# Slapping Santa



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 28, 2011)

You may find this interesting; When Constantine converted to Christianity, there still remained the raging debate of who Jesus was, more specific for this time was the "Arian controversy". Constantine called together a council to determine the nature of Christ. This group argued for over a month, each side refering to scripture, mostly about whether Jesus existed forever or had a beginning. Arius believed that since he was a son that he must have a beginning. He believed that Jesus was the first of God's creation, refering to verses such as "the Father is greater than I". During the debate, Saint Nic, not known at this time as Santa, got so mad that he walked over to Arius and slapped him in the face. Constantine ruled Arius's view to be wrong, exiled him and his crowd. This was the council of Nicea. From these debates came the Nicene creed. Arius was later called back under the guise to reinstate him at which time he suffered a sudden death, thought of by many to have been poisoned.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 28, 2011)

So, Santa Claus killed Arius?

Dang if that don't change things.......


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 28, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> So, Santa Claus killed Arius?
> 
> Dang if that don't change things.......


LOL, your gonna get something started. Can I go on record as saying "I did not say that"


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 28, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Constantine ruled Arius's view to be wrong ...



I would say that 311 out of 318 bishops ruled his view to be wrong.  (I'm going from memory, so my numbers may be a little off.  That's pretty close, though.)


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 28, 2011)

He came into the debate having lots of support but after they read some of his writings, many switched sides. But actually, we will never know the truth because the victorious always write history


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 28, 2011)

Arius had popular support, but he never had support from the bishops.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 28, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> we will never know the truth because the victorious always write history



Good point, and it is applicable to a lot of historical events.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 28, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Arius had popular support, but he never had support from the bishops.



The question then is motivation.  Why did he have popular support, but not that of the "leaders?"  Interesting topic, for sure.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 28, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Why did he have popular support, but not that of the "leaders?"



He was a presbyter at a large and influential church (Alexandria.)  In that role, he was responsible for teaching many of the new converts.  The problems arose when his bishop found out what he was teaching.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 28, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> He was a presbyter at a large and influential church (Alexandria.)  In that role, he was responsible for teaching many of the new converts.  The problems arose when his bishop found out what he was teaching.



I'm not really familiar with this story.  It sounds like the position of Arius was that Jesus was not part of a trinity, but a creation?  Is that correct as far as his position is concerned?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 28, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I'm not really familiar with this story.  It sounds like the position of Arius was that Jesus was not part of a trinity, but a creation?  Is that correct as far as his position is concerned?



He believed in a different form of trinity. I say this because the trinity had not evolved yet to be called "the trinity". Many different beliefs were in battle for the title of "orthodox". The Nicene council was probably most responsible the beginning of the trinity as we know it now. Before that time, many things resembling the trinity were around. Most of those now considered heresy. Arius believed Jesus was God but did not consider him equal with the Father. It was even later that the HolySpirit became a 3rd person of the Godhead


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 28, 2011)

It is an interesting study. Christians were not popular back in that time. They lived in a world where everyone else were pagan. Believing in many Gods. They had a God for everything. But Christians, first called athiest because they did not acknowledge the many gods, were blamed for everything bad. A drought would come and they would be responsible because they did not worship the rain god. But it was not a crime to be a Christian. The problem arose when the leadership all start to require everyone to call them gods. So, whenever a problem arose, they were asked to sacrifice to the king, or blaspheme, as the Christians saw it. If they did not, they were eventually killed. But then everything changed, big time. Constantine converted to Christianity. Now he was far from your typical saint, yet he claimed to be Christian. At this time, it became very popular to be a Christian. It went from like 10% to 80%, this not exact, going from memory. This council was held in 325 if I recall correctly. This date may be the date that the nicene creed was produced.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 28, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I'm not really familiar with this story.  It sounds like the position of Arius was that Jesus was not part of a trinity, but a creation?  Is that correct as far as his position is concerned?



Yep.  He taught that there was a time when He was not.  In other words, Jesus is a created being.

Here's a brief summary:

_He described the Son as a second, or inferior God, standing midway between the First Cause and creatures; as Himself made out of nothing, yet as making all things else; as existing before the worlds of the ages; and as arrayed in all divine perfections except the one which was their stay and foundation. God alone was without beginning, unoriginate; the Son was originated, and once had not existed. For all that has origin must begin to be._ 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm


----------



## thedeacon (Nov 28, 2011)

I have always loved fiction


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 28, 2011)

thedeacon said:


> I have always loved fiction



which part do you consider might be fiction. Not that I wish to argue. I just find stuff interesting


----------



## Israel (Nov 29, 2011)

How little it matters what all the "church fathers" voted on.
More than little... infintesimally small is the opinion of a multitude.
Either you and I know...because we have had it revealed...or all the "they saids" will not keep you nor I in the hour of our testing.


----------



## gordon 2 (Nov 29, 2011)

Some folk don't know class wen they sees it. St. Nick must of been tryin to confirm the rascal Arius or sumtin. 


<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QiVItDsBFGc?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QiVItDsBFGc?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>


----------

