Talk:Arius/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

I Quit

Without withdrawing any of my objections--or my request for an apology, which still stands, BTW--I QUIT. Simple as that. I've decided that this just isn't worth getting into any more arguments over, or getting "zapped" by the Wikipedia gods for "edit warring" or any nonsense like that. I think this article has become a pile of crap, a apologetical discourse in favor of Arius that would be worthy of any Protestant, Mormon or JW polemicist--what it most definitely is NOT anymore is a neutral, usable encyclopedia article. I could go on "warring" over this and go "toe to toe" with User 69-point-whatever from now until doomsday; in the end, all it will do is raise my blood pressure on a subject that I just really don't care too much about anymore. If I cared more about Arius, I'd fight 69 all the way to Hades and back, until the great Wikipedia Poo-bahs and Honchos decided to take their Louiville Sluggers to both of us. But I just don't care that much about the man--or this article--anymore. Sorry, Sweetpoet! - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Look, here is the problem with the old intro; you claim it is NPOV but it is not- here are the old lines:

1) His teachings about the nature of the Godhead, now referred to as Arianism, provoked great controversy within the fourth-century Church by asserting that the Son of God, incarnate as Jesus Christ, was not of the same substance or coeternal with his Father. Rather, said Arius, there was once a time, before he was begotten, that the Son did not exist.

The problem with that line is as every scholarly source admits, we have no positive record of his teaching, just negative quotations. So to assert that his teaching is anything is to take the POV of one party despite the reality that there is no firm evidence of his teaching. The revised intro specifically mentions that discrepancy in clear and unequivocal terms.

What are you trying to say, that Arius DIDN'T teach Arianism??? What DID he teach then, Trinitarianism? Sabelianism? Modalism? Pelagianism? I don't get it. As I observed previously, had Arius NOT been an advocate for the teaching that bears his name, Arius would have undoubtedly said so at the Council, and a historical record of this would have been preserved. Unless, that is, you want us to buy what appears to be your "conspiracy theory" of Athanasius et al "ganging up" on him. It's ludicrious! Yes, all that remains of his teachings today comes to us from anti-Arian sources, but you need to remember that those sources were largely composed either during Arius' lifetime or soon thereafter. Had they not accurately reflected his teachings (at least in the main), Arius or others would have said so. This would have immediately discredited Athanasius et al in the eyes of the public, and been a huge "boost" for Arius and other enemies of Trinitarianism. Hence, I can't buy this "conspiracy theory" of yours. No way. - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

All we know for sure - that is not provided by a negative source - is that he disagreed with Trinitarianism. Any non-biased, direct or supportive evidence was destroyed (as said in the article) - so to insinuate otherwise would be to repeat the systematic bias of hundreds of years of books and people being burned. There is no mention of any conspiracy theory or ganging up other than the fact that Athanasius was a supporter of Trinitarianism, and Arius was an opponent of Trinitarianism - all scholars can agree on that fact - so it is NPOV. 69.51.152.180 (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

2) The dissension provoked by Arius' teachings caused the Roman Emperor Constantine I to call the First Council of Nicea in 325 AD.

This line has the problem that it claims the reason for why the Emperor called the council - again, it is introducing POV - the revised intro does not claim some psychological reason for the Emperor Calling the Council - just that he did so. Again the revised paragraph is more NPOV.

"Introducing POV?" How?!? The reason I gave was not "psychological," but historical. What reason do you care to give us for the emperor calling the council, then, when all the historical sources I have seen say precisely what I wrote there? Oh, wait; I guess that was part of the big "conspiracy theory," too. Arius taught that the Son of God was a created being; that there was a time when He was not. This caused controversy in the Church, and since Constantine did not want to see the religion he saw as the new unifying force in his empire riven by dissension, he ordered the calling of a council to decide the matter after Arius and his opponents could not reach a compromise (because there was simply no compromise to be reached: either Jesus was eternal, or He was not; either He was one in substance with His Father, or He was not; there is no middle ground possible here, as Arius and his opponents both recognized). There's nothing "psychological" here, nothing POV--just history. Pure plain and simple. - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

To presume what was in Constantine's mind is a reflection of the dogma that has been drilled into you is massively POV. To state that 'he called the council' all parties historically can agree to; to state that 'he called the council because his wife was spurned by Arius' or 'he called the council because he wanted the lucrative trading rights of Libya' or some other thing would be POV. It makes more sense, and is more NPOV, to simply say 'he called the council' and 'he legalized Christianity in the Roman Empire' - all of which are true. 69.51.152.180 (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

3) This conclave excommunicated Arius and his adherents, rejecting his Christology in favor of Athanasian Trinitarianism, which became—and has remained, for seventeen centuries thereafter—Christianity's dominant dogma on the subject.

Here we go, this line is full of POV - besides which, there were excommunications / recommunications back and forth that cannot be summed up in a terse line. Further, throwing in the 'dominant' is POV.

"Full of POV???" HOW?!?!? Did the council NOT excommunicate Arius and his adherents? Did the council NOT reject the Christology he presented (see my answer to your Objection 1, above!)? Did Trinitarianism NOT become Christianity's dominant dogma on the subject? Let's see: how many Christians are there--and what percentage of those, now and at all other times since the Council of Nicea, have been Trinitarians??? I think history will answer these questions: Yes, Arius and his followers WERE excommunicated by the council; Yes, the council DID reject the so-called "Arian" Christology; Yes, Trinitarianism DID become the dominant Christology of Christiadom, by sheer force of numbers, until the present day. So WHERE'S THE POV????????? It's HISTORY!!!!! I'm really sorry to get this worked up over this, but I'm having a rather difficult time swallowing these piddly, paltry objections from someone who referred to my previous offerings as "bullsh*t" and "lacking in substance." - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, your 'has remained for' may be changing now that people can see it for what it is. Second, seventeen centuries of active violent and coercive suppression do not justify the dignity of NPOV. You might as well trumpet how less than 1% of the population of Germany is Jewish, ignoring the fact that many were exterminated. Third, the excommunication of the council was just one decision of many, including reinstatements and modifications, that are hidden (POV) in that gloss statement and convey the false impression (again POV) of some monolothic consistent denial of Arius. 69.51.152.180 (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

4) However, Arius's doctrines continued to find followers throughout various portions of Christendom, persisting throughout various Gothic and Germanic kingdoms until suppressed by military conquest or voluntary conversions between the fifth and seventh centuries.

This line would be ok, except that nontrinitarian theologians at the time of Arius (not 100 years later) did not call themselves Arian - so to bring that in is POV way after the fact.

I nowhere said, nor ever attempted to say, that non-Trinitarian theologians called themselves Arians during the time of Arius. Take that line of mine that you quoted here, and SHOW me where I said that! What I SAID (as quoted above; at least that part is accurate!) is that Arius' doctrines (or those attributed to him; as I said in #1 above, had he NOT taught or advocated them, he would have SAID so, or others contemporary with him would have SAID so!!) found adherents and persisted in various Gothic and other kingdoms, etc. Would you please tell me, if you can, what is historically incorrect in that statement? There is no POV here, just a simple statement of fact. - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

We know, again, that the 'Arians' were nontrinitarian- again, we get a picture of disagreement with Trinitarianism - but any historical chain that tied Arius to the later 'Arians' as 'descendents' and 'followers'? Brevity and clarity then is more NPOV. 69.51.152.180 (talk)

In sum, the new version is terse and minimizes POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.51.152.180 (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

NO SIR. NOT AT ALL. I apologize for my anger and my tone here, but you, sir, are rather difficult to stomach. You refer to what I write as "bullsh*t," and then expect me to "sit down" for that while offering this drivel here. I had intended to disengage utterly from this article and from this discussion, but I just can't take this "lying down." Wikipedia Honchos, do your worst!!! And, by the way, friend, I am still waiting for my apology. - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sitting down is unhealthy. No way I would suggest that. However, if you expect that we will take your massively biased POV, of hundreds of years of burning people and papers, forging documents, etc, I am afraid not. 69.51.152.180 (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

An Apology

User 69, I apologize to you for the tone and tenor of my response to your statements above. I am going to end our discussion here, because I did something blatently Unchristian and uncalled for in the wording that I used, and I tender my apologies to you for it. I should not have lost my temper the way that I did; in the end, I did precisely what I accused you of doing, and made myself a hypocrite. I've always tried to be a "gentleman" on Wikipedia, but I was definitely not one today. I think there's really no hope of compromise here between us on this subject, and thus I am going to terminate my involvement in the Arius article altogether, and end this discussion. However, I did not wish to go without admitting that I was indeed wrong to have said what I said the way that I said it (not that I withdraw my objections, but rather apologize for losing my temper and wording them the way that I did), and apologizing to you for it. I do not agree with what you have done here, but I don't think it's worth getting this upset over anymore, and it certainly is not worth making myself a sinner over it. I am sorry for the way that I said what I did, and I wish you well and all of God's blessings in everything. - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

No Worries 69.51.152.180 (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Does before imply greater?

There's been a little edit war raging over the second paragraph of the article, about whether it's right to say that negative portrayals of Arius's theology show him saying that God (the Father) is "greater" than the Son on account of being, unlike the Son, eternal. I have a few observations.

1. It doesn't matter for this purpose whether or not "the Father is eternal and the Son is not" *actually* implies "the Father is greater than the Son". It doesn't even matter what Arius thought about that. The question is what Arius's later opponents' surviving writings say he thought.

2. Athanasius's Third Discourse against the Arians describes the Arians as saying "How at all can the Father who is the greater be contained in the Son who is the less?". Athanasius doesn't purport to be describing Arius himself here, but still it shows that quite early on the opponents of Arianism were representing it as saying that the Father is greater.

3. A letter from Arius to Pope Alexander (note: I have no idea whether this letter is authentic, but it doesn't seem to have obvious signs of tampering) has him saying "For He is above Him, as being His God, and before Him" (the first "He" here is the Father, the others the Son), which sure looks to me as if Arius thought the Father was greater than the Son in at least some respects and linked the greater-ness to the before-ness. The same letter, incidentally, states that the Son is not "one in essence" with the Father and that "there are three Subsistences", another difference from the now-orthodox view that's surely as important as the one over co-eternality.

4. One side in this edit war wants to say that Arius thought the Son was "greater in all ways" or some such language. That seems to me to go beyond what there's evidence for.

5. That paragraph also claims that "all positive writings on Arius' theology have been suppressed or destroyed", but as the article itself says there are some surviving letters attributed to Arius; they have a thing or two to say about his theology, and seem generally positive. I think "all positive writings..." is an exaggeration, although of course the basic point (theological history is written by the victors, and most of the information we have about Arianism comes from its opponents) is correct.

I propose something like this: "Arius' theology is known mostly from the writings of its detractors, almost all Arian writings having been suppressed or destroyed. It appears from these sources that Arius held that the Son of God (unlike God the Father) did not always exist and that the Son was neither equal with the Father nor of the same substance."

I'd rather not get into an edit war over this. So, 69.51.152.180, 151.202.35.85, 71.13.78.226, 24.176.35.188, Sweetpoet: Any objections? If so, let's sort them out here and then put something mutually agreeable into the article.

Gareth McCaughan (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the letter from Arius to Eusebius, perhaps one of the most viable communications existing, knowhere do you see a relative valuation of Jesus and God: http://ecole.evansville.edu/arians/arius1.htm . The people who are anti-Arius would like to paint a picture of someone who denigrates his own Christianity. However, just because an entity is before or after does not sway their relative importance; your mother was born far after your great great Grandmother; however, I will bet that your mother you consider _far_ greater and more important to you. The anti-Arians are trying to paint a picture that because he said there was a time when Jesus was not, that Jesus is less in import. There is a faction that postulates that 'it is primary of importance for you to believe that Jesus and God are coequal and coeternal' and thus it is _lesser_ to actually put weight on the words and actions of Jesus (more import is placed on form than on substance). This concept undermines the power of individual action and deed in place of dogmatic form. 69.51.152.180 (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we need to focus not on what bad motivations some people might have for wanting the article to say something, nor on what beliefs would have been most consistent or most honourable for Arius to hold, but on what the available evidence actually says. (It seems to me, for what it's worth, that the proposition "Arius thought that God was greater than Jesus" could be taken as either pro-Arius or anti-Arius.) For the record, I have no dog in this fight; I am neither pro-Arius nor anti-Arius; I don't care whether anyone thinks better or worse of Arius for reading the WP article about him; I just want it to be as accurate as possible. (Also for the record: I don't think that regarding God the Father as greater than the Son of God amounts to denigrating Christianity.)

So. Indeed, the letter to Eusebius doesn't say anything about whether God is greater than Jesus in any sense. But (a) the letter to Alexander does seem to, (b) obviously neither letter is a complete statement of Arius's theology (a few short paragraphs couldn't possibly be), and (c) in any case, as per my remark #1 above, the question isn't what Arius thought as such but what the surviving descriptions of his theology -- biased and hostile as some of them are -- say he thought. Fortunately, in this particular case Arius's detractors (e.g., Athanasius in the Third Discourse) and Arius himself (in the letter to Alexander) seem to agree that he held that the Son didn't always exist, wasn't equal with the Father, and wasn't of the same substance, which provides us with material for a handy one-sentence summary of how his theology differed from that of his opponents.

It would of course be convenient if the anti-Arians hadn't won the political battle so thoroughly, and had left more Arian writings around so that we could say more about Arius's theology and be more confident of not just quoting slanders. But, with things as they are, I think the best we can do is to summarize those key points on which (so far as we can tell from the extant sources) Arius and his detractors tell the same story about his beliefs, and add a cautionary note about how biased the record is.

That's what my proposal above attempts to do. Do you think it succeeds or fails? (For instance, is there some reason to think that the letter to Alexander misrepresents Arius's opinions?)

Gareth McCaughan (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a fine summary in that it states a disagreement with the Trinitarian position of coequality and coeternity; However, to throw in 'Greater' or 'Lesser' is a loaded term (value) that obfuscates the situation and implies a valuation; that he disagreed with the Trinitarian concept of coequality and coeternity (Jesus being created afterword) without inserting valuation terms would be most neutral in my opinion and serve the various populations (although it may not satisfy his detractors, who would like to put him in the worse possible light) 69.51.152.180 (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I also want to add, that in terms of the 'Letter to Alexander' - I would like to point out that it is from Athanasius' De Synodis, and concludes with 'This is a part of what Arius and his fellows vomited from their heretical hearts.' - Here is a link to the actual 'letter': http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2817.htm . I think this version of the Arius intro makes more sense - lmk what should be changed about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arius&oldid=351058538 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.51.152.180 (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, I think it *would* be justifiable to say that surviving sources suggest that Arius thought the Father was greater than the Son ("above" in the letter to Alexander, for instance, and various things in the Thalia as quoted by Athanasius). The fact that this implies a valuation would be a problem only if we thought Arius never valued anything, which seems unlikely :-). Again, trying to frustrate Arius's detractors is not a suitable goal for WP, any more than trying to put Arius in the worst possible light is; we should try to be as accurate as possible, whether or not that makes partisans on either side happy. (In fact I suspect, albeit with little evidence, that one of the other parties in the recent edit-war is motivated less by wanting Arius put in a bad light than by wanting "the Father is greater than the Son" put in a good light.) In any case, my proposed wording doesn't say "greater" or "lesser"; my objection to those terms is that they're vague rather than that they're evaluative.

The letter to Alexander is found in two other 4th/5th-century sources, Epiphanius and Hilary; are they believed to have copied from Athanasius? (Of course they were also not at all in agreement with Arius, but if they're independent sources then it's less likely that they've all distorted Arius's words in the same way.)

Looking again at the first paragraph of the article, I think my proposed wording is unsatisfactory because it repeats things already found there. The point of the second paragraph seems to be to make the transition from "how early opponents of Arianism used the word 'Arianism'" to "what Arius himself thought, so far as we can tell". It seems that -- with of course the caveat that "so far as we can tell" isn't at all as far as we'd like -- the two match up reasonably well, at least as regards the points mentioned in that first paragraph. The other contribution of the second paragraph is an observation about the persistence and later suppression of Arian churches, which seems like it belongs in the article on Arianism rather than the one on Arius. So I wonder whether actually the second paragraph should simply be deleted and the first be amended a little.

Gareth McCaughan (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Argument from Absence

This is a pretty good article. However, there is one statement near the beginning that has bothered me. I added a corresponding tag to it. It says: Although all positive writings on Arius' theology have been suppressed or destroyed. This seems to be an argument from absence. How do you know there were such writings? Who told you they were suppressed? In fact, later in the article it talks about Arius' own writings being burned, but this is not identical to the statement all positive writings on Arius' theology.

Note the article on Theodosius where he actively suppressed / repressed Arianism, then please place the citation (As I am not familiar with that process): http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14577d.htm 75.134.103.143 (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems it would be difficult to prove that "all" pro-Arian writings "have been suppressed or destroyed" even if no such writings have survived into modernity (argument from absence). Some writings could have perished due to carelessness, negligence, accidental fires, flooding, volcanic eruptions, etc. Certainly, as Roman Emperor, Theodosius' jurisdiction (and therefore his ability to suppress Arianism) was wide but not unlimited; he had no ability to suppress Arianism among the numerous barbarian tribes, many of whom were staunchly Arian, outside his borders. Better to simply mention the facts than to speculate as to the causes. Perhaps this would be acceptable:

'No positive writings on Arius' theology having survived antiquity, due in large part to active suppression by church and governmental authorities, scholars must glean information about Arian theology from anti-Arian writings, which attribute to Arius the opinion that God the Father existed alone before creating the Son of God out of nothing.'

-- JALatimer (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

After having read above about some "letters" from Arius, etc., it seems 'No...' in the above proposed sentence might better read 'Few, if any, authentic....' -- JALatimer (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Used the word 'virtually' to have the same effect but not drift off into verbocity. 69.51.152.180 (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

First Arian Church of the Internet

"A modern English church called the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church claims to follow Arian teachings, canonizing Arius on June 16, 2006." Can anyone ascertain whether the "church" mentioned in this sentence is actually a church in any real sense, or just a website? -- JALatimer (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Arius portrait image for article.jpg

Not Arius of Alexandria (circa 251-336 A.D.)

Not Arius

The fresco illustrated at right used as the paperback cover of some editions of Arius: Heresy and Tradition is not of Arius in fact. Googlebooks reports ""Cover shows detail of Anonymous Deacon (Euplos) first half of the 13th century, Athens, Byzantine Museum". At Reference Desk Adam Bishop identified "a place, Euplos, of which that (anonymous) guy was an archdeacon. If that's the case then the image probably comes from a bunch of frescoes in the church of St. Leontius in Strumica, in Macedonia, if our article is accurate (but I guess the frescoes are actually in the museum in Athens, according to the blurb on the back cover of the book). The painting definitely looks like Byzantine art - I was going to say it was much earlier, like 5th or 6th century, but their style never really changed much over the centuries. I was also going to guess that it either comes from somewhere sympathetic to Arius, or it's not Arius at all, because it's extremely unlikely that Chalcedonian Christians would have painted Arius as a normal person, or at all. It's pretty boggling that the cover of a book about Arius would have such a completely unrelated image, but then, the author doesn't have any say in that."--Wetman (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

As I noted at PUF: There's a fresco in the Santa Maria Novella, seen here, which is the source of the image used on the revised cover of the book. I found one source [1][2] which states that this picture is, in fact, a depiction of Arius. The best version I've found so far without the book title in the way is here, but some additional looking may turn up something better. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that without compelling evidence that the image being used is Arius, we should remove it. It's more than likely going to be deleted anyway. At least there is evidence to support that this is an image of Arius. The other one does not meet verifiability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

What is the etymology of the name Arius? Perhaps it can be included in the article.24.184.54.28 (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Arius of Alexandria

I think that the article in general terms is above the regular ones about this incredible man. Certainly lacks some important points as quoting Gibbon (Rome Decline and Fall) which balances pretty well the image of this great man, which by the chord has been so infamated,think to add a little information.Emmanuel

---

I agree with Gwimpey and am drafting my own rewrite. Wikipedia should not judge between religious doctrines; it should present them as fairly as possible. This article states (1) that Arius originated the teachings in question (Arius and later Arians claimed otherwise) (2) that Arius taught 'heresy' 'errors' etc. (Arius and later Arians would consider these good, or at worst mediocre, doctrine) (3) Nicaea was 'necessary in itself and satisfactory in the end' (including the anathemas?). (4) It declares Athanasius 'right' and refers to his 'triumphant vindication'. (5) It reserves different language for the political and theological troubles facing Arian vs. Nicean groups. (Arius as 'heretic' and Marcellus as 'victim'). (6) It celebrates and glorifies the poisoning of Arius. Wikipedia should not call for the murder of religious dissidents.

I suggest dividing this article in two; one half would discuss Arius and the other half would discuss (old) Arianism, from Lucian onwards. - Jacob Haller

---

The Catholic religion itself suffices many examples for the call of the murder of religious dissidents, and who can deny that is exactly the history of Catholicism? Catholicism was born in blood, its words are written in blood, and its true history is a Tsunami of blood, and anyone who discovers this self evident truth is often branded a "heretic" whom, according to Catholic doctrine, it is lawful to murder. I tell you plainly, Christ is going to destroy it - not man - because it makes war with the Lamb of God, and hides the truth, and just as God destroyed Israel for perverting His name, so too will He destroy Catholicism for perverting his Son's name.

Jesus warned Simon Peter that Satan desired to have him, but that he prayed for him. It is as certain as death itself.

The whole book of Revelation is written about the destruction of Catholicism and its blatant heresies to the Word of God, such as making "tradition" equal to the Word of God. The Jews did the exact same thing and Jesus bitterly condemned them saying, "By your tradition you nullify the commandment of God." So I suppose now that I too am a "heretic" whom it is lawful to murder. Satan is rather ingenious in granting the license of iniquity in the name of God and Jesus. The Plagues are coming, and if what I have said is not the truth, then it doesn't matter. If what I said is the truth, then nothing else matters. You have been officially warned. Make of it what you will, but don't blame me. If the Catholics must employ the "sword of just defense" (actually a Calvinist quote), then I say those who live by the sword must be killed by the sword, but it isn't man wielding this sword, but Jesus who has returned to establish the Kingdom of God on Earth.

Let the Satanists and his decievers beware, for your day of judgement comes, and there isn't a god in the Universe that is going to save you from the Great and Terrible day of the Lord.

Again, if what I have said is not the truth, then it doesn't matter and Catholicism will continue building the "New World Order" with the Pope ruling earth as the Vicar of God (another official Catholic Doctrine). If what I said is the truth, then nothing but an exodus from the perversions of Catholcism will save the converts of St. Peter, for John the Revelator said:

"And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." Revelation 18:4

We have the advantage of a point of view that the Prophets did not have. They were prophesying from their present time looking forward into the future as to what must come to pass for the Kingdom of God to be established on Earth. We have the vantage point of now looking back, and can, from that point of reference, determine where we are. [written on 11:45, 9 Jan 2005 by anon IP 207.144.224.193]

Following messages were moved from the top to the bottom into chronological order.

this page completly sucks, can someone make it more user friendly - easier to understand? what was arius's message? , that jesus in not eternal or something? please, someone write a one paragraph summary of the most important facts WITH COMMON SENSE. [written on 18:34, 26 Mar 2005 by anon IP 84.47.106.230]

--Basically, we have people who are Catholic supporters who will not let you post anything straight up. It will be long winded and in the end they will simply edit it out. So you are left with some copied and pasted long winded Catholic apologist (read:Enemy of Arius)' view of Arius. [written on 01:57, 15 Jun 2005 by anon IP 24.176.6.165]

birth/death

Who was Arius? A deacon. And man who thought Jesus was better than god.return When did he live? Born 250A.D. Died 336A.D. where did he live? Alexandria LINKS DELETED BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS: links are not working i will try to fix them

66.41.212.247THE EDITOR66.41.212.247 17:23, 8 November 2006‎ (UTC)

text in "Exile, return, and death"

There's a bit of text from the "Exile, return, and death" section I think should be changed:
"Many Nicene Christians asserted that Arius's death was miraculous—a consequence of his allegedly heretical views. Several recent writers, far removed from the event, have guessed that Arius may have been poisoned by his opponents."
Am I the only one who thinks saying that recent writers were far removed from the event is unnecessary? Obviously any recent writer is far removed from the event, so what is the point of saying it? To me it sounds as if whoever wrote it is saying "they weren't there, so what do they know?" Thoughts? Anoldtreeok (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

surviving works

"Reconstructing the life and doctrine of Arius has been proved to be a difficult task, as none of his original writings survive. Emperor Constantine ordered their burning while Arius was still living, and any that survived this purge were later destroyed by his Orthodox opponents. Those works which have survived are quoted in the works of churchmen who denounced him as a heretic."

If "none of his original writings survive", then the second sentence should read: "Those fragments which have survived". Heavenlyblue (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

there are not fragments of Arius' writings that are publically (the pope may have them hidden in his secret library but who knows)known, just copies of some letters by people tangentially related (not purely trinitarian).

Merge from Baucalis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article created at Baucalis is redundant and provides little or no new information. Furthermore, the article is actually mostly about Arius and the Arian controversy, not about Baucalis. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that currently it doesn't have any new substantive information in it, but that doesn't mean that it won't sooner or later. It doesn't matter that much to me if it's deleted, merged, or remains. I only created it because there was no real info anywhere for that region in Alexandria, and I thought that there probably should be. Not sure why you feel the need to have it deleted, just because AT PRESENT it adds no real substantive new info.

But as I said, it's no big deal either way to me. I just did it because there's no link for that section in Egypt, when most sections in Egypt have a wiki article. That was all. Gabby Merger (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The article has now been updated to reflect the important history of Baucalis, which is seen historically as the place of martyrdom of St. Mark. The Arius connection, which should have just been little more than a footnote, is still included as a couple of sentences showing that he was once a priest there. First Light (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Baucalis was closed as "Keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baucalis, even with the merge proposal offered up. I propose that this merge proposal here also be closed, as part of that discussion and "Keep", and because the Baucalis article is now only 10% about Arius. First Light (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

?Spoof

I have removed the following paragraph from the text as this church does not appear to exist.File Éireann 19:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

A modern English church called the The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Arian Catholicism claims to follow Arian teachings, canonizing Arius on June 16, 2006. They teach that the Father alone is absolute God, and that Jesus had a beginning, in the flesh, and is subordinate to the Father. They teach that Christ was the sinless Messiah and Redeemer, however, they do not accept the Virgin Birth, some miracles, the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, any divinity or worship of Christ, or Biblical infallibility, placing them in opposition to Arius himself, who accepted all of these, as well as a lesser divinity of Christ. The ACAC believe that Jesus was the natural son of Joseph and Mary, with the Holy Spirit overseeing the conception. And they teach that Christ's resurrection was not in the flesh, but was spiritual. Furthermore, their "Arian Catholic Creed" is a modern creation, not an ancient statement of faith.

non-neutral phrasing

At the end of Exile, return, and death: "Several recent writers, far removed from the event, have guessed that Arius may have been poisoned by his opponents." This is absolutely not neutral phrasing! This is openly scoffing! Every person alive today, writing on any subject, is "far removed from the event[s]" of 1700 years ago. And educated speculation is not "guessing". Heavenlyblue (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Anoldtreeok, I see that you've already broached this subject. I'm going to go ahead and change it. Heavenlyblue (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I've changed it to the flat neutral "Several recent writers have speculated that Arius may have been poisoned by his opponents.". Heavenlyblue (talk) 08:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Just an addition to the non-neutral phrasing that Heavenlyblue pointed out, where it says "Eusebius of Nicomedia should not be confused with Eusebius of Caesarea. In fact, some later "Arians" disavowed that moniker, claiming not to have been familiar with the man or his specific teachings" at the end of the introduction. It's simply irrelevant to the page, and the quotation marks around '"Arians"' are unnecessary as it is a defined theological teaching and there is a page about it that can be linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.44.207 (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yet again, someone puts back the false image of Arius

We have already been over this, the current main picture is not of Arius. This person put it back in the article, his only edit. see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arius&diff=537314192&oldid=536325728

Going to have to put in the old picture, unless someone can magically find an actual depiction of Arius.(EDIT NOTE, had to move this up one paragraph, can't figure out how to put it down below without it going in the archive.75.73.114.111 (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the "old picture" recently reverted to, Arius portré.jpg, is that it shows him as a bishop when, in fact, he was a presbyter, so methinks it's not a good picture to use. I move to either have no picture (unless or until some third picture can be found) or to keep this one with an explanation of the fault I'm pointing out here. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Homoiousios

The article says that "Arius preferred the use of the term ὁμοιούσιος (homoioúsios, from ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" rather than ὁμός, homós, "same"), for "similar substance", in order to emphasize distinctions among the three persons in the Godhead." Looking through the texts and reconstructions of the texts of Arius as set forth in Hanson's book on the Arian controversy, I do not see him use the word homoiousios at all. At certain places he directly contradicts this (though these sections are of arguable authenticity). Anyhow, unless someone can give a citation which claims that Arius spoke of the Son as homoiousios to the Father, I am going to remove this sentence.Ocyril (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Initial Response

I have rewritten section 2.3, as it seemed to me to be wordy and awkward. I don't mind stepping on toes, but my theological history is rather weak, so if I have introduced inaccuracies, please correct them. Thanks. Rags (talk) 06:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)