eliade (not present, try "A History of Religious Ideas", vol. II). Daizus 12:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Which sources are you using which (1) you consider reliable (2) you do not consider theologians and (3) describe Arianism as a heresy? And Philostorgius was more historian than theologian. Jacob Haller 12:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've already provided two: Edward Peters (in Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe) and Mircea Eliade (in A History of Religious Ideas). Philostorgius doesn't qualify (and even so I wonder what part of his work are you using, as it is largely lost) because its usage fails to meet WP:RS and WP:NOR; can you name a peer-review journal he published in? Can you present a scholary review of his work assessing the quality of his interpretation? I thought so. Daizus 12:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As long as you keep moving the goalposts, redefining scholarly sources to exclude any sources which (1) I have access to and (2) contradict your POV, you can dodge the issue. But why should wikipedia condemn anything as a false religion? Jacob Haller 13:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

But I did not redefine them, from the beginning I was referring to them as reliable sources. Moreover Edward Peters is included in the article and it is available online ([1] "Arianism began, as many schismatical and heretical movements did"). Therefore your objections do not hold.

The condemnation issue is actually a straw man. Barbarian is generaly a pejorative term but is used by modern scholarship in a non-pejorative way to describe the non-Romans. Similarly heresy, regardless of what heavy conotations you may assign to it, is used by modern scholarship to describe certain schismatic movements inside major religions (in this case, Christianity). The definition provided by Oxford Dictionary shows it as well. Daizus 15:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As an alternative, I suggest creating categories for views condemned at various councils or by various churches. Perhaps Category: Condemned at the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople? Jacob Haller 12:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view specifically addresses this issue: Jacob Haller 14:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral – that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

To label the subject Heresy is in opposition to its subject.

NPOV requires views to be represented without bias.

assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves.

If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone.

Let the facts speak for themselves

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Religion also addresses this issue:

NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past.

Wait a minute ... did I see a little further up the implication that theologians are not reliable sources about theology? Of course they are. Actually, the sources J. Haller quoted are indeed RS. However, they are in the minority. The mroe important point is the issue with the category -- if Category:Christian heresy or Category:Heresy is still around, this article should be in it. However, the article is inherently POV, and has been up at CfD -- or at least considered for one - repeatedly. I would take the debate about the validity of categorizing terms as heresy where it belongs - to that category, not here. What happens here should be a result of that discussion. -- Pastordavid 14:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What proves the reliability (per WP:RS and WP:NOR) of Auxentius or Philostorgius (again I must stress the work of the latter is largely lost, bringing forward a weird situation of how can one discuss the reliability of a source he hasn't read??)?

Theologians may be reliable sources on theology, but not on the history of the Church. It is a fact (according to these historians) at Nicaea Arianism was declared heretical (through a majority of votes). It is a fact the Nicene creed was declared orthodox. It is a fact that historically the heresy can be defined in a certain way and Arianism falls under this definition. Daizus 15:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is that "heresy" is a theological term that basically means "theology that we don't believe in" and Wikipedia does not exist to take theological positions. Why is it so terrible and a "cover up" to say "Mainstream Christian churches consider Arianism to be heretical" rather than state in Wikipedia's voice that "Arianism is heretical"? --Jfruh (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Heresy" it is not just a theological term. I provided the Oxford Dictionary definition, I provided scholars (contemporary historians and historians of religion, with reputation, credentials, peer-reviewed) using "heresy" and "heretical" in a narrative about the history of Christianity, and having a different meaning that the one you claim it has.

You know, I have not encountered yet a history of Christianity (written by modern reputable scholars, of course) which considers Arianism anyhow else than a Christian heresy. It's not about putting a blame, but recognizing a certain derivative nature, a certain schismatic nature.

There's an article already about Christian heresy, I have nothing against restructuring the "heresy" category (i.e. having some subcategories and "Christian heresy/ies" to be one of them), just please do not try to claim things which are at odds with current scholarship. There were such things as heresies and Arianism was one of them, so let's just deal with the fact and do not hide it. Daizus 20:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Now that I'm looking at what the edit history, I'm seeing that this debate is about including "Heresies" as a category, which I don't actually have any objection to. There's just been a lot of POV pushing on this page that seeks to "prove" that Arianism is "wrong", which is what I object to. --Jfruh (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is the Catholic Church or the Orthodox lay claim to the christian mantle? The church is right and everyone who is opposed to the trinitarian belief is wrong and not a real christian? In this case every religous movement with the exception of the Catholic Church would be non-christian and heretic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SonofSieglinde (talk • contribs) 19:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Conflict

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)

Split proposal

I suggest we divide this article into at least two and preferably three parts:

1. Arian controversy An article on the history and development of the controversy. This would cover all sides, cover Church councils from Nicaea to Constantinople, etc.
2. Arianism An article on the doctrines and practices of Arias and those closest to Arius' teachings.
3. (Untitled) An article on common doctrines and practices of those generally considered "Arian" including Anomeans and Semi-Arians, and possibly non-"Arian" developments within the school of Lucian of Antioch. Jacob Haller 06:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have started an Arian controversy stub and would like help filling it out, and splitting this article. Jacob Haller 03:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Why split an article that is this short?

This article is not even 25KB long yet and is not a good candidate for a split. In fact I came here because I was going to propose merging some bio stubs of famous Arians into this article. -- SECisek 18:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the article is that size after the split, carry on. -- SECisek 19:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Arius' death

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)

Changes to intro paragraph

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. --Ginkgo100^talk 23:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Arianism" as idiomatic expression

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)

Introduction / Overview

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)

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)

Arianism is a heresy and this should be stated

Ok, I know that some people today do accept the teachings of Arius. However, that does NOT remove the fact that the original Christian Church declared Arius a heretic and his teachings as heresies. If we are to claim Arius is a "Christian", then we HAVE to clarify that his teachings are considered heresies BY Christians. We cannot simply state that Arianism is a "Christian" idea. It HAS to be pointed out in the first sentences that it is considered a heresy by the majority of Christians out there.

This is the SAME as Mormonism. Many Mormons would like to see themselves to be considered to be Christians. HOWEVER, that DOES NOT make them Christians.

Another example... Today, if someone in the Republican party turns and begins to espouse views that are in heavy agreement with the Democrats, is it not right then for the Republican party to "Disown" that person and thus call him a Democrat?

Christians original DID have a solid set of doctrines they had to adhere to. You can even read the Gospels and Epistles and find this. The Apostles repeatedly denounce heretics and people that taught false doctrines. Just because one believes in Jesus as the messiah doesn't always make them a Christian. As I said, we can see this in the New Testament. The Apostles (and God even) denounce "heretics" for their teachings and call for their repentence and the resistance of Christians.

Therefore, is it not also right to show to the world that these people are considered heretics by Christians? It does NOT matter what more liberal Christians believe today about different people or different issues. The fact remains that the early Christians, who were taught by the Apostles themselves and the disciples of the Apostles thus saw that the people teaching these doctrines were straying dangerously far away from what the Apostles and their disciples had taught, and thus called these people heretics.

The First Council of Nicaea was in 325 A.D. St. Alexander of Alexandria presided over this. He was the Bishop of Alexandria, an Apostolic See. Here is the succession of Alexander... Pope Alexander
Pope Achillas
Pope Peter I
Pope Theonas
Pope Maximus
Pope Dionysius
Pope Heraclas
Pope Demetrius
Pope Julian
Pope Agrippinus
Pope Celadion
Pope Markianos
Pope Eumenes
Pope Justus
Pope Primus
Pope Kedron
Pope Avilus (about this time was when St. John the Theologian reposed)
Pope Anianus (ordained by St. Mark the Evangelist)
St. Mark the Evangelist

That is not very many Popes/bishops that continued the Church in Alexandria which was founded by the Apostles. We can easily do this with the other Apostolic Sees and the bishops that participated in the Council of Nicaea.

They were simply continuing the tradition and beliefs of the Apostles and the Disciples of the Apostles. How then, can we claim that Arianism is NOT heretical/heterodox when it contradicts the teachings of the Apostles, their Disciples and the successors to them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KCMODevin (talk • contribs) 20:01, 1 August 2008

Agreed. To call Arianism "Christian" is to call Christianity "Arian" -- which it is not. The definitions do not match. Thanks for the catch.Tim (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW -- the reason to call Arius a heretic is not that he's "wrong." Let's say that he's "right." Let's say that the New Testament and apostles believed and taught Arianism, and yet the large corpus of the religion we call Christianity actually sabotaged the true faith. Nevertheless, they now use the name and are identified under that title. As their self definition is the Nicene Creed, which specifically prohibits Arianism, Arianism is now a heresy with respect to the Christian church -- simply meaning that the belief is not accepted within the mainstream of the religion known by the name "Christianity." The same is true for any set of ideas. Messianic Jews claim to represent Judaism, but by Jewish standards (Orthodoxy) Messianic Judaism is a heresy -- meaning that it does NOT represent the group normally known as "Judaism." The word heresy doesn't mean you are wrong -- only that you are different from the group giving you that label. If you don't CLAIM to be in that group, you may never get the label. For instance, Hindus are not "heretics" by Christian standards for the simple reason that they don't CLAIM to be Christians. They are simply a different religion. Clarity and consistency in terms and definitions in their historical context are the reasons to make distinctions on Wikipedia, not truth and falsehood. No doubt you do not consider the Roman Catholic church to be heretical. But if you were a third century Pharisee you would. One person's heretic is another person's prophet -- but the distinctions MUST be made for sound Wikipedia articles, without judgment of who is "right" or "wrong."Tim (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, it isn't stating they are "right" or that they are "wrong", it's simply clarifying that ever since 325 A.D. Christians have regarded Arianism as heretical. Look at Mormonism, some Mormons want to be considered Christians, but because of their beliefs, they are considered heretical in Christianity. It isn't that we are saying they are wrong or right, we are just stating that they aren't part of mainstream Christianity and are in fact considered heretical. --KCMODevin (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The opening paragraph reads:

Arianism is the heretical/heterodox teachings of the Christian heretic Arius (c. AD 250-336), who lived and taught in Alexandria, Egypt, in the early 4th century. The most controversial of his teachings, considered contrary to the Nicene creed and heretical by the Council of Nicaea, dealt with the relationship between God the Father and the person of Jesus, saying that Jesus was not one with the father, and that he was not fully, although almost, divine in nature.

I have reverted the new edits in the first sentence so that there is not the repetition of heretic. However, some editors insist that it is the preferred language. I find the language clumsy and repetitive. I think the way it should read is:

Arianism is the heterodox teachings of the Christian Arius (c. AD 250-336), who lived and taught in Alexandria, Egypt, in the early 4th century.

The fact we state it is a heterodox teaching already covers the topic of heretical. Heterodox is defined as being "not in accordance with established or accepted doctrines or opinions, esp. in theology; unorthodox".[2] I am not questioning the fact that the teaching was heretical, I am seeking for using better sentence structure.

As an aside, Arius was to have been brought back into communion the day after he died. At the time of his death it would appear that his personal beliefs were in accordance with the church. To me this language is just exaggerated repetition. The language I have proposed states the same thing that is desired, but states it sensibly and without overkill. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Does this clear it up?

Arianism is the theological teachings of the Christian heretic Arius (c. AD 250-336), who lived and taught in Alexandria, Egypt, in the early 4th century. The most controversial of his teachings, considered contrary to the Nicene creed and heretical by the Council of Nicaea, dealt with the relationship between God the Father and the person of Jesus, saying that Jesus was not one with the father, and that he was not fully, although almost, divine in nature.

I see your point, and this eliminates the duplication without making him look mainstream Christian.Tim (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to qualify Arianism, the topic, as heterodox and heretical. I tend to lean away from qualifying Arius as a heretic because he was accepted back into the church after his first excommunication if I recall correctly. More importantly he was already accepted back in again. This was a muddy time in church history where one day one was in and the next day one was out. I am thinking of both Arius and Athanasius here. Calling Arius a Christian does not mean that his teachings were acceptable; they were not. Calling him a heretic now overlooks that he personally was found acceptable for communion. I am making a distinction between the man and his previous teachings. Does this make sense to you? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does make sense, and you could be right. The problem is the wording. One man's heresy is another man's orthodoxy. For instance, Paul is both Orthodox and Heretical, depending on which person you asked. Is he an Orthodox Christian? By definition, one would hope! Is he a heretical Jew? Absolutely.

So, Christianity... the heretical teachings of the Jew Paul... well, that works, but only because we know who Paul is. If we were a little fuzzy there would be a problem. So, that's why Christian and Heretic really need to be crammed together for Aruis. He isn't a Jewish heretic or a Buddhist heretic. He's a Christian heretic. So we know the context. Does that make sense to you as well? To say that X is the heretical teaching of the Christian Y, one is left with the question of -- heretical to who?Tim (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm changing the introduction. It says that Arius said that Christ was not fully divine, but the article later states that he said Christ was divine. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 08:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Origin section contentious

This part: "That doctrine that Arius wrote was the main theology of the first century Christians. Scriptures such as John 14:28 where Jesus says that the father is "greater than I" to John 17:20-26 where Jesus asks that the Apostles become "one as we are one" so that all of them including Jesus and God become one, thus demonstrating that the oneness refers to thought and will, and not a physical Trinity." is both a grammatical chaos and contentious. It attempts to hoist Arianism onto 1st century christianity which is tantamount to saying "the Bible supports Arianism". It is true that the full blown Trinity is not there, and that the early years of Christianity were at least partly marked by subordinationism; but that is not the same as Arianism.

Indeed, the whole section is written from a pro-arian perspective. Grahbudd (talk) 06:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I haven't gotten all the way through the article yet, but what you quote here doesn't even make sense as a criticism of orthodoxy. What the heck is intended by "physical Trinity"? The only kind of physical trinity I know of is a billiard ball: one ball in three spacial dimensions. Although useful as an analogy, that's all it is.

Thanks for the heads up!Tim (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Crucifixion

Perhaps the article could clarify the Arian view of the Crucifixion. Did they reject that the Crucifixion had happened, or was it merely that they did not view it as an act of redemption for the world, as the orthodox Christians do? The article suggests that Arianism, unlike Islam, did believe that there was a Crucifixion. I was under the impression that they did not.