I have compiled a list of verses that Christians neglect.
They practice what is called ‘ selective morality ’ when it comes to the Bible. They choose verses and jam it down ours throats, and the rest they ignore and reject
vehemently. Its about time we have exposed this truth
about those who claim to be followers of Christ. They
really don ’ t follow him at all. My comments are in red. (1) Do they fast like Jesus? When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18so that it will not be obvious to
men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in
secret, will reward you. (Matthew 6:16-18) And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred . (Matthew 4:2) And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by
nothing, but by prayer and fasting . (Mark 9:29) People had complained to Jesus saying, “ Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and
drink?” (Luke 5:33). But Jesus replied that as long as he is with them his disciples should not fast, but after he is
taken away then “ they will fast in those days ” (Luke 5:35). So after they had fasted and prayed … (Acts 13:3) * Christians do not fast; neither do they put oil on their heads. The disciples fasted like Jesus after his departure,
and Muslims fast like them too! (3) Do they behave like Jesus? The Bible describes the character of Jesus: So he made a whip out of cords , and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins
of the money changers and overturned their tables . (John 2:5) And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. (John 2:3-4) But those mine enemies, which would not that I should
reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me. (Luke 19:27) I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! (Luke 12:49) (4) Do they hate their family members? “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and
mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters — yes, even his own life — he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26) * We know the Bible strictly forbids getting drunk and prohibits drinking wine (Leviticus 10:9) Christianity is
the cause of the social corruptions today, so how many
Christians hate their family members? (5) Do they pray in the manner of Jesus? And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou
[wilt]. (Matthew 26:39) * Do Christians pray like Jesus? The answer is no. The scripture above seems to imply that Christians are blind
people who cannot discern the fact with their own eyes
that Jesus prayed in physical manner. Other significant examples: And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the
Almighty God; walk before me and be thou perfect. And
I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will
multiply thee exceedingly. And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him , saying, As for Me, behold, My covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of
many nations. (Genesis 17:1-4) Come, let us bow down in worship , let us kneel before the LORD our Maker; (Psalms 95:6) And all the angels stood round about the throne, and
about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God , Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be
unto our God for ever and ever. Amen.
(Revelations 7:11-12)
And Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face before the ark of the Lord until eventide, he and the elders of Israel, and put dust upon their heads. And Joshua said, Alas, O Lord God, wherefore hast Thou at all brought this people over Jordan, to deliver us into
the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us? Would to God
we had been content, and dwelt on the other side of the
Jordan! (Joshua 7:6-7) And Moses and Aaron went from the presence of the assembly unto the door of the tabernacle of the
congregation, and they fell upon their faces: and the glory of the Lord appeared unto them. ( Numbers 20:6) (6) Sell everything and give to the poor? So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:33) “All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said. “ When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” (Luke 18:21-22)
Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses,
(Matthew 10:9) * Should Christians accept poverty and sell everything they have? This teaching is neglected because the
Christian West is known as the consumerist society. (7) Is marrying divorced women adultery? But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an
adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. (Matthew 5:32, 19:9) * Marrying a divorced woman is adultery? How many
Christians have broken this law? (8) Are they supposed to gouge their eyes? Cut off their
hands? If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot
causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into
hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, (Mark
9:43-47) (9) Are they allowed to save money? “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth , where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. (Matthew
6:19-20) * Jesus seems to be forbidding banks to exist, since the
words “ where thieves break in and steal ” implies the storage of money and bank robbers! Jesus rejects the
accumulation of money, that ’ s why he overturned the money changers at the Temple. The Hadith below clarifies this point: Volume 2, Book 24, Number 488:
Narrated Zaid bin Wahab:
I passed by a place called Ar-Rabadha and by chance I
met Abu Dhar and asked him, “What has brought you to
this place?” He said, “I was in Sham and differed with
Muawiya on the meaning of (the following verses of the Quran): ‘They who hoard up gold and silver and spend them not in the way of Allah. ‘ (9.34). Muawiya said, ‘This verse is revealed regarding the people of the
scriptures.” (Sahih Bukhari) (10) Will rich people enter Heaven? Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the
eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25) (11) Can they move mountains? He replied, “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you
can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move . Nothing will be impossible for you (Matthew 17:20) Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, if you have faith and
do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done. (Matthew 21:21) * Remember when Jesus cursed the fig tree and it withered, bearing the sign that no fruit will grow from it
again. Jesus himself made it clear: Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found
nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered. (Matthew 21:19) * Since the fig tree withered in the literal sense, it means that Christians can also move mountains in the literal
sense too! This is precisely what Matthew 21:21 is
dictating. (12) Can they walk on snakes? I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you. (Luke 10:19) (13) Are they absolutely perfect? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:48) (14) Don’ t practice good deeds in public? “Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. (Matthew 6:1) (15) Do you follow this verse? Nobody really does. But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone
strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:39) (16) Do not worry about tomorrow? “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear . Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was
dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the
grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is
thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O
you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ (Matthew 6:25-31) * It’ s obvious that today ’ s Christians worry about materialistic things like clothes and shopping. They hang out and spend time in the market place, contradicting the
teachings of Jesus
“ To millions of Christians, Christ came to show them “ the way ” in which they should live, yet to what extent do they follow His advice? It seems that prefer to worship Him rather than follow Him. It’ s easier on human nature, besides it takes only a few hours one day a week. Thus they are free to spend the rest of the time in
the marketplace , doing the very opposite of what He taught. The result is we have sunk to the very depths of materiality; money is now our savior, and only knowledge that helps us make it is of any value (Lloyd Graham, Myths and Deceptions of the
Bible, pp. 324) (17) You cannot worship two masters “No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, (Luke 16:13) * Christians worship Jesus as a ‘ divine mediator ’ between God and men. They also construct statues when the Bible prohibits the making of graven images.
The Roman Catholics worship Mary and the Holy Ghost! (18) Will everyone burn in Hell according to the Bible?! For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.
(Mark 9:49) KJV, 1611 Everyone will be salted with fire. (NIV), 1970 (19) Should Christians allow people to sue them? And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. (Matthew 5:40) (20) Are Christians allowed to get borrowed materials back?
Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes
what belongs to you, do not demand it back. (Luke 6:30)
Challenge to christians 2
20 DecChallange to Christians
20 DecI have compiled a list of verses that Christians neglect.
They practice what is called ‘ selective morality ’ when it comes to the Bible. They choose verses and jam it down
ours throats, and the rest they ignore and reject
vehemently. Its about time we have exposed this truth
about those who claim to be followers of Christ. They
really don ’ t follow him at all. My comments are in red. (1) Do they fast like Jesus? When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18so that it will not be obvious to
men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in
secret, will reward you. (Matthew 6:16-18) And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred . (Matthew 4:2) And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by
nothing, but by prayer and fasting . (Mark 9:29) People had complained to Jesus saying, “ Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and
likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and
drink?” (Luke 5:33). But Jesus replied that as long as he is with them his disciples should not fast, but after he is
taken away then “ they will fast in those days ” (Luke 5:35). So after they had fasted and prayed … (Acts 13:3) * Christians do not fast; neither do they put oil on their
heads. The disciples fasted like Jesus after his departure,
and Muslims fast like them too! (3) Do they behave like Jesus? The Bible describes the character of Jesus: So he made a whip out of cords , and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins
of the money changers and overturned their tables . (John 2:5) And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith
unto him, They have no wine.
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. (John 2:3-4) But those mine enemies, which would not that I should
reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me. (Luke 19:27) I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! (Luke 12:49) (4) Do they hate their family members? “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and
mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters — yes, even his own life — he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26) * We know the Bible strictly forbids getting drunk and
prohibits drinking wine (Leviticus 10:9) Christianity is
the cause of the social corruptions today, so how many
Christians hate their family members? (5) Do they pray in the manner of Jesus? And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup
pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou
[wilt]. (Matthew 26:39) * Do Christians pray like Jesus? The answer is no. The
scripture above seems to imply that Christians are blind
people who cannot discern the fact with their own eyes
that Jesus prayed in physical manner. Other significant examples: And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the
Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the
Almighty God; walk before me and be thou perfect. And
I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will
multiply thee exceedingly. And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him , saying, As for Me, behold, My covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of
many nations. (Genesis 17:1-4) Come, let us bow down in worship , let us kneel before the LORD our Maker;
(Psalms 95:6) And all the angels stood round about the throne, and
about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God , Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and
thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be
unto our God for ever and ever. Amen.
(Revelations 7:11-12)
And Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face before the ark of the Lord until eventide, he and the elders of Israel, and put dust upon their heads. And Joshua said, Alas, O Lord God, wherefore hast Thou
at all brought this people over Jordan, to deliver us into
the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us? Would to God
we had been content, and dwelt on the other side of the
Jordan! (Joshua 7:6-7) And Moses and Aaron went from the presence of the
assembly unto the door of the tabernacle of the
congregation, and they fell upon their faces: and the glory of the Lord appeared unto them. ( Numbers 20:6) (6) Sell everything and give to the poor? So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:33) “All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said. “ When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
(Luke 18:21-22)
Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses,
(Matthew 10:9) * Should Christians accept poverty and sell everything
they have? This teaching is neglected because the
Christian West is known as the consumerist society. (7) Is marrying divorced women adultery? But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except
for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an
adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. (Matthew 5:32, 19:9) * Marrying a divorced woman is adultery? How many
Christians have broken this law? (8) Are they supposed to gouge their eyes? Cut off their
hands? If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into
hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot
causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into
hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye
than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, (Mark
9:43-47) (9) Are they allowed to save money? “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth , where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and
where thieves do not break in and steal. (Matthew
6:19-20) * Jesus seems to be forbidding banks to exist, since the
words “ where thieves break in and steal ” implies the storage of money and bank robbers! Jesus rejects the
accumulation of money, that ’ s why he overturned the money changers at the Temple. The Hadith below
clarifies this point: Volume 2, Book 24, Number 488:
Narrated Zaid bin Wahab:
I passed by a place called Ar-Rabadha and by chance I
met Abu Dhar and asked him, “What has brought you to
this place?” He said, “I was in Sham and differed with
Muawiya on the meaning of (the following verses of the Quran): ‘They who hoard up gold and silver and spend them not in the way of Allah. ‘ (9.34). Muawiya said, ‘This verse is revealed regarding the people of the
scriptures.” (Sahih Bukhari) (10) Will rich people enter Heaven? Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the
eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25) (11) Can they move mountains? He replied, “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the
truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you
can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move . Nothing will be impossible for you (Matthew 17:20) Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, if you have faith and
do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done. (Matthew 21:21) * Remember when Jesus cursed the fig tree and it
withered, bearing the sign that no fruit will grow from it
again. Jesus himself made it clear: Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found
nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered. (Matthew 21:19) * Since the fig tree withered in the literal sense, it means
that Christians can also move mountains in the literal
sense too! This is precisely what Matthew 21:21 is
dictating. (12) Can they walk on snakes? I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you. (Luke 10:19) (13) Are they absolutely perfect? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:48) (14) Don’ t practice good deeds in public? “Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. (Matthew 6:1) (15) Do you follow this verse? Nobody really does. But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone
strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:39) (16) Do not worry about tomorrow? “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear . Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell
you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was
dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the
grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is
thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O
you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ (Matthew 6:25-31) * It’ s obvious that today ’ s Christians worry about materialistic things like clothes and shopping. They hang
out and spend time in the market place, contradicting the
teachings of Jesus
“ To millions of Christians, Christ came to show them “ the way ” in which they should live, yet to what extent do they follow His advice? It seems that prefer to worship Him rather than follow Him. It’ s easier on human nature, besides it takes only a few hours one day a
week. Thus they are free to spend the rest of the time in
the marketplace , doing the very opposite of what He taught. The result is we have sunk to the very depths of materiality; money is now our savior, and only knowledge that helps us make it is of any value
(Lloyd Graham, Myths and Deceptions of the
Bible, pp. 324) (17) You cannot worship two masters “No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, (Luke 16:13) * Christians worship Jesus as a ‘ divine mediator ’ between God and men. They also construct statues
when the Bible prohibits the making of graven images.
The Roman Catholics worship Mary and the Holy Ghost! (18) Will everyone burn in Hell according to the Bible?! For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.
(Mark 9:49) KJV, 1611 Everyone will be salted with fire. (NIV), 1970 (19) Should Christians allow people to sue them? And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. (Matthew 5:40) (20) Are Christians allowed to get borrowed materials
back?
Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes
what belongs to you, do not demand it back. (Luke 6:30)
There is no Honor in killing-Honor started by Bible
9 DecHonor killing in Bible not in Islam
Islam haters always blame honor kilng is in Islam.but this is not truth.its compltely a lie.
Infact honor killing is in Bible,in Christanity.
Yes in the same book,about whom some people says it spread Love.
Burn The Daughter!
“And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.” (Leviticus 21:9)
Comment:
A priest’s daughter, if found to have lost her virginity without marriage, can receive the death penalty, but in the form of incineration.
How many fundamentalist priests who so easily condemn others would carry out the burning of their daughters if they found them “whoring”?
I can’t see any Love,can u see.
Sikander khan
Honor killing in Bible not in ISLAM
9 DecHonor killing in Bible not in Islam
Islam haters always blame honor kilng is in Islam.but this is not truth.its compltely a lie.
Infact honor killing is in Bible,in Christanity.
Yes in the same book,about whom some people says it spread Love.
Burn The Daughter!
“And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.” (Leviticus 21:9)
Comment:
A priest’s daughter, if found to have lost her virginity without marriage, can receive the death penalty, but in the form of incineration.
How many fundamentalist priests who so easily condemn others would carry out the burning of their daughters if they found them “whoring”?
I can’t see any Love,can u see.
Sikander khan
God (or Gods)?
23 NovGod (or Gods)?
Excerpts and Quotes – From The Catholic Church History
By Brother John Raymond
Introduction
Arianism with its fundamental Trinitarian controversy must not be looked upon as an isolated theory by its founder Arius. Its appeal, which began in Alexandria and spread through the whole Empire, must be seen in the context of the times. The Church emerged in a Jewish and Greek world. The question occupying this non-Christian world was the contrast between the
“One and the Many, between the ultimate unity that lay behind the visible universe and the incalculable variety that exists in the world.”
[Ward 1955, 38]
Relationship of God And World
The relationship between God and the world had to be solved.
The Jews proposed a supreme God who created by His word. It was an idea of a mediating “Word or Wisdom – the Word which is pronounced, the Wisdom which is created – whereby the Father communicated Himself to man and took possession of him.”
[Guitton 1965, 81]
The Greeks could not see how a finite and changeable world could come from an eternal and changeless God. They proposed the idea of a “mediating Intelligence or even Word, a first emanation of the first principle which reduced the distance between God and the world”
[Guitton 1965, 81]
The primitive Church had to “reconcile the notions they had inherited from Judaism with those they had derived from philosophy. Jew and Greek had to meet in Christ. They had to find an answer that would agree with the revelation they had received from Christ as recorded in the scriptures.”
[Ward 1955, 39]
This struggle for a reconciliation of thought reached its climax with the Arian controversy. The Church responded with the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea that brought together Scriptural and philosophical thought to explain the Trinity. The Council did triumph over Arianism but only after fifty years of bitter battling. Imperial support and confusion in theological terminology were the principal reasons for such a long drawn out battle as we will see.
Arius And His Teaching
Arius, who was born in Egypt in 256 A.D., was a parish priest in Alexandria. He had studied under St. Lucian of Antioch, the founder of the school of Antioch, who had earlier been condemned for holding that Christ was only a man; 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, they developed his adoptionist and subordinationist tendencies into a full heresy.”
[Harkins 1967, 1057, 1058]
With this background Arius struggled with the question of the Trinity. His teaching in Alexandria was the following: “Personal distinctions were not eternally present within the nature of God. . . the Godhead Himself was responsible for them. . . Identifying the eternal Godhead with the Father and regarding the Logos (‘Logos’ is simply a Greek word for ‘word’) as no more than a power or quality of the Father, he said that before time began the Father had created the Son by the power of the Word to be His agent in creation.
The Son was not therefore to be identified with the Godhead, He was only God in a derivative sense, and since there was once when he did not exist He could not be eternal. Arius stressed the subordination of the Logos to such an extent as to affirm His creaturehood, to deny His eternity and to assert His capacity for change and suffering.”
[Ward 1955, 41]
This teaching of Arius “drove the distinctions outside the Deity and thus destroyed the Trinity. It meant solving the difficulty of the One and the Many by proposing a theory of one Supreme Being and two inferior deities.”
[Ward 1955, 43]
The Person of Christ “belonged to no order of being that the Church could recognize. . . He was neither God nor man.”
[Ward 1955,42]
Arius Versus The Alexandrian Bishop
Arius’ views began to spread among the people and the Alexandrian clergy. Alexander the Bishop called a meeting of his priests and deacons. The Bishop insisted on the unity of the Godhead. Arius continued to argue that since the Son was begotten of the Father then at some point He began to exist. Therefore there was a time when the Son did not exist. Arius refused to submit to the Bishop and continued to spread his teaching.
Alexander called a synod of Bishops of Egypt and Libya. Of the hundred Bishops who attended eighty voted for the condemnation and exile of Arius. 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.
Alexander “used a term which was to become the keyword of the whole controversy.”
[Ward 1955, 43, 44]
With the decision of the synod Arius fled to Palestine. Some of the 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 Bishop Alexander of Alexandria. Arius seemed to have good grounds for this condemnation.
The term homoousios was rejected by Alexander’s own predecessor Dionysus when arguing against the Sabellians (who claimed the Father and Son were identical). All this controversy was taking place just as the Church was emerging from Roman oppression.
Constantine And Ossius
With the rise of Constantine to power Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire. Constantine had politically united the Empire but he was distressed to find a divided Christianity. Constantine, certainly not understanding the significance of the controversy, 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. Both of them really were in agreement on major doctrines and neither was involved in heresy.
The letters failed to have an effect. In 325 A.D. Ossius 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 a new Church practice was inaugurated – that of issuing a creedal statement. At this Council Arianism was condemned, a profession of faith resembling the Alexandrian creed was promulgated and three Bishops who refused to agree with the teaching of this Council were provisionally excommunicated until the Council of Nicaea.
Roman Emperor Calls Council of his Church (Universal or Catholic Church of Rome). It was the year 325 AD in what is now Turkey and in the summer of that year, probably under the suggestion of Ossius, Constantine 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 thought he “was given by God supreme power in things material and spiritual.”
[Davis 1987, 56]
The Council of Nicaea. The General Council was well attended by the major sees 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 Bishops who attended the Council 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. The majority, especially those who were confessors of the Faith, energetically declared themselves against the impious doctrines of Arius.”
[LeClercq 1913, 45]
Concerning the Creed that was drafted at the Council “Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius of Alexandria and Philostorgius have given divergent accounts of how this Creed was drafted.”
[LeClercq 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 a creed using only scriptural terms. These creeds proved insufficient to exclude the Arian position.
“Finally, it seems, a Syro-Palestinian creed was used 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. Constantine at this point intervened to threaten with exile anyone who would not sign for it. Two Libyan Bishops and Arius still refused to accept the creed. All three were exiled. The Creed and an Analysis some parts of the literal translation of the Nicaea Creed are as follows:
“We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance (ousia) of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance (homoousios) with the Father, through whom all things were made 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 was made 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 Catholic Church anathematizes.”
[LeClercq 1913, 45]
The Arians were very clever in twisting phrases in creedal statements to reflect their own doctrine. The Son being “begotten of the Father” was seen by them as saying that the Son was created from nothing. But to counter their doctrine the phrase “begotten not made” was added to the creed that totally ruled out their position of the Son having a beginning. Another Arian teaching was that the Son was God by grace and name only.
The creedal statement “true God of true God” was an affirmation that the Son was really truly God against this Arian position. The most important statement in the creed that affirms “that the Son shares the same being as the Father and is therefore fully divine” was the phrase “of one substance (homoousios) with the Father”
[Davis 1987, 61]
This statement totally destroyed the Arian view of the Son as an intermediary being between God and Creation. In case the creed was not enough to end the Arian controversy anathemas were attached directly condemning Arian positions. The Arian denial of the Son’s co-eternity with the Father is expressed in the two phrases “there was when the Son of God 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 God is expressed in the phrase “He is of a different hypostasis or substance.” With these specific anathemas against them the Arians and their heresy seemed to be finished. Terminology Problem With the Eastern Church using Greek and the Western Church using Latin misunderstandings were bound to arise over theological terminology. Once instance of confusion 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 clearly be erroneous. Only later would the East come to distinguish hypostasis from substance (ousia) as in the West.
This instance of confusion “points up the terminological difficulty which continued to bedevil Eastern theology and to confuse the West about the East’s position.”
[Davis 1987, 63]
A second and very important termed used by the Council was homoousios. At that time this word could have three possible meanings.
“First, it could be generic; 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, that is, that the Father and the Son are identical in concrete being.
Finally, it could refer to material things, as two pots are of the same substance because both are made of the same clay.”
[Davis 1987, 61]
The 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 of the meaning of the word homoousios the history of the word is closely associated with heresies.
The word was originally used by the Gnostics [1] . 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. The Council’s defeat by Arianism. It is not surprising that with its use of the word homoousios the Council could be called into question.
Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia gained the confidence of Emperor Constantine. He convinced Constantine that the Council’s use of the word homoousios was Sabellian (Father and Son were identical). The Emperor now 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 brother Constantius who ruled the East was anti-Nicaea.
Supporters of Nicaea in the East especially Bishop Athanasius were deposed and excommunicated by the Dedication Council of Antioch. 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 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 . . . 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. One group emphasized that the Father and Son were “dissimilar” or anomoios. Another group used the word “similar” or homoios to describe the Father and Son relationship.
With the death of Constans in 350 his anti-Nicaea brother Constantius became sole ruler of the Empire. The new Emperor demanded 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 on the whole Church by the Council of Constantinople in the following year” which condemned the terms homoousios, homoousios and anomoios.
[Ward 1955, 57]
It seemed that the Arians had triumphed over the Nicaea creed. The Final Battle. The seeming triumph of homoeism was short lived.
First it gained its popularity solely by imperial imposition. With the death of Constantius in 361 it collapsed.
Second by persecuting both homoousios and homoousios 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 with the unity of God. From their he had concluded that the Son and Spirit Who shared that unity must have the same essential substance.
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. By using the term homoousios 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 the term homoousios. Athanasius, on the other hand, accepted the Cappadocian formula for the Trinity – one substance (ousia) in three persons (hypostaseis).
At about the same time as Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers were reaching an agreement another development was taking place. The East and the West were arriving at a better understanding 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 of Semi-Arianism in its subordination of the Holy Spirit) was condemned.
Under the Eastern Emperor Valens (364-378) homoeism still had imperial favor. 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. A series of laws were passed in 379 and 380 the Emperor prohibited Arianism in the West.
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 Bithynia is not to be made void, but shall continue to be established.”
[Davis 1987, 126]
In 380 the Emperor Theodosius outlawed Arianism. 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]
Conclusion
The Council of Nicaea was victorious in the end. It took over fifty years of bitter battling between the upholders of the Council of Nicaea and those against it. The Arian heresy seemed finished when the Council so specifically anathematized their teachings one by one.
The Arian doctrines condemned were the following:
The Son was created by the Father out of nothing.
Thus the Son was not God in the strict sense but by grace and
in name only.
The Father and Son did not share the same substance.
The Son being a creature was subject to moral changeability
and only remained virtuous by an act of the will.
Terminology difficulties 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) 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 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), homoios (similar) or homoiousion (like in substance).
It is obvious that Imperial involvement in the controversy determined at any given moment whether the Council of Nicaea or the Arianism was dominating the controversy. 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 the Homoiousians 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 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.
REFRENCE:
[1] Gnostics – meaning “to know secret or hidden knowledge”; lit., those who know; a mystic order of Christianity. Often known for giving up all worldly matters, often living apart from society and being reclusive, fasting and remaining celibate. Possible forerunners of the sufi orders found amongst some Muslims today.
WORKS CITED:
The New Catholic Encyclopedia. 1967. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book 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
Bible Guides to Kill Innocent Unbelievers
23 NovDeath to Followers of Other Religions
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)
Book of LOVE !
Bible Says Kill who Insult Parents
23 Nov
Death for Hitting Dad
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)







