Why Arianism didn't prevail over nicene Christianity? It

>>1637474
It was for a while and it was a big problem. A lot of the Goths who took over what was the WRE were converts of it. Over time, orthodoxy prevailed.

>>1637474


Because Nicene theology isn't some a priori attempt to reason down what exactly the essence of god is. It's a muddled compromise between Unitarian and actual polytheistic elements in early Christianity. It HAD to prevail, and you had the effort on the top pushing for it to prevail, because the alternative is all these various sects either drifting apart or fighting again.

Because Constantine wanted to stop the squabbling ASAP

>>1637492
In the end Constantine was baptised by an Arian and his son Constantius promoted Arianism hard.

>>1637474

Because Nicene heretics had Rome backing them.

It was simply a matter of politics, not theology. Christian theologians are trying to this day to explain to others and to themselves wtf is the trinity. They inevitably fail and resort to cheap "arguments" such as hurr durr it's a divine mystery, rather than recognizing that it simply makes no sense.

>>1637645
Trinity makes plenty of sense. Father Son and Holy Spirit, the creation, the message, and the essence that holds all of us together. You can over complicate things if you want to though

>>1637474
They both can make sense together.

>>1637789
How does Trinity make sense? All attempts to justify it are just mental gymnastics to the highest degree.

Also, the concept of Trinity contradicts Bible. Or perhaps Jesus prayed to himself?

>>1637997
>How does Trinity make sense?
>Also, the concept of Trinity contradicts Bible.

The trinity as concept was added as concept in Christianity. The trinity as concept was well known from the time of ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, to nearer Greek and Roman period.

The trinity as concept was probably much more comprehensible to the people of that time, than it is to us in our world. Evident by its importance.

>>1637997
Because you refuse to accept the explanations given to you.

>>1637997
They baptize in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit after the ressurection.

>Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

>>1637997
God the Son and God the Father are two distinct Persons of the Trinity. You really need to research this shit.

>>1638164
>Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
>Father is greater than I

>>1638185
Trinity is 3 aspects of One God, and the Trinity is only one explaination of God, from Christians sources.

If Arianism had become the "official" Christianity, would Islam even exist?

>>1638427
Yes, because Islam was about some illiterate merchant wanting to unite his people, and the best way to do that was lying about meeting an angel and saying he was the supreme prophet of a new religion

It accepted Jesus as a prophet, not because they were moved by his message, but for political expedience in gaining converts. Basically all the revelations before Mohammed were true, but they reworked so they'd point towards Mohammed being the #1 guy

>>1638427
How is that related at all? Arianism and Islam are no more alike than orthodox christianity and islam. If Arianism had succeeded christianity would be exactly the same except for a single iota of difference in the creed (literally)

File: image.jpg (68KB, 529x498px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 529x498px

>>1637474
>supporting Arianism

If Trinitarians claim they believe in one God essence existing in 3 persons/existences, why doesn't the Nicene Creed clarify they believe in one God essence? Do they not realize how much confusion that would save the uninitiated? Most people think of God as a "being"; not "old guy on a cloud" but still closer to a being than an essence. The Nicean creed makes it seem like God is primarily Yahweh, and that Jesus and the Paraclete (though saying they're also God) are less divine because they're not Yahweh, even though they're just as great as Yahweh.

I'm not blaming the church solely, but this cultural attitude of God being primarily "the father" has screwed so many people up.

>>1638594
Because even at the First Council there was disagreement about the nature of the three.

The creed was adopted for political convenience, not because of any agreement theological agreement.

>>1638634
Ok I can understand that, there were reservations about signing it on both sides. I forgot which subordinationist said it but there were those who "signed it with their hand, but not with their hearts". And there were Trinitarians who believed it didn't go far enough in trinitarianism, that subordinationists would be able to say it in public without violating their personal beliefs.

But the primary contest was begotten vs made, right? The creed explicitly states that Jesus was begotten. Was that on there in the origional copy and the Arians still signed it, or was it revised at a later date? Maybe the council of Constantinople?