Arian Controversy and the Council of Nicaea | World History | Khan Academy

The earliest Christians, the Church Apostolic fathers learned from Jesus through; they established the Nicene Creed at Constantine
One in 335-330

There was one church.

Then 800s,

Niece Christians are known as Orthodox Christian Church.

Why be Catholic when they changed the Nicene in the 00Creed that was established by the church fathers in 325.

In English: Christianity is a Roman invention

This was petty because it is untrue. That was not what the argument was about. (hidden history) Here is the definition of Arianism, (Christian heresy that declared that Christ is not truly divine but a created being) That is from the dictionary. Key words in the definition are divine and created. If you look up, what divinity is it will tell you a god or goddess. Not true. Divinity simply means to be human. Once the egg is split (DIVIDE) you will become human, and your cells keep dividing as long as you are alive. That is what makes you divine. (that is what Arius Knew) Therefore saying the Christ was not human but a creature made by hands of man. Therefore, at a later council they had to give that creature the theotokos to represent divinity. Not here for debate if you don't agree then so be it. This is for the honor roll students who have the ability to think.

Thank you for your explanation's clarity.

The only correction I would make is that there were not “sects”. There was the orthodox church and then heretics like Arius would come out from time to time

Nicean Creed is more to glorify the Trinity: God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as three persons of God in respect to Jesus calling God as Father and God calling Jesus as Son.

Very interesting presentation. It does get complicated doesn't it. Semantics do take a dominant role up until the present day, the result being a rigid doctrine that in effect shows that any grass roots movement including Christianity gets swallowed up by the establishment, corrupted and then persecutes 'the other'

If Jesus always existed, how can He be begotten?

If Jesus is sitting at the right hand of God, who is running the world Jesus or God? Who is making the decisions?

We’re talking about the Egyptian influence for the trinity of The Father Osiris, The Mother Isis and The Son Horus, right? We finish our prayers with, 'Amen' as in 'Amen Ra', the Egyptian god Ra.

I started questioning Jesus divinity again ! So I came across this, thank you 👍🙏🇦🇺

👍🙏🇦🇺

Arianism is biblical.
Trinitarianism is heresy.

We see how much pagan Greek philosophy had triumphed in the Church by the fourth century. Essence./substance etc ist he labguage of Greek philosophy and not the language of scripture.

⬇The True Story:⬇

The Council of Nicaea was an ecumenical council of Christian bishops held in the city of Nicaea, in what is now modern-day Turkey, in the year 325 AD. The council was convened by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in order to resolve a number of theological controversies that had arisen within the Christian church, most notably the Arian controversy.

The Arian controversy centered around the question of whether Jesus Christ was fully divine, or whether he was a created being. The Arian position held that Jesus was a created being, while the orthodox position held that Jesus was co-eternal and co-equal with God the Father.

The Arian position, also known as Arianism, was a theological belief that emerged in the early Christian church, named after its founder, Arius of Alexandria. The Arians believed that Jesus Christ was a created being, rather than being co-eternal and co-equal with God the Father.

Arius and his followers argued that, although Jesus was divine, he was not fully equal to God the Father. They believed that Jesus was the first and greatest of God's creations, but that he was not divine in the same sense as the Father. They saw Jesus as a kind of intermediary between God and humanity, rather than as an equal member of the Trinity.

This belief was based on a particular interpretation of scripture, particularly passages that refer to Jesus as the "Son of God" and suggest that he was subordinate to the Father. The Arians believed that the term "Son of God" meant that Jesus was a created being, rather than being of the same substance as the Father.

The Arian controversy was one of the most significant debates in early Christianity, and it was ultimately resolved in favor of the orthodox position at the Council of Nicaea, which affirmed that Jesus was co-eternal and co-equal with the Father. However, Arianism continued to be a significant theological belief among some groups of Christians for several centuries after the Council of Nicaea.

At the Council of Nicaea, it was primarily the bishops who ruled in favor of the orthodox position that Jesus was co-eternal and co-equal with the Father. Among the most influential of these bishops were Alexander of Alexandria and his young deacon, Athanasius. The Emperor Constantine, who had convened the council, also supported the orthodox position and used his political influence to help enforce it. The Nicene Creed, which was adopted at the council, declared that Jesus was "begotten, not made" and was "of one substance with the Father". This creed became the standard of orthodox Christian belief on the nature of Jesus and has been widely accepted by Christians ever since.

Establishing the orthodox point of view at the Council of Nicaea would have had several potential benefits for Emperor Constantine.
Firstly, by promoting a unified understanding of Christianity, Constantine may have hoped to stabilize the empire and prevent religious divisions from leading to further conflict and instability. This was particularly important given that Christianity was becoming increasingly popular and influential in the empire, and disagreements over its core beliefs threatened to tear the community apart.

Secondly, by aligning himself with the orthodox position, Constantine could have strengthened his political power and authority over the church. The emperor had long sought to exert control over the church and its leaders, and by supporting the orthodox position, he could position himself as a defender of true Christian doctrine and use this to strengthen his own authority.

Finally, by establishing a clear and unified understanding of Christian doctrine, Constantine may have hoped to foster greater loyalty and support among the Christian population. Christianity was becoming increasingly important in the empire, and by aligning himself with the orthodox position, Constantine could have garnered greater support and legitimacy among Christian leaders and followers.

Meaning, the Trinity is bologna. Man made creation for political power by the catholic church and Constantine the emperor.

HASHEM IS ONE. PERIOD.

B'H

This video presents the ecclesiastical history in a comprehendible and concise manner. Good work.

Lmao I just now realized the nicean creed paragraph is literally a mass prayer

Ive never understood how Protestants ignore the Creed.

Unitarian Adventist groups & C.T.Russell, founder of the B.Student movement an it's breaking group , Watchtower , j.witness, got there teachings from Arius

Arias did not exist that his believes was there was no sun to God he iss passenger this idea was there all the time and the trinity Is the new faith exists and change the crestianity

The Greeks and the Romans politicised African spirituality

The presenter speaks as if “semantics” is a trivial matter in religious and philosophical reasoned debate. That is a serious misunderstanding, possibly enough to classify you as a shallow intellect when it comes to philosophy.

Constantine didnot become a christian......he became a catholic mary worshiper.

Arias apparently didn't know Christ's own words, or if he did Arias substituted his own word in place of Christ's word. John 8:48-58.
There is a great lie that has been hiding in plain sight for 2,000 years. Constantine I did end Roman persecution of Christians, but in doing so he took the mantle of Christ onto himself. Rather than establish the kingdom of heaven on earth as Christ taught it, he established autocratic rule by divine right, something diametrically opposed to by everything Christ teaches us about who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
As a result human beings have been fighting and dying under monarchs, tyrants, and sociopaths for 200 centuries.
The Council of Nicea could have been focused on how to implement Christ's teachings into governing daily life so as to transform human existence from the tribalistic warfare that dominated the world for centuries B.C. into the world as Christ envisions it and through His every word and deed demonstrated.
Instead, the council of Nicea got bogged down in esoteric arguments about the nature of Christ's divinity. The learned men who met in Nicea got caught up in their own personal dogmas, and failed to take meaningful steps towards instigating the changes that would be the beginning of the kingdom of heaven on earth.
There is no such thing as a holy war. Yet, the Catholic church murdered millions upon millions of fellow Christians for centuries.
Christianity has done great works of mercy and love as Christ taught, but at the same time failed to fully realize the kingdom of heaven as Christ taught. And that divergence from Christ's truth, light, and way began at the council of Nicea in 325AD and continues to this very day.
The good news is that there is no end to "I am". We still have an opportunity to fully realize the kingdom of heaven on earth. It only remains for us all to honor Christ's teachings. His words point the way eternally. Let's go....

It reads “If the Father”……. Big notice “If”? We only see what we’ve been given to see . It’s all been redacted with a burning of the books .

According to the Nicene Creed, the Father really isn't a father. He's more of a mystical philosophical father, since he really didn't proceed the son. Makes total sense. I think? 🤔🤔🤔🤔

The war between the Arians and the Catholics ended badly for the Arians.But the Church didn’t burn heretics back then. Rather, they exiled them all to the sands of what is now Saudi Arabia.

Filioque, not filoque.

BOTTOM LINE IS THAT WHETHER THE QUOTE "CHURCH" IN THE EAST OR WEST, BOTH WERE ESTABLISHED BY CIVIL POWER,AND NOT LIKE UNTO WHAT MESSIAH JESUS ESTABLISHED IN JERUSALEM (IN THE UPPER ROOM), WHICH WENT INTO JERUSALEM, JUDEA, SAMARIA, AND THE UTTERMOST PARTS OF THE WORLD. NO, A THOUSAND TIMES NO, NEITHER HAD AUTHORITY OVER ALL OF WHAT IS, "THE BODY OF CHRIST". HAVING DISCUSSIONS ON DOCTRINE IS ONE THING, BUT ONE OR THE OTHER THEN MAKINGTHEMSELVES THE SOLE ARBITOR OF TRUTH, OUTSIDE OF HOLY SCRIPTURE IS ANOTHER.

I guess Arius didn't read genesis 1:26 KEKW

Useful if u started from the 1st century. The doctrine of trinity was created around 200 years after Jesus' death. No one thought Jesus was Almighty God before then

Can we say that Arius was in total disagreement of the incarnation of Jesus? I think that's why the Nicene Creed was created. It was a matter of debate because they wanted to create the character of Jesus as a idol for worship under one world religion. That's what Arius was in total disagreement about. Remember he was from Alexandria... Egypt where the true essence of where the Christ story was borrowed.

I had to do a search about Arius of Alexandria because I thought it was "Aryanism". Quite different!

Arius was a Black Man. Christianity is a fake religion for the purpose of keeping the rich in power.

fails to mention the beginning of all this. it goes back to Serapis Christus, THE 1st EUROPEAN PHaroah of Egypt After Alexander The Greek defeated Persians , Ptolemy the 1st ruled Egypt. He was Christ and his followers "Christian" before the Council of Nicea, then after the council we had JESUS. WHO NEVER EXISTED! Arius was just stating the facts and he was being "censored" like MSM does to the speakers of facts today.

I've been struggling with this material so much even after reading 15 different mixed sources for my class. Now I finally understand because of this video. Khan academy never misses and is doing such important work thank you.

Unify Christian. Arius from Egypt. How can son if father before him doesn't make sense they want themselves to be gods. Politics. They exile him

Today I found out that Christianity today is sponsored by a power thirsty Constantine.

PORTION OF LETTER TO EUSEBIUS, WRITTEN BY ARIUS

Since Eusebius, your brother in Caesarea, and Theodotus, and Paulinus, and Athanasius, and Gregory, and Aetius and all those in the East say that God pre-exists the Son without a beginning, they have been condemned, except for Philogonius and Hellenicus and Macarius, unlearned heretics some of whom say that the Son was “spewed out”, others that he was an “emanation”, still others that he was “jointly unbegotten.”



We are not able to listen to these kinds of impieties, even if the heretics threaten us with ten thousand deaths. But what do we say and think and what have we previously taught and do we presently teach? — that the Son is not unbegotten, nor a part of an unbegotten entity in any way, nor from anything in existence, but that HE is subsisting in will and intention before time and before the ages, full <of grace and truth,> God, the only-begotten, unchangeable. Before HE was begotten, or created, or defined, or established, HE did not exist. For HE was not unbegotten. But we are persecuted because we have said the Son has a beginning but God has no beginning. We are persecuted because of that and for saying HE came from non-being. But we said this since HE is not a portion of God nor of anything in existence. That is why we are persecuted; you know the rest.



PHILIPP VAN LIMBORCH, THE HISTORY OF THE INQUISITION PAGE 22 WROTE THE FOLLOWING,



“THE OCCASION OF THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY WAS THIS - ALEXANDER (BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA), SPEAKING IN A VERY WARM MANNER CONCERNING THE TRINITY, BEFORE THE PRESBYTERS AND THE CLERGY OF HIS CHURCH, AFFIRMED THERE WAS A UNITY IN THE TRINITY, AND PARTICULARLY THAT THE SON WAS CO-ETERNAL AND CONSUBSTANTIAL, AND OF THE SAME DIGNITY WITH THE FATHER.



ARIUS OPPOSED HIM IN THIS MANNER; “IF THE FATHER BEGAT THE SON, HE WHO IS BEGOTTEN MUST HAVE A BEGINNING OF HIS EXISTENCE AND FROM HENCE, SAY HE, ‘TIS MANIFEST THAT THERE WAS A TIME WHEN HE WAS NOT”.



ALSO FROM THE SAME BOOK WE READ,



AND YET NOTWITHSTANDING ALL THESE THINGS, WHEN ALEXANDER GIVES AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINCIPLES OF ‘ARIUS’ TO THE BISHOPS, HE REPRESENTS THEM IN ALL THE CONSEQUENCES HE THOUGHT FIT TO DRAW FROM THEM, AND CHARGES HIM (ARIUS) WITH HOLDING, THAT THE SON WAS MADE LIKE EVERY OTHER CREATURE ABSOLUTELY OUT OF NOTHING AND THAT THEREFORE HIS NATURE WAS MUTABLE AND SUSCEPTIVE EQUALLY OF VIRTUE AND VICE, WITH MANY OTHER INSIDIOUS AND UNSCRIPTURAL DOCTRINES, WHICH ARIUS PLAINLY APPEARS NOT TO HAVE MAINTAINED OR TAUGHT” (ibid, PAGE 25).



AS A STATEMENT OF FAITH (IN RESPONSE TO THE EMPEROR CONSTANTINE), HE SAID, “WE BELIEVE IN ONE GOD, THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, AND IN HIS SON, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, WHO PROCEEDED FROM HIM BEFORE ALL AGES, BEING GOD THE WORD, BY WHOM ALL THINGS WERE MADE, WHETHER THINGS IN HEAVEN OR THINGS ON EARTH”.



LIMBORCH REPLIES THUS, “HIS (ARIUS) AFFIRMING THAT THE SON HAD A BEGINNING WAS ONLY SAYING, THAT HE WAS IN THE WHOLE OF HIS EXISTENCE FROM THE FATHER AS THE ORIGIN AND FOUNTAIN OF HIS BEING AND DEITY, AND NOT ANY DENIAL OF HIS BEING FROM BEFORE ALL TIMES AND AGES OR HIS BEING COMPLETELY GOD HIMSELF OR HIS BEING PRODUCED AFTER A MORE EXCELLENT MANNER THAN THE CREATURES”. (ibid, PAGE 24).

Arias was black. The story of Jesus comes from the Egyptian story of herus. Constantine tried to killed arias and arias escapes

Everybody pray at once and let's see if we all receive the same conclusion to the trinity.

Everything discussed here is based on the ideas of Isis, Osiris and Horus which the Greeks and Romans translated to God, Jesus, Mary, and eventually the Holy Spirit.
Please read the true history of Alkebulan.

lets bring it back

It would add to the divine right of kings and even more so the authority of the Early Church by conflating Yeshuah ha Nosri (Jesus of Nazareth) with the absolute divine being of God.

It’s “filioque,” not “filoque.” “Folio” is Latin for Son, not “filo.”

Divider

You are 100% lost and misleading and Mislead

"Begotten of the Father before all ages" to counter Arianism, but where does that come from?