Do you believe in Jesus?

[Vasilius Konstantinos]

Lord Bitememan

Quote:

but if Jesus is not the Son of God then you cannot call what you accept as Christian, as that is the one facet which cannot be altered from the Faith. If you say otherwise, then look into Gnosticism.

Or you could have a nuanced view of it, leading you to embrace somewhat archaic forms of Christianity, like Arianism. I'm probably more in line with Arius' ideas when it comes to Christianity.

So Jesus was not the Son of God but an agent from Heaven. Interesting.

But please, respectfully do not call it Christian as Christianity strictly defines the faith as Jesus is the Son of God, of the same essence with the Father, as it states in the Nicene Creed.  

[Lord Bitememan]

Vasilius Konstantinos

Lord Bitememan

Quote:

but if Jesus is not the Son of God then you cannot call what you accept as Christian, as that is the one facet which cannot be altered from the Faith. If you say otherwise, then look into Gnosticism.

Or you could have a nuanced view of it, leading you to embrace somewhat archaic forms of Christianity, like Arianism. I'm probably more in line with Arius' ideas when it comes to Christianity.

So Jesus was not the Son of God but an agent from Heaven. Interesting.

But please, respectfully do not call it Christian as Christianity strictly defines the faith as Jesus is the Son of God, of the same essence with the Father, as it states in the Nicene Creed.

The problem with that approach is that there is no universal over-arching authority for all of Christianity. What you have are numerous Christian groups and factions, some of whom are centrally organized, some are not, all of which have their own interpretation and spin on what is and isn't a tenant of the religion. The Nicene Creed derives its authority solely from its widespread acceptance among most Christians, although having attended Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox churches I've seen different wordings in all of them. The Arian beliefs are non-Nicene, but your summation of them was a bit reductive. Most Christian groups end to set their own standards for what it takes to be a Christian, and most do so to the exclusion of those outside their particular interpretation. Protestants, for example, rejected the notions of indulgences and works in salvation, a direct statement that they do not consider those who adhere to the pronouncements of the Catholic church as adhering to Christianity. Similarly, the Catholics hold that those who operate outside the authority of the Pope (later amended to include the authority of the Metropolitan Bishops in an attempt at rapprochement toward the Orthodox churches) are not legitimate Christians. All three groups would probably agree that a non-Nicene group doesn't qualify as Christian, but till recently all three groups would have concluded that any of the other two weren't really Christians either. That said, Arians still accept the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus, to the exclusion of other religions and interpretations. That makes it difficult to simply sideline the teachings as non-Christian.  

[Vasilius Konstantinos]

If the rejection of His divinity was as simple as rejecting indulgences I would concur, but there is a huge difference between semantic practices and the divinity and nature of the Man/God Himself. Its quite a huge difference, enough to stir most of Christians into a frenzy.

And for almost 1,500 years with little dissuasion, the Nicene Creed was the basic tenet of what Christianity is. What has become of it now is a direct result from Western Ideologues who all wished to be the Pope, directly or indirectly.

Disagree or agree, it does not matter but I cannot accept Arianist teaching as a foundational branch of Christianity. Take no offense as I am coming from my Orthodox Christian practices, but rejection of His Divinity and placing Him as an agent of Heaven is Heretical.  

[Lord Bitememan]

Oh, Arianism didn't teach that Jesus wasn't divine. It taught that he was not eternal. It taught that only the father was eternal and that the son and the holy spirit were made later. And, there is plenty of room to equate these teachings with the teachings on indulgences since the dispute that caused the western schism was over important matters of doctrine on salvation and papal power. Saying that "faith alone, grace alone, scripture alone" vs "as you make it on earth so to shall it be in heaven" is a small matter does a disservice to the whole period of the Protestant Reformation.

Furthermore, to suggest that there was little discussion on the Nicene Creed ignores not only that two Roman emperors and the Goths, Vandals, and Lombards were Arians, but also at least three of the bishops attending Nicea were Arian in thought and refused to sign the creed. Arianism continued after the signing of the creed and there were even open debates about the matter. Much of the decline of Arianism can be attributed to Roman politics and the defeat of various Germanic groups by certain well-connected Nicene groups. For 300 years, though, after the Nicene Creed, Arianism persisted and was only stamped out by force. That might have been the end of the story had it not been for the major recurrence every few hundred years or so of major "heresies" that tended to reject Nicene teachings themselves. Catharism, for example, was an Adoptionist teaching (means they felt Jesus was born mortal and attained divinity in life), and flourished in the south of France. Like with Arianism, the eventual method of bringing people around to the Nicene Creed was to slaughter them, in this case in the Albigensian Crusade. So it's hardly fair to say that there was little disagreement over Nicea.

So, with respect to Arianism as a foundational branch, it should be noted that some groups, even today, consider themselves Arians.

http://www.arian-catholic.org/

So, you may consider them heretical all you like. My guess is, as an Eastern Orthodox, there are some groups not thrilled with your rejection of the supremacy of their Pope, and other groups consider heretical that you place the pronouncements of a bishop above the believe in faith alone, grace alone, and scripture alone. Again, nobody appointed anyone else head of all Christianity, and the day they do we can all discuss what's Christianity and what isn't.  

[Latopazora]

Lord Bitememan

Again, nobody appointed anyone else head of all Christianity, and the day they do we can all discuss what's Christianity and what isn't.

you mean when Jesus Christ comes back and says "You're all wrong!"?  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

Vasilius Konstantinos

And for almost 1,500 years with little dissuasion, the Nicene Creed was the basic tenet of what Christianity is.

By "basic tenet" you mean a group of people saying it is so, and killing those who didn't.  

[Vasilius Konstantinos]

Rainbowfied Mouse

Vasilius Konstantinos

And for almost 1,500 years with little dissuasion, the Nicene Creed was the basic tenet of what Christianity is.

By "basic tenet" you mean a group of people saying it is so, and killing those who didn't.

Yeah, okay.  

[Vasilius Konstantinos]

Lord Bitememan

Oh, Arianism didn't teach that Jesus wasn't divine. It taught that he was not eternal. It taught that only the father was eternal and that the son and the holy spirit were made later. And, there is plenty of room to equate these teachings with the teachings on indulgences since the dispute that caused the western schism was over important matters of doctrine on salvation and papal power. Saying that "faith alone, grace alone, scripture alone" vs "as you make it on earth so to shall it be in heaven" is a small matter does a disservice to the whole period of the Protestant Reformation.

Furthermore, to suggest that there was little discussion on the Nicene Creed ignores not only that two Roman emperors and the Goths, Vandals, and Lombards were Arians, but also at least three of the bishops attending Nicea were Arian in thought and refused to sign the creed. Arianism continued after the signing of the creed and there were even open debates about the matter. Much of the decline of Arianism can be attributed to Roman politics and the defeat of various Germanic groups by certain well-connected Nicene groups. For 300 years, though, after the Nicene Creed, Arianism persisted and was only stamped out by force. That might have been the end of the story had it not been for the major recurrence every few hundred years or so of major "heresies" that tended to reject Nicene teachings themselves. Catharism, for example, was an Adoptionist teaching (means they felt Jesus was born mortal and attained divinity in life), and flourished in the south of France. Like with Arianism, the eventual method of bringing people around to the Nicene Creed was to slaughter them, in this case in the Albigensian Crusade. So it's hardly fair to say that there was little disagreement over Nicea.

So, with respect to Arianism as a foundational branch, it should be noted that some groups, even today, consider themselves Arians.

http://www.arian-catholic.org/

So, you may consider them heretical all you like. My guess is, as an Eastern Orthodox, there are some groups not thrilled with your rejection of the supremacy of their Pope, and other groups consider heretical that you place the pronouncements of a bishop above the believe in faith alone, grace alone, and scripture alone. Again, nobody appointed anyone else head of all Christianity, and the day they do we can all discuss what's Christianity and what isn't.

You are educating the choir, my friend.
I never said there was no dispute. Only a little dissuasion as to what it says is what I meant. and little is what this was to be honest.

You make it sound as if the East was the one who persecuted the Albigensians. We did not.

Roman Catholics and Protestants are their own. Latins are Schismatics and Protestant are Heretics. Some protestants are technically Apostates. Why are we arguing this on a Political board anyways? I voice my view, you rebuttal, I defend it, you disagree. I say leave it at that.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

Quote:

Yeah, okay.

Well, we can start with the crusades of Europe where German "Pagans" were forced to reconcile and convert or be killed, included LB's Arianism. We can then move on to the Inquisitions brought forth by the Popes of the "one and only" Catholic Church at the time killing any 'heretic' who strayed from Nicene's Creed and other religious rulings. We could also move on to the wars between Lutheranism and Catholicism... which pretty much was a war between the Western Church and Germany, because Lutheran's views (now considered moderate) was very against the church and meant to undermine it. Noticing a trend? If something isn't normal at the time, it's not Christian but heretics.  

[VertigoIX]

yes  

[Vasilius Konstantinos]

Rainbowfied Mouse

Quote:

Yeah, okay.

Well, we can start with the crusades of Europe where German "Pagans" were forced to reconcile and convert or be killed, included LB's Arianism.

This was Charlemagne, not the Church actually. Bishops enacted this but not the Pope of Rome.

Rainbowfied Mouse

We can then move on to the Inquisitions brought forth by the Popes of the "one and only" Catholic Church at the time killing any 'heretic' who strayed from Nicene's Creed and other religious rulings.

Actually it was enacted by the Pope to stop the Albigensian Sect who refused to break away from the Roman Church. Hence why it was an Inquiry to those who called themselves Roman Catholic. If you would delve further, the Church only questioned those who were supposedly of the Faith, not those who said they were not Roman Catholic. Albigensian teachings went against the Roman Catholic Faith and the Church dealt with it. I dont condone how they did it but they did it.

Rainbowfied Mouse

We could also move on to the wars between Lutheranism and Catholicism... which pretty much was a war between the Western Church and Germany, because Lutheran's views (now considered moderate) was very against the church and meant to undermine it.

The conflicts here were started by the Lutherans who began to tear down the images, the icons and the altars of the Church. They were iconoclasts. That bloody conflict was not enacted by the Roman Church but by the zealots of Luther. Luther himself eventually rejected their actions.

Rainbowfied Mouse

Noticing a trend? If something isn't normal at the time, it's not Christian but heretics.

Oh I concur, but my only debate is that it is not always as it seems. The Roman Church is made into a villain time and again for actions made by individual Bishops and not the Church as a whole. Also numbers have been reported as overblown, sometimes making things out worse than they ever were, like the Inquisition death tolls, which were highly blown out of proportion. Witched like to think of themselves as the martyrs of those days, but the truth is there were really none who were martyred, as only those professing Catholicism as their faith were put on trial.

My faith si in the Eastern Church where our atrocities were done by the State, not the Church. Their politics were screwed up and used doctrinal tenets which the State would apply to the citizens, an action I do not condone. This is the best argument for separation of Church and State, as the Church itself did not condone the State's assaults on many conflicts throughout the centuries, until the sacking of Constantinople.  

[Kyoushi_Harahara]

I am a Christian, and I believe that Jesus was both fully man and fully God. His sacrifice on the cross washed away our sins so that we could be Him, who loves us. I could be more descriptive, but I would probably botch it. I'm far from perfect.