Arian Controversy

An Admission of Guilt by D. J. Love, Minister, TSN, SBC Written 8-24-2001 Refined 7-5-2003

Public document of the official Catholic stand against Arianism. The document, that is being scrutinized in this message, is an unintentional public admission of guilt by a Catholic church historian. This document was only made publicly available, because of the high levels of self-regard felt by its writer and his church, concerning the Greco-Roman Catholic victory over Arianism (not Aryanism). This (temporary) victory over YHVH's True Assembly has blinded and lulled them into openly, but mistakenly, professing themselves to be YHVH's church, and thereby, exposing (confessing) themselves as the religious instrument of Satan's Anti-Messiah and Greco-Greco-Roman Beast government(s). The Catholic historian/writer, who truly represents the entire traditional Christian world, has unintentionally exposed the arguments used by the early supporters of Catholicism (Christianity), and the flaws of those arguments to the world. He appears to justify the actions of the Catholic church from the standpoint of "We are in control, we are the largest in number, and therefore, we are the true believers." Of course this sort of argument won't hold water with YHVH (The Creator) nor is it a valid argument from the position of "Logic." In order for a logical argument to be a "Sound Argument" its premises must be true, and its evidences must be valid. Conclusions based on evidence presented and supported by collaborators is not a valid logical argument. Additionally, the premise and conclusion that "YHVH made us the victors, therefore we are YHVH's choice is totally false." YHVH, often allows evil to temporarily triumph over good, especially if it fulfills prophecy.

One cannot just assume that Catholic doctrine/canon or traditional Christian position is correct just because they say they are or because they have murdered their opposition. "Logical Arguments" are not considered valid when force is used to exact an advantage or when a "Logical Argument" is based on false premises or supported by sympathizers; Even "Common Sense" can easily discern this as the lie that it is. There is not one shred of Scriptural evidence to support the Catholic/Christian claim to fame or their adopted Christopagan religion of syncretism (blending and compromise), but there is both a multitude of Scripture and historical evidence to condemn them and expose them (and those that have adopted their religious traditions) as "The Harlot church," (and her daughter churches) as "The Beast church" (or beast churches) of the "Book of Revelation."

Note: (Explanation of Logic) •

An argument is a sequence of statements, 1. Each of which has a truth-value (i.e., is either true or false); and 2. One of which is the arguments conclusion, the others being its premises.

•

In an argument, the conclusion is supposed to be logically related to its premises. 1. It is supposed to follow logically from them, or be a logical consequence of them. 2. An argument whose conclusion is actually so related by sound logic to its premises is a valid argument.

•

The property of validity (the relation of logical consequence) is such that, 1. If an argument is valid and all of its premises are true,

then its conclusion must also be true, so that 2. In a valid argument, the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. •

An argument that is valid and all of whose premises are true is a sound argument.

I will use the actual public document (written in dark bold letters below) to expose their deception and pious ignorance. The True Sabbatarian Believers perspective, historical truths, supporting message links, and supporting Scripture will be inserted within the original document below using Indents, (parenthesis), 'Type' size, and color variation to help make the distinction more clear. Also, just for the record, Traditional Christianity is referred to as "Catholic," which is a word that means "universal," OR referred to as "Christopagan," which is a new word that reveals the true syncretic relationship (blending) of present day religions with Babylonian (Assyrian, Greek, Greco-Roman, etc...) paganism. (See Important Info)

The Public Document http://www.monksofadoration.org/arianism.html of which, a complete "copy & paste" of their HTML is on file. Written 8-24-2001 updated 11-27-2002 updated 4-5-2007

Arianism Versus the Council of Nicaea

By Brother John Raymond Church History

Introduction: Arianism with its fundamental Trinitarian controversy must not be looked upon as an isolated theory by its founder Arius. (TSN) - A bold faced lie. Arianism was not founded by Arius, but named after him by officials of the evolving Greco-Roman Catholic church, as you will see. Its beliefs were founded without a name by the Apostles of Messiah Yahshua. (See Greco-Roman Empire). However, by using Arianism to label True Worship, prejudice for the name Christian was expected to prevail. It seems that humans put far too much faith and trust in a NAME, and rarely question it.

Its (Arianism's) appeal, which began (according to the evolving Greco-GrecoRoman State church) in Alexandria and spread through the whole Empire, must be seen in the context of the times. The Church (The evolving Universal Greco-Greco-Roman State church) emerged in a Jewish and Greek world. The question occupying this non-Christian world was the contrast between the "ONE (Few) and the MANY, (con't) (TSN) - Actually "non-Christian" is a deception, as in reality there is NO difference between Christian and pagan, thus the reason for the term "Christopagan." Remember: "MANY are called, FEW are Chosen" (Matthew 20:16). (con't)

between the ultimate unity (See: Ecumenism) that lay behind the visible universe, and the incalculable variety (Catholic Universalism) that exists in the world (Ward 1955, 38)." The relationship between YHVH and the world had to be solved.

(TSN) - Here we have an admission that the evolving Greco-Roman Catholic church did not know the "TRUTH." Therefore, it must be solved.

By contrast, Arius (a True Worshipper of YHVH) was always firm and uncompromising in his understanding, and did not have to resort to Roman democracy (votes) in order to determine truth, as he already knew the truth. Please be aware, as you read this public document, of words written within it by the Catholic writers that convey their lack of true understanding or their willingness to compromise the inspired words of YHVH. Words like "proposed, solved or solving, question, vote or voted, notions, struggle, reconcile or reconciliation of thought, confusion, theory, controversy, decision, find, idea, etc..."

The (Sabbatarian) Jews proposed (proposed is a lie. The Jewish True Worshippers insisted that YHVH is) a supreme YHVH who created by His word (The Logos, see "Who Says Christ is G-d?"). It was an idea (another lie. Personal knowledge of YHWH is not an idea, except to the Catholics) of a mediating "Word or Wisdom (Holy Spirit) - the Word which is pronounced (NOT a person), the Wisdom (mentality of YHVH) which is created (imparted) whereby the Father communicated Himself to man and took possession of him (only through YHVH's Holy Spirit) (Guitton 1965, 81)."

(TSN) - We find this highly biased article to be self incriminating by the terminology that is used. For example, notice how this evolving GrecoRoman State religion (pagan rooted Catholic Christianity or Christopaganism) has placed themselves in the position of authority, whereas, they will only entertain "Proposals" and "Ideas." Terms like

proposals, concepts, and ideas are by definition sure indicators of poor or no understanding "(NU)" of YHVH or His words by this evolving Greco-Roman church-government. Notice in the next paragraph where the Catholic concept of Jesus (IHS) being "The Word" (Logos) evolved; and "The idolatrous "Mediator Concept," which eventually spawned worship and prayers to Jesus (IHS), Mary, and the so called saints. True Worshippers know that we can pray directly to "The Father" (YHWH).

NOTE: I have placed "(NU)" within the rest of this public document next to the terms or phrases that indicate "No Understanding" as a reminder of the lack of "Spiritually Revealed Knowledge" possessed by this evolving Christopagan Greco-Roman State church, and by the writer(s) of the original version of this "Public Document."

The (pagan) Greeks (and evolving Greco-Roman "Universal" State church) could not see (NU or "No Understanding") how a finite and changeable world could come from an eternal and changeless YHVH. They proposed (NU) the idea (NU) of a "mediating Intelligence or even Word, a first emanation of the first principle which reduced the distance between YHVH and the world (Guitton 1965, 81)." The primitive (early Catholic) Church had to "reconcile the notions (NU) they had inherited from Judaism with those they had derived from philosophy .

(TSN) - Wow, here is an admission of the use of Greek philosophy to replace the Holy Spirit as the Revealer of Truth, because they considered the knowledge of the Jews to be nothing more than notions. The Apostles: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, etc.... The Messiah, and the majority of their disciples were Jews. Additionally, remember that "catholic" means "Universal." Look it up in your own dictionary. There is no way YHWH's True Assembly of Worshippers could have a monotheistic faith with UNIVERSAL appeal to a polytheistic pagan society.

Jew and Greek had to meet in Christ (my question is, "Why?")

(TSN) - I SMELL A COMPROMISE! The Jewish and Greek or Gentile Sabbath Keeping Believers were already on common ground with YHVH through Messiah Yahshua. It was the Greco-Roman or evolving gentile Christopagan Greco-Roman church that needed to appear to be legitimate so they could take control. This is early Ecumenism at its finest. What they needed was a Greek faith and a Greek named savior with "Universal Appeal." A Jewish savior would never have "Universal Appeal."

They (the evolving Christopagan church) had to find an answer (NU) that would agree with the revelation they had received from Christ as recorded in the scriptures (a bold faced lie in light of their lack of understanding) (Ward 1955, 39)." This struggle (NU) for a reconciliation of thought (NU) (for dominance) reached its climax with the Arian controversy (NU). The (evolving Christopagan Greco-Roman Catholic cult or State controlled) Church responded with the First Ecumenical Council of

Nicaea that brought (forced) together Scriptural and philosophical thought (pagan humanism) to explain (a lie. The reason was to advance the Christopagan concept of polytheism) the Trinity. The Council did (ultimately) triumph over Arianism (only by the military might of the Greco-Roman "Beast" government) but only after fifty years of bitter battling. Imperial (governmental) support (Greco-Roman Army) and confusion (NU) in theological terminology (semantics) were the principal reasons for such a long drawn out battle as we will see (Actually, it was very difficult for even the Greco-Roman Beast government to overthrow truth).

Arius and His Teaching Arius, who was born in Egypt in 256 A.D., was (merely) a parish priest in Alexandria. He had studied under St. Lucian of Antioch (See there! Arius was NOT the first, and neither was St. Lucian), the founder of the school of Antioch, who had earlier been condemned (by the evolving Christopagan Greco-Roman State church) for holding that Christ (Messiah) was only a man (Messiah Yahshua was only a man! See "Who Says Christ is YHVH?"); 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 (The Messiah IS subordinate to YHVH - See "Who Says Christ is YHVH?") tendencies into a full heresy (Harkins 1967, 1057, 1058)."

(TSN) - Remember, I earlier stated that Arianism was not founded by Arius, and now the writer states that St. Lucian is called the "Father of Arianism," but even this is a lie.

Additionally, This is an extremely vain and self-righteous position for a Christopagan church with NO UNDERSTANDING to take. It follows the very same childish notion as, "I called you a heretic first, so therefore, you are the heretic." Obviously Arius was not interested in name calling, and his motivation was harmony in truth; On the other hand, power hungry politicians will quite often resort to "Mud Slinging," even if they have to mix

the mud themselves.

With this background Arius struggled with (against) the question (NU) of the Trinity (an evolving Christopagan Catholic concept of Babylonian origin). His teaching in Alexandria was the following: "Personal distinctions were not eternally present within the nature of YHVH (Truth, as YHWH is ONE). the G-dhead Himself was responsible for them. (Truth, as YHWH is the Creator and Plan maker). Identifying the eternal G-dhead with the Father and regarding the Logos as no more than a power or quality of the Father, he said that before time began (before the foundations of the Earth) the Father had created the Son (according to His Plan of Salvation) by the power (of the Holy Pneuma) of the Word (The Word or Logos is The Plan of Salvation not Jesus) to be His agent (or Spokesman, Ambassador or proxy) in creation (of the "Children of YHWH"). The Son was not therefore to be identified with the G-dhead (a truth, but he is Spiritually or mentally married to YHWH by his Spiritual covenant with YHWH),

He was only YHVH (by proxy) in a derivative sense (given authority another scriptural truth), and since there was once when he did not exist (more truth) He could not be eternal (immortality is a gift from YHVH). Arius stressed the subordination of the Logos (planned Messiah) to such an extent as to affirm his creaturehood, to deny his eternity (past eternity only denied) and to assert his (human only) capacity for change and suffering (Ward 1955, 41)." (ALL TRUTH on behalf of Arius and all those that believed like him).

This teaching of Arius "drove the distinctions outside the Deity (as being separate and distinct) and thus destroyed the Trinity (because the Trinity

concept is a Christopagan lie of the Babylonian-Greco-Roman-Catholic-Beast). It meant solving (NU) the difficulty of the One (Few) and the Many (NU) (Only pagans believe in many gods or polytheism.) by proposing (NU) a theory (NU) of one Supreme Being and two inferior deities (NU) (Ward 1955, 43)."

(TSN) - Now this last statement is total hogwash, and totally exposes Catholicism for not only their Babylonian-Greco-Roman polytheistic thinking, but their complete lack of Spiritual understanding. The words proposing and theory absolutely expose a clear lack of understanding, as does their only illogical conclusion of "two inferior deities," which also, exposes their polytheistic thinking. The truth of the matter and the Spiritually Logical conclusion is simply that neither the Holy Spirit nor the Messiah is a deity. But then that wouldn't be polytheistic would it?

The (NU) (imaginary) Person of Christ "belonged to no order of being that the (evolving Christopagan catholic) Church could recognize (NU). (because they have "No Understanding") . . He was neither YHVH nor man (wrong! He was only a mortal man, but now he is an immortal man) (Ward 1955, 42)."

(TSN) - Being immortal does not make anyone G-d, YHVH or even a god. Immortality is a gift from YHVH, and YHVH is the only true Self-Existent G-d !

Arius (armed only with Truth)

Versus the Alexandrian Bishop (armed with Greco-Roman political and military support)

Arius' views (The Gospel that Arius had was not recognized by the "Christopagan Catholic Beast church" as anything but a view - )(NU) began to spread among

the people (True Sabbath Keeping Believers) and (also) the Alexandrian clergy (until it was squashed by threat and force). Alexander the Bishop (a Christopagan catholic) called a meeting of his priests and deacons (because he feared his loss of power). The Bishop insisted (by his manmade position of authority) on the unity of the G-dhead. Arius (a True Believer) continued to argue that since the Son was begotten (Truth) of the Father (but only at his resurrection from the dead, and not at the point of his human birth) then at some point He began to exist (Truth). Therefore there was a time when the Son did not exist (Truth, as the Son is NOT Self-existent). Arius (loyal to the word of YHVH) refused to submit to the Bishop (who was Spiritually far inferior to Arius, but had military superiority) and continued to spread his teaching (The Gospel).

TSN - Make note: If Arian's selfless faith of Love for YHWH and Love for Neighbor had not of been so very open and truthful, then it would not have gained converts from the only other alternative religion(s) available; PAGANISM. Even so, it was and still is representative of the TRUE minority faith in the world (Many are Called, but Few are chosen).

Additionally, the writer admits that Arian was staunch in his faith when he stated "refused to submit," and "continued to spread his teachings." However, earlier the writer stated that he struggled with the question of the Trinity. Of course it is now very obvious that Arius struggled AGAINST the Trinity, and not with the question, as Arius is strong and firm in his understanding, and refuses to submit. The real struggle here is one of vanity. For here we have a mere impious parish priest (Arius) opposing a full Bishop (Alexander), and the Bishop does not like being told how to interpret scripture or epistles by a mere parish priest. Therefore, Bishop Alexander will do anything to "Save Face," and this means that he won't allow himself to be humbled.

Alexander (fearing for his position of authority) called a synod of Bishops of Egypt and Libya. Of the hundred Bishops who attended eighty voted (NU) for the condemnation and exile of Arius (A True Believer). 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 (A completely fabricated and unscriptural word. a NEW Catholic semantic and a lie of Satan). Alexander "used a term which was to become the keyword of the whole

controversy (NU) (Ward 1955, 43, 44)." With the decision (NU) of the synod Arius fled to Palestine. Some of the (Truth Believing) 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 (the anti-Messiah) Bishop Alexander of Alexandria (but they did not have the government power of the Greco-Roman Beast to support their views). Arius seemed to have good grounds for this condemnation (Truth always is). The (fabricated and unscriptural) term homoousios was rejected by Alexander's own predecessor Dionysius when arguing against the Sabellians (who claimed the Father and Son were "One in the Same" person).

TSN - Thus making Catholic Bishop Alexander a hypocrite, and exposing his true motives as SELF-seeking.

All this controversy (NU) was taking place just as the (Christopagan) church was emerging from Greco-Roman oppression.

TSN - What a load of hogwash. The evolving Christopagan Greco-Roman Catholic church was never truly oppressed. They were "Held Back" somewhat in the beginning by professing pagan Greco-Roman leaders, but they were never truly oppressed, as they soon gained favor with the most powerful Emperial Greco-Roman Leaders (eg. Constantine); However, the Sabbath keeping pro-Messiah Arians were severely oppressed by both the Emperial Greco-Roman government AND the Greco-Roman government sponsored Catholics.

Constantine and Ossius

With the rise of (Greco-Roman emperor and Christopagan) Constantine to power (the evolving and newest form of pagan religion) christianity (or catholicism) became the religion of the Greco-Roman Empire (this is an admission of being a Greco-Roman Beast Government sponsored religion). Constantine had politically united (a government decision for political control) the Empire but he was distressed to find a divided christianity.

TSN - More hogwash! What he faced was the harder to control division between the followers of the Hebrew Messiah (Arius and other followers of Messiah) and pagan Greco-Roman gentiles and some hellenized (pagan by choice) Jewish (by birth) followers of the imaginary Sun god Jesus Christ or IHSous ).

Constantine, certainly not understanding (NU) the significance of the controversy (NU) , 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 (NU). Both of them really were in agreement on major doctrines and neither were involved in heresy. The letters failed to have an effect (because it was a lie and they all knew it). In 325 A.D. Ossius (Emperor Constantine's Ecclesiastical adviser) 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 (Roman government official) a new (Christopagan) Church practice was inaugurated - that of issuing a creedal statement (an unscriptural practice instituted by a Spiritually Uninspired Greco-Roman government official with ZERO Spiritual understanding). At this Council, Arianism was condemned (by the Roman government and the Catholic church, but not by YHVH or the True Worshippers), a profession of faith resembling the Alexandrian creed was promulgated and three Bishops who refused to agree (May YHVH Bless them!) with the teaching of this Council (but did agree with Arius) were provisionally excommunicated (convienently removed) until the Council of Nicaea (A government decision,

with underlying political motives).

In the summer of that year, probably under the suggestion of Ossius (Greco-Roman government official), Constantine (a Christopagan Greco-Roman Emperor and professing Sun worshipping pagan of the "Cult of Sol Invictus.")

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 (pagan Greek) thought he was given by YHVH supreme power in things material and spiritual (Davis 1987, 56).'"

TSN - NEVER! In a million years would YHVH sanction the power to interpret Holy Scripture to an infidel or a pagan government official. But his leadership was allowed since it was a fulfillment of prophecy, and thus serves YHVH's purpose for mankind. See: Did YHVH create Evil? See Revelation.

The Council of Nicaea The General Council was well attended by the major sees (overseers) 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 (Christopagan) 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 (NU). The majority, especially those who were confessors of the Faith (this is NOT a valid argument, as being a confessor without understanding does NOT make one a messenger of Truth), energetically declared themselves against the impious (remember the vanity of Alexander?) doctrines of Arius (LeClercq 1913, 45)."

TSN - So there you have it, True Worship and the Jewish Messiah (Yahshua) was replaced by the Christopagan worship of the Greco-Roman Christos (IHSous) and the polytheistic Trinity, which is the true image of the anti-messiah; and why? The Vanity, Power, and Scriptural ignorance of Greco-Roman Catholic Bishop Alexander, and Sun worshipping Roman Emperor Constantine; Additionally in 380 AD. (after the death of Constantine.) the Roman Emperor Theodosius outlawed Arianism.

Where in this scenario is religious freedom? How can mankind choose between "Good & Evil" when only evil is allowed to represent truth? Wake Up people! Concerning the Creed that was drafted at the Council "Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius of Alexandria and Philostorgius have given divergent (NU) accounts of how this Creed was drafted (DeClercq 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 (NU) a creed using only scriptural terms. These creeds proved insufficient (because Scripture supported Arius) to exclude the Arian position (because Scripture supported Arius). "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 (Eighteen!).

TSN - Now we have four admissions of guilt. (1) They had to go outside of Scripture to exclude the Arian (True Worshipper) position of Truth, and (2) The final decision that they needed was not decided by Bishops, but by the professing Sun worshipping pagan Roman Emperor Constantine (see below), and (3) they chose to follow Constantine rather than "Scripture" in order to preserve their vanity. (4) they excommunicated or exiled their known opposition.

My friends, this is the true foundation on which the Catholic Faith and

Christianity is truly built; lies, vanities, polytheism, pagan Imperial influence, governmental intervention and control. Constantine (a devout pagan Sun worshipper) at this point intervened to threaten with exile anyone who would not sign for it. (Admission of Government FORCED doctrine) Two Libyan Bishops and Arius still refused to accept the creed. All three were exiled (May YHVH Bless them for eternity! Amen!).

The Creed and an Analysis Please forgive my sarcasm in the following paragraphs, as I am truly frustrated by the apparent willingness of mentally competent people to reject truth in favor of deception. | Some parts of the literal translation of the Nicaea Creed are as follows: "We (Syncretic Christopagan blend of heretics) believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ (image of the Antichrist), the only begotten of the Father (half truth), that is, of the substance (ousia) of the Father (a lie based on an unscriptural and a fabricated word), God of God (a lie), light of light, true God of true God (another lie), begotten not made (half truth), of the same substance (homoousios) with the Father (a total lie based on a fabricated word), through whom all things were made (the first son did not create anything) 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 (Greco-Roman Beast sponsored) Catholic Church anathematizes (This is laughable, as True Believers, we could care less! For YHVH will judge the "Harlot church!" He will Not judge us!) (LeClercq 1913, 45)."

The Arians were very clever in twisting phrases (a biased hypocritical lie) in creedal statements to reflect their own (true) doctrine.

TSN - What an unbelievable lie! This is a direct lie from Satan himself ! For it was NOT Arius that twisted words, but the semantic oriented Christopagan Catholic church and Roman Emperor Constantine (as we have already seen). Arius was not the one who needed a council to brainstorm and conspire to create new words and understandings that even the Catholics could not all agree upon. The real problem was that they could NOT understand what Arius was trying to tell them, so they accused him of twisting words. It is so very obvious that their "Polytheistic Mindset" actually prevented them from making sense of what Arius was trying to communicate to them. They were simply NOT monotheistic thinkers! They did NOT, and still to this day do NOT have True Spiritual Understanding!

The Son being "begotten of the Father" (at his resurrection only) was seen by them as saying that the Son was created from nothing. But to counter their doctrine the phrase "begotten not made" (a lie) was added to the creed that totally ruled out their position of the Son having a beginning. Another (True) Arian teaching (Gospel) was that the Son was God by grace and name only (YHVH's PROXY is the real Truth). The creedal statement "true God of true God" (a lie) was an affirmation that the Son was really truly YHVH (a lie) against this Arian position (Read: "Who Says Christ is YHVH"). The most important statement in the creed that affirms "that the Son shares the same being as the Father and is therefore fully divine" (a major blasphemy against YHVH) was the phrase "of one substance (homoousios) (Catholic "Fabricated" semantics. A newly twisted together word) with the Father" (Davis 1987, 61). This statement totally destroyed (in the minds of Christopagans or Catholics only) the Arian view of the Son as an intermediary being between YHVH and Creation.

TSN - My G-d, I can't believe that the Catholic Clergy and leaders are proud of both supporting and being supported by the Greco-Roman Beast government. They are truly the epitome of polytheism and vain selfish legalistic thinkers.

In case the creed was not enough to end the Arian controversy, anathemas (this is the height of vanity and self worship)were attached directly condemning Arian positions (to eliminate the opposition). The Arian denial of the Son's co-eternity with the Father is expressed in the two phrases "there was when the Son of YHVH 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 YHVH is expressed in the phrase "He is of a different hypostasis or substance." With these specific anathemas against them the Arians and their heresy (against the catholic cult pagan Christian church of the Greco-Roman Beast, but not YHVH) seemed to be finished (Only in Rome! But Truth will prevail against the beast and his church! This is prophecy!).

Terminology Problem (semantics)

With the Eastern Church using Greek and the Western Church using Latin misunderstandings (NU) were bound to arise over theological terminology (NU). One instance of confusion (Satan is the author of confusion) (NU) 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 (not supportive of their vain positions) (NU). Only later (after exile of the True Believers) would the East come to distinguish hypostasis from substance (ousia) as in the West. This instance of confusion (NU) "points up the terminological difficulty (NU) which continued to bedevil (NU) Eastern theology and to confuse (NU) the West about the East's position (Davis 1987, 63)." A second and very important termed used by the (government headed

political) Council was homoousios. At that time this word could have three possible meanings. "First, it could be generic (NU); 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 (NU), that is, that the Father and the Son are identical in concrete being. Finally, it could refer to material things (NU), as two pots are of the same substance because both are made of the same clay (Davis 1987, 61)." The (government headed political) 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 (NU) of the meaning of the word homoousios the history of the word is closely associated with heresies (because it is a true heresy). The word was originally used by the Gnostics. 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 (and never will be, because it is a clever lie of Satan).

The Council's defeat by Arianism (True Believers get a two year reprieve)

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 (Catholic and devout Christopagan Sun worshipper) Emperor Constantine. He convinced Constantine that the Council's use of the word homoousios was Sabellian (a belief that the Father and Son were the same being, but in two persons). The Emperor now (politically) 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 (pro-Arian). Supporters of Nicaea in the East especially Bishop Athanasius were deposed and excommunicated by the Dedication Council of Antioch (If you can't beat them, get rid of them!). 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 (NU) 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 (NU) . . . 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 (Not True Arians and thus not true believers). One group emphasized that the Father and Son were "dissimilar" or anomoios (NU). Another group used the word "similar" or homoios (NU) to describe the Father and Son relationship. With the death of Constans in 350 his anti-Nicaea (pro-Arian) brother Constantius became sole ruler of the Empire. The new Emperor (government intervention is never good, regardless of preference) demanded (NU) 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 (forced) on the whole Church by the Council of Constantinople in the following year" which condemned the terms homoousios, homoiousios and anomoios (Ward 1955, 57). It seemed that the Arians (three horns of Daniel) had triumphed over the Nicaea creed.

Daniel 7:7-8, 23-26 7 After this I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, a fourth animal (Roman Empire) awesome and powerful, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth; it devoured and broke in pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet: and it was diverse from all the animals (World Powers) that were before it; and it had ten horns (the conquered kingdoms or territories at the time of Constantine

in 324 AD.).

8 I considered the horns (conquered kingdoms), and, behold, there came up among them another horn (Christopagan Greco-Roman catholic church), a little one (a small power), before which three (True Believers, "Arian" kingdoms and or Rulers) of the first (ten) horns were plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this (little) horn were eyes (a successions of church leaders) like the eyes of a man (The eyes of all the Popes?) , and a mouth speaking great (vain) things (such as, "I have the authority to change the "Times" and the "Laws" of YHVH).

The Final Battle The seeming triumph of homoeism was short lived. First it gained its popularity solely by imperial imposition (wow, Hypocrisy! If this isn't the pot calling the kettle "Black," nothing is!). With the death of Constantius in 361 it collapsed. Second by persecuting both homoousios and homoiousios 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 (NU) 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 (NU). 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 (The blind leading the blind). By using the term homoiousios 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 (NU) the term homoousios. Athanasius, on the other hand, accepted the Cappadocian formula for the Trinity - one substance (ousia) in three persons (hypostaseis) (This is an obvious compromise, and quite frankly YHVH does not compromise!).

At about the same time as Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers were reaching an agreement (compromise!) (NU) another development was taking place. The East and the West were arriving at a better understanding (NU) 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 (The only thing we almost agree on). Under the Eastern Emperor Valens (364-378) homoeism still had imperial favor (NU). 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 (eliminate your competition). A series of laws were passed in 379 and 380 the Emperor prohibited Arianism in the West (Government intervention). 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 Bithyna is not to be made void, but shall continue to be established (Davis 1987, 126).'" In 380 the Emperor Theodosius outlawed Arianism (another admission of Government controlled religion). 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)." (Actually Arianism and the Gospel it preserved never died, it simply left Rome, and did so through the three major conquering tribes of the Gothes, Vandals, and Burgundians),

Conclusion The (Greco-Roman Beast) Council of Nicaea was victorious (won the battle, but lost the war and Salvation) in the end (beginning of the "End Times," but in

"The Latter Days" it will be defeated! And that is prophecy!). It took over fifty

years of bitter battling between the upholders of the Council of Nicaea and those against it. The Arian heresy (against Satan's church, not YHVH!) seemed finished when the Council so specifically anathematized their teachings (or The Gospel) one by one (not by Right, but by might). The Arian doctrines condemned (by the Greco-Roman Beast government and its Christopagan catholic church) were the following: The Son was created by the Father out of nothing (Error, He was 100% human). Thus the Son was not YHVH in the strict sense but by grace and in name only (by PROXY). The Father and Son did not share the same substance (truth). The Son being a creature was subject to moral changeability and only remained virtuous by an act of the will (truth, as he was "Set Apart," but needed to be perfected. See "True Perfection"). Terminology difficulties (NU) - (The catholics could not find Scriptural support; Only governmental support! Therefore, the evidence of scriptural ignorance by Catholic leaders) 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; a completely "Fabricated" unscriptural term) 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 (based on Scripture) 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) (the Truth), homoios (similar) or homoiousion (like in substance). It is obvious that Imperial (Greco-Roman Beast government favored the Christopagan Catholics, and their) involvement (and ultimate end) in the controversy (NU) determined at any given moment whether the Council of Nicaea or the Arianism was dominating the controversy (NU). 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 Homoousians 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 (NU) 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 (Wrong! We simply went underground). Works Cited (supported by Christopagan catholic sympathizers and believers in the Christopagan Trinity.)

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

Read: SBC Congregational Doctrine

Little Children Beware of Evil Masquerading as an "Angel of Light."

Questions concerning this message may be directed to The Sabbatarian Network by clicking the link below. [email protected]