samcster94
Banned
I am no expert, but I do know that the central issue was Arianism. What if Arianism, which is that Jesus is less than the Father, had somehow had won???
Last edited:
I am no expert, but I do know that the central issue was Arianism and that the debate was close.
What if Arianism, which is that God created Jesus early in creation
I'm no expert, either, but my very rough guess would be a faster spread of Christianity. I'm under the impression that trying to explain the Trinity, that God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct manifestations of one God, to the heathen masses leaves a lot of them scratching their heads. "Yeah? You wanna go over that again?"
Arianism might make more sense to folks at large, being perhaps a little more intuitive.
It really wasn't close. Athanasius was a singular personality, and the Arians lack anyone who could match his arguments.
I am no expert, but I do know that the central issue was Arianism. What if Arianism, which is that Jesus is less than the Father, had somehow had won???
Christianity becomes Islam.
Islam is more hardline monotheism. It'd still be Trinitarian, but the details would be different.Except Arianism is fundamentally incompatible with Islam. In particular
That's just a start to theological differences and doesn't begin to address the differences in practice and organisation.
- Arians believed that Christ was the Son of God, begotten of the Father. This is unacceptable to Islam.
- Arians believed that Christ, despite being separate from the Father, was worthy of worship. This is unacceptable to Islam.
- Arians believed that the Christ died on the cross, was physically resurrected, and physically ascended to the right hand of the Father. Again, unacceptable to Islam.
I am no expert, but I do know that the central issue was Arianism. What if Arianism, which is that Jesus is less than the Father, had somehow had won???
Look at "triune gods".I'm no expert, either, but my very rough guess would be a faster spread of Christianity. I'm under the impression that trying to explain the Trinity, that God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct manifestations of one God, to the heathen masses leaves a lot of them scratching their heads. "Yeah? You wanna go over that again?"
Arianism might make more sense to folks at large, being perhaps a little more intuitive.
- Arians believed that Christ was the Son of God, begotten of the Father. This is unacceptable to Islam.
Except Arianism is fundamentally incompatible with Islam. In particular
That's just a start to theological differences and doesn't begin to address the differences in practice and organisation.
- Arians believed that Christ was the Son of God, begotten of the Father. This is unacceptable to Islam.
- Arians believed that Christ, despite being separate from the Father, was worthy of worship. This is unacceptable to Islam.
- Arians believed that the Christ died on the cross, was physically resurrected, and physically ascended to the right hand of the Father. Again, unacceptable to Islam.
Hair splitting matters a lot in religion, especially in Christianity. You can not argue that religions could be compatible on the assumption that differences are hair splitting when many different religions are literally just different hair splittingsto moderns. It caused a lot of blood to be shed. Even a single point of difference, even of spelling, would cause controversy and differences and irreconcilable schisms.1. Arianism is a step in the direction of Islam, because it breaks the idea that Jesus and god are the same person. Islam says that Jesus was a Prophet: a holy man inspired by god. Arianism also says that Jesus was a separate entity from god, albeit his son. Whether he was the son of God or merely inspired by god is kind of hair splitting in the scheme of things. Either way, the essential point that he is a separate entity has been conceded.
2. Again, Jesus is highly esteemed in Islam and in fact is the most mentioned person in the Qur'an, being mentioned more times than Muhammad. Whether he is worshipped or merely a divinely inspired example is again a rather hair splitting difference in practice.
3. Point three here you're on stronger ground. The resurrection is not in Islam and it says in the Qur'an that he only appeared to die on the cross (The implied point being either that he didn't really die, or more metaphorically that you can't kill an idea).
In orthodox calvinistic circles in the Netherlands, there was a schism about if a previous schism was the work of God or the work of man.Hair splitting matters a lot in religion, especially in Christianity. You can not argue that religions could be compatible on the assumption that differences are hair splitting when many different religions are literally just different hair splittingsto moderns. It caused a lot of blood to be shed. Even a single point of difference, even of spelling, would cause controversy and differences and irreconcilable schisms.
Well, they said that Christ was the Son of God, begotten of the Father, but they didn't mean the same things by that as the Trinitarians did.
1. Arianism is a step in the direction of Islam, because it breaks the idea that Jesus and god are the same person. Islam says that Jesus was a Prophet: a holy man inspired by god. Arianism also says that Jesus was a separate entity from god, albeit his son. Whether he was the son of God or merely inspired by god is kind of hair splitting in the scheme of things. Either way, the essential point that he is a separate entity has been conceded.
2. Again, Jesus is highly esteemed in Islam and in fact is the most mentioned person in the Qur'an, being mentioned more times than Muhammad. Whether he is worshipped or merely a divinely inspired example is again a rather hair splitting difference in practice.