You're entitled to your views, but not to mis-state mine. I said that Constantine was an Arian. You implied that I said the opposite. And IT IS TRUTHFUL that the counterargument to Arianism is that it was unorthodox. Given that they battle was for the determination of orthodoxy, it seems incredible that anyone would even doubt that counterarguments were always that the other was unorthodox.
just because you are protestant preacher pimping the primacy of proto-orthdoxy doesn't make it presently prevalent! let alone TRUTHFUL, or even ACCURATE! prior to Nicaea, Eusebius IS the man, a "Church Father" so to speak, HIS "orthodoxy" wasn't Nicaean! [my hard drive got wiped clean, but i'll use some new links to illustrate]:
Although Eusebius signed on to the Nicene Creed (after being excommunicated for heresy), he differed from it in certain respects. He denied that the Son and the Father were of the same essence, positing instead that the Son proceeded from the Father’s free will (creative act?). He also did not want to compromise the oneness of the Godhead, which he thought the notion of the Son’s divinity would do. And, unlike Trinitarians, he did not view the Holy Spirit as an eternal being, but rather as a creation by the Son.
http://jamesbradfordpate.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/eusebius-and-arianism/
does THAT look "orthodox" to you?
in addressing:
You're entitled to your views, but not to mis-state mine. I said that Constantine was an Arian. You implied that I said the opposite.
you seem to be blinded by your absence of understanding current "orthodoxy" [;D] in regards to early Christian History! you might want to try 21st Century Scholarship and forget the propaganda that you were taught, eh? what you inferred was NOT what i was implying! ^o) i know, for i wrote it!
mg:
perhaps if you looked what i wrote
this is simply not recognized as truthful anymore. not only was Constantine baptized by an Arian, but his kids were Arian as well. the VAST majority of the tribes outside the Roman Empire to the north that accepted Christianity
were Arian.
instead of leaping to the pulpit of pugilistic pyrotechnics, you would see that i merely noted that Arianism CONTINUED on in Constantine's dynasty as well as it being prevalent in non-Italian Europe where it would continue to prevail.
the [what i like to call] "readers digest version/understanding" of Nicaea is that the question of Arianism arose and concluded in a nice little episode similar to a one hour TV mystery. that is simply NOT TRUE! as we've seen already "THE" Church Father of the time did not hold this view! another problem with this understanding it that it assumes "Nicene" primacy immediately and forever after. THAT is NOT TRUE either! IN FACT, as "a result of rises and falls in Arianism's influence after the First Council of Nicaea," Emperor Constantine I banished Athanasius from Alexandria to Trier in the Rhineland! BANISHED! the issue is simply not settled!
while the ideas of Athanasius EVENTUALLY became "orthodoxy," we see no Athanasian Emperor for over half a century! not until Theodosius I "reinstates" the Athanasian view of the trinity in the latter part of the 4th Century! and this is just the beginning, Europe will be "Arian" for some time.
as for earlier "orthodoxy" even Origin is later condemned by the "Church!"
what you "want to be true" and what is ACTUALLY true are different critters.
