Why? Because

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Hey, according to one of my professors, Christians supposedly were killing each other over doctrine until the Council of Niccae (wonderful spelling) settled the matter...now, I know the Council didn't arbitrarily decide...and my question isn't about them...my question is, is it true that Christians were killing each other over doctrine? It seems rather absurd, and knowing this professor...probably wrong.

[Mystical]

Doesn't surprise me. Christians kill other Christians everyday. Well, people who believe they are Christians kill other possible Christians everyday. If they were killing each other, they weren't following Christ. They just thought they were Christians.

[Fortigurn]

Yes, Christians were killing each other. The followers of Arius on the one hand, and Athanaisus on the other, were at each others throats all the time. There was a lot of Christian blood shed by alleged 'Christians'.

Athanasius, the champion of the trinity, had organised violence down to an art form:

The tactics of Athanasius, while often downplayed by church historians, were a significant factor in his success. He did not hesitate to back up his theological views with the use of force.

In Alexandria, he assembled an "ecclesiastical mafia" that could instigate a riot in the city if needed. It was an arrangement "built up and perpetuated by violence." (Barnes, 230).

Along with the standard method of excommunication he used beatings, intimidation, kidnapping and imprisonment to silence his theological opponents.

Unsurprisingly, these tactics caused widespread distrust and led him to being tried many times for "bribery, theft, extortion, sacrilege, treason and murder". (Rubenstein, 6) While the charges rarely stuck, his reputation was a major factor in his multiple exiles from Alexandria.

He justified these tactics with the argument that he was saving all future Christians from hell. Athanasius stubbornly refused to compromise his theological views by stating, "What is at stake is not just a theological theory but people's salvation." (Olson, 172).

In this assertion that violence was justfied in defense of theology and the church, Athanasius, some hold, laid the foundation for theological concepts such as just war and the inquisition.

Source.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

But the way my professor put it, it was a widespread destabilizing event...is that true-or are there just isolated events.

[Fortigurn]

But the way my professor put it, it was a widespread destabilizing event...is that true-or are there just isolated events.

It was a widespread destabilizing event. I recommend 'When Jesus Became God', by Richard Rubenstein.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

But the way my professor put it, it was a widespread destabilizing event...is that true-or are there just isolated events.

It was a widespread destabilizing event. I recommend 'When Jesus Became God', by Richard Rubenstein.

We need to stress that the ideas of Arius were the revolutionary ones.
The concept of Trinity was strong from the beginning.

Somewhat off topic, interestingly, some early christian sects appeared to be gnostic and/or pantheistic.

[Fortigurn]

But the way my professor put it, it was a widespread destabilizing event...is that true-or are there just isolated events.

It was a widespread destabilizing event. I recommend 'When Jesus Became God', by Richard Rubenstein.

We need to stress that the ideas of Arius were the revolutionary ones.

Revolutionary in what sense? Their understanding of Jesus certainly preceded the trinity.

The concept of Trinity was strong from the beginning.

From what beginning?

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

But the way my professor put it, it was a widespread destabilizing event...is that true-or are there just isolated events.

It was a widespread destabilizing event. I recommend 'When Jesus Became God', by Richard Rubenstein.

We need to stress that the ideas of Arius were the revolutionary ones.
The concept of Trinity was strong from the beginning.

Somewhat off topic, interestingly, some early christian sects appeared to be gnostic and/or pantheistic.

And thus the apocraphyl gospels...

[BGoodForGoodSake]

But the way my professor put it, it was a widespread destabilizing event...is that true-or are there just isolated events.

It was a widespread destabilizing event. I recommend 'When Jesus Became God', by Richard Rubenstein.

We need to stress that the ideas of Arius were the revolutionary ones.

Revolutionary in what sense? Their understanding of Jesus certainly preceded the trinity.

The concept of Trinity was strong from the beginning.

From what beginning?

Wait, you don't accept the Trinity?

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

But the way my professor put it, it was a widespread destabilizing event...is that true-or are there just isolated events.

It was a widespread destabilizing event. I recommend 'When Jesus Became God', by Richard Rubenstein.

We need to stress that the ideas of Arius were the revolutionary ones.

Revolutionary in what sense? Their understanding of Jesus certainly preceded the trinity.

The concept of Trinity was strong from the beginning.

From what beginning?

Wait, you don't accept the Trinity?

BGood, have you not been paying attention to this guy?

*Sigh* Slow poak http://www.carm.org/christadelphian.htm

[BGoodForGoodSake]

BGood, have you not been paying attention to this guy?
*Sigh* Slow poak http://www.carm.org/christadelphian.htm

Lol I can always count on you!

You gave me a link to information on a subject which is against the subject. ROFL!!!!!!

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

BGood, have you not been paying attention to this guy?
*Sigh* Slow poak http://www.carm.org/christadelphian.htm

Lol I can always count on you!

You gave me a link to information on a subject which is against the subject. ROFL!!!!!!

Best way to do it...but don't worry, if you hit the right link, you get a Brethren in Christ attacking CARM, and CARM's rebuttal.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

BGood, have you not been paying attention to this guy?
*Sigh* Slow poak http://www.carm.org/christadelphian.htm

Lol I can always count on you!

You gave me a link to information on a subject which is against the subject. ROFL!!!!!!

Best way to do it...but don't worry, if you hit the right link, you get a Brethren in Christ attacking CARM, and CARM's rebuttal.

Oh ok thanks.

[Fortigurn]

You will find CARM answered:

• Here
• Here
• Here

Additional information about our community (including replies to common misconceptions), is here.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

You will find CARM answered:

• Here
• Here
• Here

Additional information about our community (including replies to common misconceptions), is here.

Ok, I understand.
I think it is important to note that Christianity has experienced schisms since the beginning. As I stated before some early communities had gnostic and panthiestic forms of christianity. Many of the gnostic texts emphasized salvation by grace. They suggested that one follow the teachings of Jesus and that would lead to salvation, not Jesus himself.

A study of the first Council of Nicaea leads one to beleive that a clear majority of bishops supported the trinity. Some texts left out of the Bible do not even imply that Jesus was the son of God. Many entries in the gospel are ambiguous.
It appears this is a case of the victors rewriting history.

However, the idea of the Trinity seems to a be mature one at around this time leading one to suspect that the this was not a new idea. In fact much evidence suggests that this belief was around very early in the history of Christianity. Perhaps from the start.

The idea that Jesus is subservient to God did not exist in the western communities. This suggests that perhaps the divine view of Christ was favored or more prevalent. Arius ideas, it appears seems to have originated in the east. Perhaps a branch of one of the earlier agnostic sects.

In any case there was great conflict and many more followers of Arius than a cursory examination would suggest.