Arian Controversy

8/14/2019 Arian Controversy

1/24

An Admission of Guiltby D. J. Love, Minister, TSN, SBC

Written 8-24-2001

Refined 7-5-2003

Public document of the official Catholic stand against Arianism.

The document, that is being scrutinized in this message, is an

unintentional public admission of guilt by a Catholic church historian.This document was only made publicly available, because of the high

levels of self-regard felt by its writer and his church, concerning the

Greco-Roman Catholic victory over Arianism (not Aryanism). This

(temporary)victory over YHVH's True Assembly has blinded and lulled

them into openly, but mistakenly, professing themselves to be YHVH's

church, and thereby, exposing (confessing) themselves as the religious

instrument of Satan's Anti-Messiah and Greco-Greco-Roman Beast

government(s).

The Catholic historian/writer, who truly represents the entire traditional

Christian world, has unintentionally exposed the arguments used by the early

supporters of Catholicism (Christianity), and the flaws of those arguments to

the world. He appears to justify the actions of the Catholic church from the

standpoint of "We are in control, we are the largest in number, and therefore,

we are the true believers." Of course this sort of argument won't hold water

with YHVH (The Creator) nor is it a valid argument from the position of

"Logic." In order for a logical argument to be a "Sound Argument" its

premisesmust be true, and its evidences must be valid. Conclusions based

on evidence presented and supported by collaborators is not a valid logical

argument. Additionally, the premise and conclusion that "YHVH made us

the victors, therefore we are YHVH's choice is totally false." YHVH, often

allows evil to temporarily triumph over good, especially if it fulfills

prophecy.


2/24

One cannot just assume that Catholic doctrine/canon or traditional Christian

position is correct just because they say they are or because they have

murdered their opposition. "Logical Arguments" are not considered

valid when force is used to exact an advantageor when a "Logical

Argument" is based on false premises orsupported by sympathizers;

Even "Common Sense" can easily discern this as the lie that it is.

There is not one shred of Scriptural evidence to support the

Catholic/Christian claim to fame or their adopted Christopagan religion of

syncretism (blending and compromise), but there is both a multitude of

Scripture and historical evidence to condemn them and expose them (and

those that have adopted their religious traditions) as "The Harlot church," (and

her daughter churches) as "The Beast church" (or beast churches) of the "Book

of Revelation."

Note: (Explanation of Logic)

An argument is a sequence of statements,

1. Each of which has a truth-value (i.e., is eithertrue or

false); and

2. One of which is the arguments conclusion, the others

being its premises.

In an argument, the conclusion is supposed to be logically

related to its premises.

1. It is supposed to follow logically from them, or be a

logical consequence of them.

2. An argument whose conclusion is actually so related by

sound logic to its premises is a valid argument.

The property ofvalidity(the relation of logical consequence) is

such that,

1. Ifan argument is valid and all of its premisesare true,


3/24

then its conclusion must also be true, so that

2. In a valid argument, the truth of the premises

guarantees the truth of theconclusion.

An argument that is valid and all of whose premises aretrue is a sound argument.

I will use the actual public document(written in dark bold letters below) to

expose their deception and pious ignorance. The True Sabbatarian Believers

perspective, historical truths, supporting message links, and supporting

Scripture will be inserted withinthe original document below using

Indents, (parenthesis), 'Type' size, and colorvariation to help make the

distinction more clear. Also, just for the record, Traditional Christianity isreferred to as "Catholic," which is a word that means "universal," OR

referred to as "Christopagan," which is a new word that reveals the true

syncretic relationship (blending) of present day religions with Babylonian

(Assyrian, Greek, Greco-Roman, etc...) paganism.

(See Important Info)

The Public Document

http://www.monksofadoration.org/arianism.html

of which, a complete "copy & paste" of their HTML is on file.

Written 8-24-2001

updated 11-27-2002updated 4-5-2007

Arianism Versus the Council of Nicaea
http://disclaimer/Disclaimer.htmlhttp://opt/scribd/conversion/tmp/SubPage/MonksOfAdoration.htmlhttp://opt/scribd/conversion/tmp/SubPage/MonksOfAdoration.htmlhttp://disclaimer/Disclaimer.html


4/24

By Brother John Raymond

Church History

Introduction:

Arianism with its fundamental Trinitarian controversy must not be

looked upon as an isolated theory by its founder Arius.

(TSN) - A bold faced lie. Arianism was not founded by Arius, but namedafter him by officials of the evolving Greco-Roman Catholic church, as you

will see. Its beliefs were founded without a name by the Apostles of Messiah

Yahshua. (SeeGreco-Roman Empire). However, by using Arianism to label

True Worship, prejudice for the name Christian was expected to prevail. It

seems that humans put far too much faith and trust in a NAME, and rarelyquestion it.

Its (Arianism's) appeal, which began(according to the evolving Greco-Greco-

Roman State church) in Alexandria and spread through the whole Empire,

must be seen in the context of the times. The Church(The evolving

Universal Greco-Greco-Roman State church)emerged in a Jewish and Greek

world. The question occupying this non-Christian world was the

contrast between the "ONE (Few) and the MANY,(con't)

(TSN) - Actually "non-Christian" is a deception, as in reality there is NOdifference between Christian and pagan, thus the reason for the term

"Christopagan."Remember: "MANY are called, FEW are Chosen"

(Matthew 20:16).

(con't)

between the ultimate unity (See:Ecumenism) that lay behind the visible

universe, and the incalculable variety (Catholic Universalism) that exists inthe world (Ward 1955, 38)." The relationship between YHVH and the

world had to be solved.

(TSN) - Here we have an admission that the evolving Greco-RomanCatholic church did not know the "TRUTH." Therefore, it must be solved.
http://paganism/RomanEmpire.htmlhttp://paganism/RomanEmpire.htmlhttp://headlinenews/Ecumenism.htmlhttp://paganism/RomanEmpire.htmlhttp://headlinenews/Ecumenism.html


5/24

By contrast, Arius (a True Worshipper of YHVH) was always firm and

uncompromising in his understanding, and did not have to resort to Roman

democracy (votes) in order to determine truth, as he already knew the truth.

Please be aware, as you read this public document, of words written within it

by the Catholic writers that convey their lack of true understanding or their

willingness to compromise the inspired words of YHVH. Words like"proposed, solved or solving, question, vote or voted, notions, struggle,

reconcile or reconciliation of thought, confusion, theory, controversy,

decision, find, idea, etc..."

The (Sabbatarian) Jews proposed (proposed is a lie. The Jewish True

Worshippers insisted that YHVH is)a supreme YHVH who created by His

word (The Logos, see "Who Says Christ is G-d?"). It was an idea(another lie.

Personal knowledge of YHWH is not an idea, except to the Catholics)of a mediating

"Word or Wisdom (Holy Spirit) - the Word which is pronounced (NOT aperson), the Wisdom (mentality of YHVH) which is created (imparted) -

whereby the Father communicated Himself to man and took possession

of him(only through YHVH'sHoly Spirit) (Guitton 1965, 81)."

(TSN) - We find this highly biased article to be self incriminating by theterminology that is used. For example, notice how this evolving Greco-

Roman State religion (pagan rooted Catholic Christianity or

Christopaganism) has placed themselves in the position of authority,

whereas, they will only entertain "Proposals" and "Ideas." Terms like

proposals, concepts, and ideas are by definition sure indicators of

poor or no understanding "(NU)" of YHVH or His words by thisevolving Greco-Roman church-government. Notice in the next paragraph

where the Catholic concept of Jesus (IHS) being "The Word" (Logos)

evolved; and "The idolatrous "Mediator Concept," which eventually

spawned worship and prayers to Jesus (IHS), Mary, and the so called saints.

True Worshippers know that we can pray directly to "The Father" (YHWH).

NOTE: I have placed "(NU)" within the rest of this public document next

to the terms or phrases that indicate "No Understanding" as a reminderof the lackof"Spiritually Revealed Knowledge" possessed by thisevolving Christopagan Greco-Roman State church, and by the writer(s) of

the original version of this "Public Document."
http://content/WhoSaysChristGod.htmlhttp://content/HolySpirit.htmlhttp://content/HolySpirit.htmlhttp://content/WhoSaysChristGod.htmlhttp://content/HolySpirit.htmlhttp://content/HolySpirit.html


6/24

The (pagan) Greeks (and evolving Greco-Roman "Universal" State church)

could not see (NU or "No Understanding") how a finite and changeable

world could come from an eternal and changeless YHVH. They

proposed (NU) the idea (NU) of a "mediating Intelligence or even Word, a

first emanation of the first principle which reduced the distance

between YHVH and the world (Guitton 1965, 81)." The primitive(early

Catholic) Church had to "reconcile the notions (NU) they had inherited

from Judaism with those they had derived from philosophy .

(TSN) -Wow, here is an admission of the use of Greek philosophy to replacethe Holy Spirit as the Revealer of Truth, because they considered the

knowledge of the Jews to be nothing more than notions. The Apostles:

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, etc.... The Messiah, and the

majority of their disciples were Jews.

Additionally, remember that "catholic" means "Universal." Look it up in

your own dictionary. There is no way YHWH's True Assembly of

Worshippers could have a monotheistic faith with UNIVERSAL appeal to a

polytheistic pagan society.

Jew and Greek had to meet in Christ(my question is, "Why?")

(TSN) -I SMELL A COMPROMISE!The Jewish and Greek orGentile Sabbath Keeping Believers were already on common ground with

YHVH through Messiah Yahshua. It was the Greco-Roman or evolving

gentile Christopagan Greco-Roman church that needed to appear to be

legitimate so they could take control. This is early Ecumenismat its finest.

What they needed was a Greek faith and a Greek named savior with

"Universal Appeal." A Jewish savior would never have "Universal Appeal."

They(the evolving Christopagan church) had to find an answer (NU)thatwould agree with the revelation they had received from Christ as

recorded in the scriptures (a bold faced lie in light of their lack of

understanding) (Ward 1955, 39)." This struggle (NU) for a reconciliation of

thought (NU)(for dominance) reached its climax with the Arian

controversy (NU). The(evolving Christopagan Greco-Roman Catholic cult or

State controlled) Church responded with the First Ecumenical Council of
http://headlinenews/Ecumenism.htmlhttp://headlinenews/Ecumenism.htmlhttp://headlinenews/Ecumenism.htmlhttp://headlinenews/Ecumenism.htmlhttp://headlinenews/Ecumenism.html


7/24

Nicaea that brought (forced) together Scriptural and philosophical

thought (pagan humanism) to explain (a lie. The reason was to advance the

Christopagan concept of polytheism) the Trinity. The Council did(ultimately)

triumph over Arianism(only by the military might of the Greco-Roman "Beast"

government)but only after fifty years of bitter battling. Imperial

(governmental)support (Greco-Roman Army) and confusion (NU) in

theological terminology(semantics)were the principal reasons for such a

long drawn out battle as we will see (Actually, it was very difficult for even the

Greco-Roman Beast government to overthrow truth).

Arius and His Teaching

Arius, who was born in Egypt in 256 A.D., was (merely)a parish priest in

Alexandria. He had studied under St. Lucian of Antioch(See there! Arius

was NOT the first, and neither was St. Lucian), the founder of the school of

Antioch, who had earlier been condemned(by the evolving Christopagan

Greco-Roman State church) for holding that Christ (Messiah) was only a

man (Messiah Yahshua was only a man! See "Who Says Christ is YHVH?");

although he was later reconciled. He is called the "Father of Arianism"

because "Arius and almost all the 4th-century Arian theologians were

his students. Calling themselves Lucianists and Collucianists, theydeveloped his adoptionist and subordinationist (The Messiah IS subordinate

to YHVH - See "Who Says Christ is YHVH?") tendencies into a full heresy

(Harkins 1967, 1057, 1058)."

(TSN) - Remember, I earlier stated that Arianism was not founded byArius, and now the writer states that St. Lucian is called the "Father of

Arianism," but even this is a lie.

Additionally, This is an extremely vain and self-righteous position for aChristopagan church with NOUNDERSTANDING to take. It follows the

very same childish notion as, "I called you a heretic first, so therefore, you

are the heretic." Obviously Arius was not interested in name calling, and his

motivation was harmony in truth; On the other hand, power hungry

politicians will quite often resort to "Mud Slinging," even if they have to mix
http://paganism/HecateTrinity.htmlhttp://content/WhoSaysChristGod.htmlhttp://whosayschristgod.html/http://paganism/HecateTrinity.htmlhttp://content/WhoSaysChristGod.htmlhttp://whosayschristgod.html/


8/24

the mud themselves.

With this background Arius struggled with(against) the question(NU) of

the Trinity(an evolving Christopagan Catholic concept of Babylonian origin).

His teaching in Alexandria was the following:

"Personal distinctions were not eternally present within the nature of

YHVH (Truth, as YHWH is ONE).

the G-dhead Himself was responsible for them.(Truth, as YHWH is the

Creator and Plan maker).

Identifying the eternal G-dhead with the Father and regarding the

Logos as no more than a power or quality of the Father, he said that

before time began (before the foundations of the Earth)the Father had

created the Son (according to His Plan of Salvation) by the power(of the Holy

Pneuma)of the Word(The Word or Logos is The Plan of Salvation not Jesus)

to be His agent(or Spokesman, Ambassador or proxy) in creation(of the

"Children of YHWH").

The Son was not therefore to be identified with the G-dhead (a truth, but

he is Spiritually or mentally married to YHWH by his Spiritual covenant withYHWH),

He was only YHVH (by proxy) in a derivative sense(given authority -

another scriptural truth),

and since there was once when he did not exist (more truth)He could not

be eternal (immortality is a gift from YHVH).

Arius stressed the subordination of the Logos (planned Messiah) to such

an extent as to affirm his creaturehood, to deny his eternity (past eternity

only denied) and to assert his (human only) capacity for change and

suffering (Ward 1955, 41)." (ALL TRUTH on behalf of Arius and all those thatbelieved like him).

This teaching of Arius "drove the distinctions outside the Deity (as being

separate and distinct) and thus destroyed the Trinity(because the Trinity
http://content/HolySpirit.htmlhttp://content/HolySpirit.htmlhttp://content/HolySpirit.htmlhttp://content/HolySpirit.html


9/24

concept is a Christopagan lie of the Babylonian-Greco-Roman-Catholic-Beast). It

meant solving (NU) the difficulty of the One(Few)and the Many(NU)

(Only pagans believe in many gods or polytheism.)by proposing (NU) a theory

(NU) of one Supreme Being and two inferior deities (NU) (Ward 1955, 43)."

(TSN) -Now this last statement is total hogwash, and totally exposesCatholicism for not only their Babylonian-Greco-Roman polytheistic

thinking, but their complete lack of Spiritual understanding. The words

proposing and theory absolutely expose a clear lack of understanding, as

does their only illogical conclusion of "two inferior deities," which also,

exposes their polytheistic thinking. The truth of the matter and the

Spiritually Logical conclusion is simply that neither the Holy Spirit nor the

Messiah is a deity. But then that wouldn't be polytheistic would it?

The (NU) (imaginary) Person of Christ "belonged to no order of being thatthe(evolving Christopagan catholic) Church could recognize (NU).(because

they have "No Understanding") . . He was neither YHVH nor man(wrong! He

was only a mortal man, but now he is an immortal man) (Ward 1955, 42)."

(TSN) -Being immortal does not make anyone G-d, YHVH or even a god.Immortality is a gift from YHVH, and YHVH is the only true Self-Existent

G-d !

Arius(armed only with Truth)

Versus

the Alexandrian Bishop(armed with Greco-Roman political and military support)

Arius' views (The Gospel that Arius had was not recognized by the "Christopagan

Catholic Beast church" as anything but a view - )(NU) began to spread among


10/24

the people(True Sabbath Keeping Believers) and(also)the Alexandrian

clergy (until it was squashed by threat and force). Alexander the Bishop(a

Christopagan catholic) called a meeting of his priests and deacons (because

he feared his loss of power). The Bishop insisted(by his manmade position of

authority)on the unity of the G-dhead. Arius(a True Believer)continued to

argue that since the Son was begotten(Truth)of the Father (but only at his

resurrection from the dead, and not at the point of his human birth) then at some

point He began to exist(Truth). Therefore there was a time when the Son

did not exist(Truth, as the Son is NOT Self-existent). Arius(loyal to the word of

YHVH)refused to submit to the Bishop(who was Spiritually far inferior to

Arius, but had military superiority)and continued to spread his teaching

(The Gospel).

TSN -Make note:If Arian's selfless faith of Love for YHWH and Love forNeighbor had not of been so very open and truthful, then it would not have

gained converts from the only other alternative religion(s) available;

PAGANISM. Even so, it was and still is representative of the TRUE minority

faith in the world (Many are Called, but Few are chosen).

Additionally, the writer admits that Arian was staunch in his faith when hestated "refused to submit," and "continued to spread his teachings."

However, earlier the writer stated that he struggled with the question of the

Trinity. Of course it is now very obvious that Arius struggled AGAINST the

Trinity, and not with the question, as Arius is strong and firm in hisunderstanding, and refuses to submit.

The real struggle here is one of vanity. For here we have a mere impious

parish priest (Arius) opposing a full Bishop (Alexander), and the Bishop does

not like being told how to interpret scripture or epistles by a mere parish

priest. Therefore, Bishop Alexander will do anything to "Save Face," and this

means that he won't allow himself to be humbled.

Alexander (fearing for his position of authority) called a synod of Bishops of

Egypt and Libya. Of the hundred Bishops who attended eighty voted(NU)for the condemnation and exile of Arius(A True Believer). After the

synod Alexander wrote letters to the other Bishops refuting Arius' views.

In doing so the Bishop used the term "homoousios" to describe the

Father and Son as being of one substance(A completely fabricated and

unscriptural word. a NEW Catholic semantic and a lie of Satan). Alexander

"used a term which was to become the keyword of the whole


11/24

controversy (NU) (Ward 1955, 43, 44)."

With the decision (NU) of the synod Arius fled to Palestine. Some of the

(Truth Believing)Bishops there, especially Eusebius of Caesarea,

supported him. From here Arius continued his journey to Nicomedia in

Asia Minor. The Bishop of that city, Eusebius, had studied under Lucian

of Antioch. He became Arius' most influential supporter. From this city

Arius enlisted the support of other Bishops, many of whom had studied

under Lucian. His supporters held their own synod calling Arius' views

orthodox and condemning(the anti-Messiah) Bishop Alexander of

Alexandria(but they did not have the government power of the Greco-Roman

Beast to support their views). Arius seemed to have good grounds for this

condemnation (Truth always is). The (fabricated and unscriptural) term

homoousios was rejected by Alexander's own predecessor Dionysius

when arguing against the Sabellians (who claimed the Father and Son were"One in the Same" person).

TSN -Thus making Catholic Bishop Alexander a hypocrite, and exposinghis true motives as SELF-seeking.

All this controversy (NU) was taking place just as the (Christopagan)

church was emerging from Greco-Roman oppression.

TSN -What a load of hogwash. The evolving Christopagan Greco-RomanCatholic church was never truly oppressed. They were "Held Back"

somewhat in the beginning by professing pagan Greco-Roman leaders, but

they were never truly oppressed, as they soon gained favor with the most

powerful Emperial Greco-Roman Leaders (eg. Constantine); However, the

Sabbath keeping pro-Messiah Arians were severely oppressed by both the

Emperial Greco-Roman government AND the Greco-Roman government

sponsored Catholics.

Constantine and Ossius


12/24

With the rise of(Greco-Roman emperor and Christopagan)Constantine to

power(the evolving and newest form of pagan religion) christianity (or

catholicism) became the religion of the Greco-Roman Empire(this is anadmission of being a Greco-Roman Beast Government sponsored religion).

Constantine had politically united(a government decision for political control)

the Empire but he was distressed to find a divided christianity.

TSN - More hogwash! What he faced was the harder to control divisionbetween the followers of the Hebrew Messiah (Arius and other followers of

Messiah) and pagan Greco-Roman gentiles and some hellenized (pagan by

choice) Jewish (by birth) followers of the imaginary Sun god Jesus Christ or

IHSous ).

Constantine, certainly not understanding (NU) the significance of the

controversy (NU) , sent Ossius his main ecclesiastical adviser with letters

to both Alexander and Arius. In the letters he tried to reconcile them by

saying that their disagreement was merely just a matter of words (NU).

Both of them really were in agreement on major doctrines and neither

were involved in heresy. The letters failed to have an effect(because it was

a lie and they all knew it).

In 325 A.D. Ossius (Emperor Constantine's Ecclesiastical adviser) presided

over a Council of the Orient in Antioch that was attended by fifty-nine

bishops, forty-six of whom would soon attend the Council of Nicaea.

This Council in Antioch was a forerunner of the latter Council in

Nicaea. Under the influence of Ossius(Roman government official) a new

(Christopagan) Church practice was inaugurated - that of issuing a

creedal statement (an unscriptural practice instituted by a Spiritually Uninspired

Greco-Roman government official with ZERO Spiritual understanding). At thisCouncil, Arianism was condemned (by the Roman government and the

Catholic church, but not by YHVH or the True Worshippers), a profession of

faith resembling the Alexandrian creed was promulgated and three

Bishops who refused to agree (May YHVH Bless them!) with the teaching of

this Council (but did agree with Arius) were provisionally excommunicated

(convienently removed) until the Council of Nicaea (A government decision,


13/24

with underlying political motives).

In the summer of that year, probably under the suggestion of Ossius

(Greco-Roman government official), Constantine(a Christopagan Greco-RomanEmperor and professing Sun worshipping pagan of the "Cult of Sol Invictus.")

called for a general council of the Church at Nicaea in Bithynia. That an

Emperor should invoke a Council should not be considered unusual

since in Hellenistic (pagan Greek) thought he was given by YHVH

supreme power in things material and spiritual (Davis 1987, 56).'"

TSN - NEVER! In a million years would YHVH sanction the power tointerpret Holy Scripture to an infidel or a pagan government official. But his

leadership was allowed since it was a fulfillment of prophecy, and thus serves

YHVH's purpose for mankind. See: Did YHVH create Evil? See Revelation.

The Council of Nicaea

The General Council was well attended by the major sees (overseers) of

the Eastern Empire. Also, some Western Bishops were present. Because

of old age and sickness Pope Sylvester did not attend, but sent two papal

legates. The total number of(Christopagan) Bishops who attended theCouncil has been disputed. Eusebius of Ceasarea who attended it

claimed 250; Athanasius also in attendance mentioned 300; after the

Council a symbolic number of 318 was used; modern scholars put the

number at 220.

If there were minutes taken of the Council proceedings they are no

longer in existence. We know from the writings of Rufinus that "daily

sessions were held and that Arius was often summoned before the

assembly; his arguments attentively considered (NU). The majority,especially those who were confessors of the Faith(this is NOT a validargument, as being a confessor without understanding does NOT make one a

messenger of Truth), energetically declared themselves against the impious

(remember the vanity of Alexander?) doctrines of Arius (LeClercq 1913, 45)."
http://paganism/SolInvictus.htmlhttp://content/CreateEvil.htmlhttp://revelations/Revelation01-05.htmlhttp://paganism/SolInvictus.htmlhttp://content/CreateEvil.htmlhttp://revelations/Revelation01-05.html


14/24

TSN - So there you have it, True Worship and the Jewish Messiah(Yahshua) was replaced by the Christopagan worship of the Greco-Roman

Christos (IHSous) and the polytheistic Trinity, which is the true image of the

anti-messiah; and why? The Vanity, Power, and Scriptural ignorance of

Greco-Roman Catholic Bishop Alexander, and Sun worshipping Roman

Emperor Constantine; Additionally in 380 AD. (after the death ofConstantine.) the Roman Emperor Theodosius outlawed Arianism.

Where in this scenario is religious freedom? How can

mankind choose between "Good & Evil" when only

evil is allowed to represent truth? Wake Up people!

Concerning the Creed that was drafted at the Council "Eusebius of

Caesarea, Athanasius of Alexandria and Philostorgius have given

divergent (NU) accounts of how this Creed was drafted (DeClercq 1967,

792)." But from one reconstruction of the events Eusebius of Nicomedia

offered a creed that was favorable to Arian views. This creed was

rejected by the Council. Eusebius of Caesarea proposed the baptismal

creed used in Caesarea. Although accepted it does not seem to form the

basis of the Council's Creed. Attempts were made to construct (NU) a

creed using only scriptural terms. These creeds proved insufficient

(because Scripture supported Arius)to exclude the Arian position (because

Scripture supported Arius). "Finally, it seems, a Syro-Palestinian creed wasused as the basis for a new creedal statement . . . The finished creed was

preserved in the writings of Athanasius, of the historian Socrates and of

Basil of Caesarea and in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon of 451

(Davis 1987, 59)." When the creed was finished eighteen Bishops still

opposed it (Eighteen!).

TSN -Now we have four admissions of guilt.(1) They had to go

outside of Scripture to exclude the Arian (True Worshipper) position ofTruth, and (2) The final decision that they needed was not decided by

Bishops, but by the professing Sun worshipping pagan Roman Emperor

Constantine (see below), and (3) they chose to follow Constantine rather than

"Scripture" in order to preserve their vanity. (4) they excommunicated or

exiled their known opposition.

My friends, this is the true foundation on which the Catholic Faith and


15/24

Christianity is truly built; lies, vanities, polytheism, pagan Imperial

influence, governmental intervention and control.

Constantine(a devout pagan Sun worshipper) at this point intervened to

threaten with exile anyone who would not sign for it. (Admission ofGovernment FORCED doctrine) Two Libyan Bishops and Arius still refused

to accept the creed. All three were exiled(May YHVH Bless them for

eternity! Amen!).

The Creed and an Analysis

Please forgive my sarcasm in the following

paragraphs, as I am truly frustrated by the

apparent willingness of mentally competent

people to reject truth in favor of deception.

|

Some parts of the literal translation of the Nicaea Creed are as follows:

"We (Syncretic Christopagan blend of heretics) believe in one God the FatherAlmighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord

Jesus Christ(image of the Antichrist), the only begotten of the Father (half

truth), that is, of the substance (ousia) of the Father(a lie based on an

unscriptural and a fabricated word), God of God(a lie), light of light, true

God of true God (another lie), begotten not made(half truth), of the same

substance (homoousios) with the Father (a total lie based on a fabricated word),

through whom all things were made(the first son did not create anything)

both in heaven and on earth . . . Those who say: `There was a time when

He was not, and He was not before He was begotten;' and that `He wasmade out of nothing;' or who maintain that `He is of another hypostasis

or another substance,' or that `the Son of God is created, or mutable, or

subject to change,' the(Greco-Roman Beast sponsored)Catholic Church

anathematizes(This is laughable, as True Believers, we could care less! For

YHVH will judge the "Harlot church!" He will Not judge us!)(LeClercq 1913, 45)."


16/24

The Arians were very clever in twisting phrases(a biased hypocritical lie) in

creedal statements to reflect their own (true) doctrine.

TSN - What an unbelievable lie! This is a direct lie from Satan himself ! Forit was NOT Arius that twisted words, but the semantic oriented

Christopagan Catholic church and Roman Emperor Constantine (as we have

already seen). Arius was not the one who needed a council to brainstorm and

conspire to create new words and understandings that even the Catholics

could not all agree upon. The real problem was that they could NOT

understand what Arius was trying to tell them, so they accused him of

twisting words. It is so very obvious that their "Polytheistic Mindset"

actually prevented them from making sense of what Arius was trying to

communicate to them. They were simply NOT monotheistic thinkers! They

did NOT, and still to this day do NOT have True Spiritual Understanding!

The Son being "begotten of the Father" (at his resurrection only) was seen

by them as saying that the Son was created from nothing. But to counter

their doctrine the phrase "begotten not made" (a lie) was added to the

creed that totally ruled out their position of the Son having a beginning.

Another (True) Arian teaching(Gospel) was that the Son was God by

grace and name only(YHVH's PROXY is the real Truth). The creedal

statement "true God of true God"(a lie) was an affirmation that the Son

was really truly YHVH (a lie) against this Arian position (Read: "Who SaysChrist is YHVH"). The most important statement in the creed that affirms

"that the Son shares the same being as the Father and is therefore fully

divine" (a major blasphemy against YHVH) was the phrase "of one

substance (homoousios) (Catholic "Fabricated" semantics. A newly twisted

together word)with the Father" (Davis 1987, 61). This statement totally

destroyed(in the minds of Christopagans or Catholics only)the Arian view of

the Son as an intermediary being between YHVH and Creation.

TSN - My G-d, I can't believe that the Catholic Clergy and leaders areproud of both supporting and being supported by the Greco-Roman Beast

government. They are truly the epitome of polytheism and vain selfish

legalistic thinkers.
http://content/WhoSaysChristGod.htmlhttp://content/WhoSaysChristGod.htmlhttp://content/WhoSaysChristGod.htmlhttp://content/WhoSaysChristGod.html


17/24

In case the creed was not enough to end the Arian controversy,

anathemas(this is the height of vanity and self worship)were attached directly

condemning Arian positions (to eliminate the opposition). The Arian denial

of the Son's co-eternity with the Father is expressed in the two phrases

"there was when the Son of YHVH was not" and "before He was

begotten He was not." The Arian belief in the Son being created out of

nothing is expressed in the phrase "He came into being from things that

are not." The Arian doctrine that the Son being a creature was subject

to moral changeability and only remained virtuous by an act of the will

is expressed in the phrase "He is mutable or alterable." Finally the

Arian position of the Son as subordinate to the Father and not really

YHVH is expressed in the phrase "He is of a different hypostasis or

substance." With these specific anathemas against them the Arians and

their heresy (against the catholic cult pagan Christian church of the Greco-Roman

Beast, but not YHVH) seemed to be finished(Only in Rome! But Truth willprevail against the beast and his church! This is prophecy!).

TerminologyProblem(semantics)

With the Eastern Church using Greek and the Western Church usingLatin misunderstandings (NU) were bound to arise over theological

terminology (NU). One instance of confusion (Satan is the author of

confusion)(NU) is the statement "He is of a different hypostasis or

substance." The two words in the Eastern Church were seen to be

synonymous. In the West hypostasis meant person. So for a Westerner

the Council would look as if it was condemning the statement that the

Son was a different Person from the Father, which would clearlybe

erroneous (not supportive of their vain positions)(NU). Only later(after exile of

the True Believers) would the East come to distinguish hypostasis from

substance (ousia) as in the West. This instance of confusion (NU) "points

up the terminological difficulty (NU) which continued to bedevil (NU)

Eastern theology and to confuse (NU) the West about the East's position

(Davis 1987, 63)."

A second and very important termed used by the (government headed


18/24

political) Council was homoousios. At that time this word could have

three possible meanings. "First, it could be generic (NU); of one

substance could be said of two individual men, both of whom share

human nature while remaining individuals. Second, it could signify

numerical identity (NU), that is, that the Father and the Son are identical

in concrete being. Finally, it could refer to material things (NU), as two

pots are of the same substance because both are made of the same clay

(Davis 1987, 61)." The (government headed political)Council intended the

first meaning to stress the equality of the Son with the Father. If the

second meaning for the word was taken to be the Council's intention it

would mean that the Father and Son were identical and

indistinguishable - clearly a Sabellian heresy. The third meaning gave

the word a materialistic tendency that would infer that the Father and

Son are parts of the same stuff.

Along with these possible misunderstandings (NU) of the meaning of the

word homoousios the history of the word is closely associated with

heresies(because it is a true heresy). The word was originally used by the

Gnostics. The word had even been condemned at the Council of Antioch

in 268 regarding its use by the Adoptionist Paul of Samosata. Another

factor making the word unpopular was that it was never used in

Sacred Scripture(and never will be, because it is a clever lie of Satan).

The Council's defeat by Arianism

(True Believers get a two year reprieve)

It is not surprising that with its use of the word homoousios the Council

could be called into question. Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia gained theconfidence of(Catholic and devout Christopagan Sun worshipper) Emperor

Constantine. He convinced Constantine that the Council's use of the

word homoousios was Sabellian (a belief that the Father and Son were the

same being, but in two persons). The Emperor now (politically) favored the

Arians. With the death of Constantine the Empire was divided between

his sons. Constans who ruled in the West favored Nicaea while his


19/24

brother Constantius who ruled the East was anti-Nicaea (pro-Arian).

Supporters of Nicaea in the East especially Bishop Athanasius were

deposed and excommunicated by the Dedication Council of Antioch (If

you can't beat them, get rid of them!). This Council directly attacked the

Nicaea Council by promulgating its own creed that omitted the phrases

"from the substance of the Father" and "homoousios." Some attempts

were made (NU) to find a substitute word for homoousios. As many as

fourteen Councils were held between 341 and 360 "in which every shade

of heretical subterfuge found expression (NU) . . . The term `like in

substance,' homoiousion . . . had been employed merely to get rid of the

Nicene formula (Barry 1913, 709)." Not all Arians, or their new name of

Semi-Arian, agreed with this new word (Not True Arians and thus not true

believers). One group emphasized that the Father and Son were

"dissimilar" or anomoios (NU). Another group used the word "similar"

or homoios (NU) to describe the Father and Son relationship.

With the death of Constans in 350 his anti-Nicaea (pro-Arian) brother

Constantius became sole ruler of the Empire. The new Emperor

(government intervention is never good, regardless of preference) demanded (NU)

that all the Bishops of his Empire should agree with the homoios

formula. In 359 he summoned two Councils, one in the East at Seleucia

and the other in the West at Rimini. Both Councils, under the

Emperor's threats and with rationalizing arguments aimed at calming

consciences, were induced to sign the homoios formula. "This Homoean

victory was confirmed and imposed (forced) on the whole Church by the

Council of Constantinople in the following year" which condemned the

terms homoousios, homoiousios and anomoios (Ward 1955, 57). It seemed

that the Arians(three horns of Daniel) had triumphed over the Nicaea

creed.

Daniel 7:7-8, 23-26

7 After this I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, a fourth

animal (Roman Empire) awesome and powerful, and strong

exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth; it devoured and broke in

pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet: and it was diverse

from all the animals (World Powers) that were before it; and it had

ten horns (the conquered kingdoms or territories at the time of Constantine


20/24

in 324 AD.).

8 I considered the horns (conquered kingdoms), and, behold, there

came up among them another horn (Christopagan Greco-Roman

catholic church), a little one (a small power), before which three (True

Believers, "Arian" kingdoms and or Rulers) of the first (ten) horns were

plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this (little) horn were eyes

(a successions of church leaders) like the eyes of a man (The eyes of all

the Popes?) , and a mouth speaking great (vain) things (such as, "I

have the authority to change the "Times" and the "Laws" of YHVH).

The Final Battle

The seeming triumph of homoeism was short lived. First it gained its

popularity solely by imperial imposition(wow, Hypocrisy! If this isn't the pot

calling the kettle "Black," nothing is!). With the death of Constantius in 361

it collapsed. Second by persecuting both homoousios and homoiousios

supporters alike "it brought about better understanding and, ultimately,

reconciliation between the two groups (DeClercq 1967, 793)." Athanasius

an ardent defender of the homoousios position and following the

Alexandrian train of thought had begun his reasoning (NU) with the

unity of God. From their he had concluded that the Son and Spirit Whoshared that unity must have the same essential substance (NU). The

Cappadocian Fathers Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzen and

Gregory of Nyssa were associated with Homoiousians. The point of

departure for them as well as the Antiochenes had been the individual

aspect of the divine personality. With the help of Athanasius they came

to the realization that the three Persons as God must share the same

identical substance also (The blind leading the blind). By using the term

homoiousios the Cappadocian Fathers "had never meant to deny the

unity but only to preserve the distinction of persons (Ward 1955, 58)."Both came to the conclusion that although they used different terms

what they meant to say was the same. The Cappadocian Fathers came to

accept (NU) the term homoousios. Athanasius, on the other hand,

accepted the Cappadocian formula for the Trinity - one substance

(ousia) in three persons (hypostaseis)(This is an obvious compromise, and

quite frankly YHVH does not compromise!).


21/24

At about the same time as Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers

were reaching an agreement (compromise!)(NU) another development was

taking place. The East and the West were arriving at a better

understanding (NU) of each others theological terminology. At the Synod

of Alexandria in 362 the Nicene Creed was re-affirmed, the terms ousia

and hypostasis were explained and Macedonianism (sometimes referred

to as another form ofSemi-Arianism in its subordination of the Holy

Spirit) was condemned (The only thing we almost agree on). Under the

Eastern Emperor Valens (364-378) homoeism still had imperial favor

(NU).

In the West Ambrose of Milan led the fight for the Nicene Creed. At the

Council of Sirmium in 378, with the support of the Western Emperor

Gratian, six Arian Bishops were deposed (eliminate your competition). Aseries of laws were passed in 379 and 380 the Emperor prohibited

Arianism in the West (Government intervention).

In the East with the succession of Valens by a Nicene sympathizing

Emperor Theodosius I all exiled Bishops under Valens to return to their

sees. In 381 he convoked a regional Council at Constantinople. The first

canon from this Council states that "`the faith of the 318 fathers who

assembled at Nicaea in Bithyna is not to be made void, but shall

continue to be established (Davis 1987, 126).'" In 380 the Emperor

Theodosius outlawed Arianism(another admission of Government controlled

religion). The last victory over Arianism came in 381 with the Council of

Constantinople in the East and the Council of Aquileia in the West. Both

of them "sealed the final adoption of the faith of Nicaea by the entire

Church (DeClercq 1967, 793)."(Actually Arianism and the Gospel it preservednever died, it simply left Rome, and did so through the three major conquering

tribes of the Gothes, Vandals, and Burgundians),

Conclusion

The (Greco-Roman Beast) Council of Nicaea was victorious (won the battle,

but lost the war and Salvation) in the end(beginning of the "End Times," but in


22/24

"The Latter Days" it will be defeated! And that is prophecy!). It took over fifty

years of bitter battling between the upholders of the Council of Nicaea

and those against it. The Arian heresy(against Satan's church, not YHVH!)

seemed finished when the Council so specifically anathematized their

teachings(or The Gospel) one by one (not by Right, but by might).

The Arian doctrines condemned(by the Greco-Roman Beast government and

its Christopagan catholic church) were the following:

The Son was created by the Father out of nothing(Error, He was 100%

human). Thus the Son was not YHVH in the strict sense but by grace and

in name only(by PROXY).

The Father and Son did not share the same substance (truth). The Son

being a creature was subject to moral changeability and only remainedvirtuous by an act of the will(truth, as he was "Set Apart," but needed to be

perfected. See "True Perfection").

Terminology difficulties (NU) - (The catholics could not find Scriptural support;Only governmental support! Therefore, the evidence of scriptural ignorance by

Catholic leaders) had kept the door open for the Arians to continue after

the Council. This was especially true with the term homoousios (of the

same substance; a completely "Fabricated" unscriptural term) used by the

Council to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son.

The Arians took advantage of one of the term's other meaning, that of

identity, to claim that the Council said the Father and Son were

identical thereby invalidating the Council. The Arians then started

producing their own creeds (based on Scripture) either eliminating this

term or substituting another for it. This lead to the breaking up of the

Arians into diverse groups according to which term they supported -

anomoios (dissimilar) (the Truth), homoios (similar) or homoiousion (like in

substance).

It is obvious that Imperial (Greco-Roman Beast government favored theChristopagan Catholics, and their) involvement (and ultimate end) in the

controversy (NU) determined at any given moment whether the Council

of Nicaea or the Arianism was dominating the controversy (NU). With

the imposition of the term homoios on the Church by the Emperor

Constantius the work of the Council of Nicaea seemed doomed. But the

popularity of this term died with the Emperor. The persecution of both
http://content/TruePerfection.htmlhttp://content/TruePerfection.html


23/24

the Homoousians and the Homoiousians forced them to begin to

dialogue. With the two great representatives of these positions, St.

Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers, finding theological grounds

for their eventual (NU) agreement the way was paved for the triumph of

the Council of Nicaea. This incident later coupled with Eastern and

Western Emperors who were pro-Nicaea led to the final Arian downfall

(Wrong! We simply went underground).

Works Cited(supported by Christopagan catholic sympathizers and believers inthe Christopagan Trinity.)

The New Catholic Encyclopedia. 1967. New York: McGraw-HillBook Co. Vol. 1. Arianism, by V.C. Declercq.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia. 1967. New York: McGraw-Hill

Book Co. Vol. 8. St. Lucian of Antioch, by P. W. Harkins.

Davis S.J., Leo D. 1987. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787):

Their History and Theology. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, Inc.

Guitton, Jean. 1965. Great Heresies and Church Councils. New York:

Harper and Row.

Herbermann, Charles G., Edward A. Pace, Conde B. Pallen,

Thomas J. Shahan, John J. Wynne, eds. 1913. The Catholic

Encyclopedia. New York: The Encyclopedia Press. Vol. 1,

Arianism, by William Barry.

Herbermann, Charles G., Edward A. Pace, Conde B. Pallen,

Thomas J. Shahan, John J. Wynne, eds. 1913. The Catholic

Encyclopedia. New York: The Encyclopedia Press. Vol. 11,Councils of Nicaea, by H. Leclercq.

Ward D.D., Bishop J.W.C. 1955. The Four Great Heresies. London: A.R.

Mowbray and Co. Limited


24/24

Read: SBC Congregational Doctrine

Little Children

Beware of Evil Masquerading as an "Angel of Light."

Questions concerning this message may be directed to

The Sabbatarian Network by clicking the link below.

[email protected]
http://doctrine/Doctrine.htmlmailto:[email protected]://doctrine/Doctrine.htmlmailto:[email protected]

Arian Controversy

Documents

Transcript of Arian Controversy