explicitClick to confirm you are 18+

Santa Claus Punched Arius? (Catholicism vs Arianism)

AiricFeb 1, 2023, 4:17:24 AM

Catholics love to boast a traditional story of St. Nicholas (aka Santa Claus) punching Arius in the face after getting angry at his declaration of faith during the Nicene Creed, how does that behavior reflect the Holy Spirit? Didn't Yeshua teach to turn the other cheek? But yet, Catholics take pride in telling this story.


Are Arians apart of the body of Christ? As someone who aligns with Arianism (Postmillennial-Arian-Christian), the goal of this blog article is to restore the Arian view by correcting inaccurate information regurgitated in modern times. Arians are followers of Yeshua as a part of the Church that differs from our Nicene Trinitarian brothers but is in unison with Yeshua's title (Son of God), divinity (1/3 of the Godhead) and gospel. *Arians are not Unitarians, Arians are not Mormons, and Arians are not Jehovah's Witnesses.

As a "church", we're burning a bridge to the gospel from potential believers by dismissing anyone who resonates with the Arian view as heretics which does more harm than good (John 17:20-26, 1 Corinthians 1:10-12) – aside from my own exegesis of scripture with various verses that support the Arian view before I ever heard about the true details of the Nicene Creed, learning about Arianism was a confirmation of Yeshua's identity as if my heart was right all along...this realization, plus my initial "born again" moment after reading Isaiah 53 (which broke me down to tears) that occurred before learning about Arianism, and then my encounter with the Postmillennial view was the triple combo that sparked my fire for spreading Christ's gospel. As my contribution to Arian-Christian Apologetics, below is my exegesis of how Arianism is not heretical to the Bible. 

Quick rebuttals for defending Arius:

  • While plenty Catholics openly consider Martin Luther a heretic – some Catholic leaders today (ie. Bishop Barron, Trent Horn, etc.) do it subtly by defending Luther's charges against the Church while acknowledging the benefits from the schism resulting in the Council of Trent, but they never give a clear yes-or-no answer which in my opinion indirectly affirms the "heretic" verdict without offending Protestant Christians compared to the ruthless blatant rebuke from the authoritative leaders of Luther's time. *For those who are unaware, Martin Luther is credited with starting the "Protestant Reformation" which birthed all the Christian denominations we have today (Lutheran, Evangelical, Baptists, etc.)
  • What is a heretic? That term is abused and diluted due to the egos of so-called godly men. Notable Catholics like Pope Leo X & Pope Pius XL labeled Martin Luther a heretic and burned his writings, the same way they did to Arius' books.
  • Martin Luther’s Roman Catholic opponents spread rumors after his death – which is conduct reminiscent of how they twisted Arius' words in their writings (ie. Four Discourses Against the Arians) – among these rumors was that Luther had died suddenly or in his sleep. In the sixteenth century it was believed that if a person was wicked then they would die suddenly (so there's no time to confess sins). They also claimed that Luther had died in a state of terror, believing he would be eternally condemned. On the contrary, Justus Jonas (a colleague of Martin Luther) recorded that Luther’s last hours were lucid and conscious at his deathbed.
  • Pope Leo X said: "the books and writings of the said Martin were publicly burned, as we had enjoined. Nevertheless Martin himself—and it gives us grievous sorrow and perplexity to say this—the slave of a depraved mind, has scorned to revoke his errors within the prescribed interval and to send us word of such revocation, or to come to us himself; nay, like a stone of stumbling, he has feared not to write and preach worse things than before against us and this Holy See and the Catholic faith, and to lead others on to do the same. He has now been declared a heretic;" (Decet Romanum Pontificem, 1521)
  • Pope Pius XL said: "Francis de Sales (Bishop of Geneva and Doctor of the Universal Church) was sent especially by God to contend against the heresies begotten by the Reformation." (Rerum Omnium Perturbationem, Jan. 26, 1923)
  • In 1521 Martin Luther was called to an assembly at Worms, Germany, to appear before Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. Luther arrived prepared for another debate; he quickly discovered it was a trial at which he was asked to recant his views. Luther replied, "Unless I can be instructed and convinced with evidence from the Holy Scriptures or with open, clear, and distinct grounds of reasoning ... then I cannot and will not recant, because it is neither safe nor wise to act against conscience." Then he added, "Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me! Amen." By the time an imperial edict calling Luther "a convicted heretic" was issued, he had escaped to Wartburg Castle, where he hid for ten months.
  • No, Arius did not dismiss Yeshua's divinity or the Trinity like his enemies claimed. In Arius' notable book called "Thalia", he simply taught the original tradition of the Godhead  hierarchy during the earliest church centuries.
  • The ego of the "Catholic authority" insists they can define what the Father can do through his creations, as if the first creation the Father ever made (aka begotten) cannot be equal to the Father as a true "Heir to the Throne" title suitable for a firstborn Son, simply because he was created? Says who?! The egos of men in sacred robes? Arius' enemies are forcing the perception of the terms "God/god/divine" to support their own trinitarian view.
  • Arius asserted that Christ was a lesser divine being and that there was a period when he did not exist, but at the same time he was still a 'God' with equal glory within the Godhead. An excerpt from Bart Ehrman's blog details the schism:
    • "For Arius, by definition there could not be *two* beings who were “Almighty,” since then neither one of them could be All-mighty, since another being would be *just* as mighty. And so there can only be one Almighty. That would be God the Father. Christ, then, was a subordinate deity and there was a time before which he did not exist. As I indicated, some such view had been around for a very long time. It is attested in earlier theologians such as Tertullian just over a hundred years earlier, the theologian who first coined the term “the Trinity.” But by Arius’s day, there was another school of thought, and his bishop Alexander held to it."
  • The theologian who first coined the term “the Trinity” was Tertullian (written in 213 AD to explain and defend the Trinity against the Monarchian heresy), and he said: "For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole" (source: "Against Praxeas", Chapter 9).
  • Tertullian even reprimanded undeniable heresies as well such as "Marcionism" and "Modalism"! So today's trinitarians call Arius a heretic, even though they use the phrase ("trinity") which was coined by Tertullian, the original scolder of heresies, who also happens to align with Arius! LOL the irony...
  • Aside from Tertullian, a few other prominent early Church leaders such as Origen and Clement of Alexandria also aligned with a similar stance to Arianism, basically known as "Subordinationism".
  • Aside from Arius, here are a few other prominent early Church leaders who also aligned with Arianism: Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius of Caesarea, Lucian of Antioch, Asterius of Cappadocia, Theognis of Nicaea, and even Philo of Alexandria had semi-Arian views.
  • Below is a screenshot of my Q&A with Bart D. Ehrman himself via his blog which allows anyone to submit questions as a monthly subscriber, here's what Bart has to say regarding Tertullian's views compared to Arius':
  • According to the Historical Data: Constantine won his battle for Rome with a prophesy from Yeshua which lead to the legalizing of Christianity (The Edict of Milan back in 313 AD) but yet, he NEVER got baptized until his deathbed and requested the Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia to perform it in 337 AD – on top of that, his monument built in remembrance of that battle (Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312 AD, the ‘Arch of Constantine') had NO Christian symbolism anywhere! It was instead very pagan! This is proof how he truly felt during the 325 AD Council (wasn't a full believer yet, which supports the unifying Rome theory) and at the end of his life was leaning towards what he saw as the true form: Arianism.
  • The ego of Catholics continuing to insist they're perfectly infallible when they clearly only made this an official rule (infallibility) at the First Vatican Council in the 1800's is insane to me! To make it worse, they tried to change that rule with specific conditions at the Second Vatican Council in 1965 – how's that infallibility? So every creed before that in past centuries are that much more questionable!
  • The Orthodox church views several Roman doctrines as heretical, for example: "the filioque" – which is a term that refers to the Son, Jesus Christ, with the Father, as the one shared origin of the Holy Spirit. This term was later added to the Nicene Creed and incorporated into the liturgical practice of Rome in 1014, which the Eastern Catholics rejected, proving the errancy of the creed since day 1!
  • If "Apostolic Succession" or "Papal Authority" was Biblical, why didn't the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 not adhere to the final verdict of Peter since he was still alive and present at the time? Considering how Peter's title as "the rock of the Church" is the Papal claim to authority. Instead, Paul was the one who opposed Peter and influenced the final verdict. The Catholic exegesis has always been wrong.
  • In more recent times some scholars have advanced the view that the Greek word μονογενης (monogenes) does not mean ‘only begotten’; as in the authorized (King James) version, but ‘one of a kind’ or ‘unique’ or something equivalent which omits the concept of ‘begotten’. This article considers whether the concept of ‘begetting’ or ‘derivation by birth’ properly belongs to μονογενης, or whether the word simply means ‘one of a kind’ or ‘unique’. Both the etymology and usage of μονογενης are examined. It is concluded that the concept of ‘begetting’ or ‘derivation by birth’ does properly belong to μονογενης, so that it is correctly translated ‘only begotten’, and that translations which omit the concept of ‘begotten’ are probably driven more by a theological motive than by impartial consideration of the evidence. For more info and evidence on this topic, see here: http://begotten.yeshuan.org
  • The Nicene Creed’s view of the Trinity insists that: if something is perfect, it can’t change. Because if it’s perfect and it changes then it changes either to the better or the worse. If it changes to the better then that means before that it wasn’t as good as it could’ve been. If it changes to the worst then it’s no longer perfect. Therefore, something that is perfect cannot change. That's a clever rebuttal indeed from the Athanasius side (Arius' opponent), BUT... why does God (the Father) have to become lesser or greater if he decides to do something that's equal to his current status? Meaning, why can't a perfect being decide to duplicate his perfection? If the Father decided to create a Son who shared his glory and power and every perfect divine attribute that He has, why does that make Him a shape shifter who descended to a lower state or ascended to a higher state? That logic is just an opinion, who's to say God can't simply duplicate His perfection because He felt like it?

The True Details of the First Council of Nicaea (325 AD)

Arius' legitimate views and teachings were lost in history and misrepresented in the writings of his enemies, led by Athanasius and his followers. His most notable work titled "Thalia" only exists in quoted fragmentary form since it was burned and banned after The Nicene Creed. The only sources are mostly from writings by his opponents which of course twisted his original teaching (ie. implying that Arius taught "participation" as Yeshua's way of attaining (or maintaining) Godhood as if Yeshua had to earn his divinity, which is not found in any genuine Thalia excerpts!). Athanasius held that Yeshua and God the Father were "of the same substance (aka Homoousious)." We might call them "dualitarians" since the Holy Spirit had not been given the same status yet as a "person" within the divinity; that is, the doctrine of the Trinity had not yet been invented – the official Catholic doctrine was established with the addition of the Holy Spirit as the third persona of God in 381 CE at the First Council of Constantinople. 

  • Arius held that the Father and the Son are of distinct essences or substances (ousiai) and that the Son derived his divinity from the Father, was created in time, and is inferior to the Father. Semi-Arians, however, admitted that the Son is “of similar substance” (homoiousios) with the Father but not of one substance (homoousios) with him. This doctrinal controversy, revolving around two words distinguished by a single iota (ι), gave rise to the popular expression, “It makes not one iota of difference.” To Orthodox Christians, however, the iota was of great importance. Both Arianism and semi-Arianism were condemned at the Council of Nicaea (325).
  • Bishop Barron said: "We think it’s so important (regarding the Nicene Creed), that every single week at our liturgy, we Catholics get up and say ‘Arius was wrong, Arius was wrong,’ every Sunday. Lest we forget. Now, the problem is, most people even in Catholic mass have no real idea of what we’re doing when we recite that creed." — which is an interesting confession of how Catholics really don't understand their faith at all since Catholicism encourages the congregation to rely on the priest for biblical understanding rather than being scripturally competent themselves.
  • Excerpt from "Arius the Libyan": After Arius was exiled, Constantine already began to fall into the seduction of power and murdered his son and nephew (Cesar & Licinius) – and when Arius heard of this, he said: "A council of Christ's Church ought not to be oecumenical and barren; and the first one already beareth terrible but legitimate fruits."

Historical excerpts, references & document links:

  • Athanasius Orationes contra Arianos – Four Discourses Against the Arians (Ch. 2-3) – Excerpt Highlight: "Chapter II.—Extracts from the Thalia of Arius. Arius maintains that God became a Father, and the Son was not always; the Son out of nothing; once He was not; He was not before his generation; He was created; named Wisdom and Word after God’s attributes; made that He might make us; one out of many powers of God; alterable; exalted on God’s foreknowledge of what He was to be; not very God; but called so as others by participation; foreign in essence from the Father; does not know or see the Father; does not know Himself." — and then elsewhere in Chapter III. says, "The Importance of the Subject. The Arians affect Scripture language, but their doctrine new, as well as unscriptural. Statement of the Catholic doctrine, that the Son is proper to the Father’s substance, and eternal. Restatement of Arianism in contrast, that He is a creature with a beginning: the controversy comes to this issue, whether one whom we are to believe in as God, can be so in name only, and is merely a creature. What pretence then for being indifferent in the controversy? The Arians rely on state patronage, and dare not avow their tenets." — then after more redundant statements in another excerpt further along Athanasius says, "...Which of the two theologies sets forth our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Son of the Father, this which you vomited forth, or that which we have spoken and maintain from the Scriptures? If the Saviour be not God, nor Word, nor Son, you shall have leave to say what you will, and so shall the Gentiles, and the present Jews. But if He be Word of the Father and true Son, and God from God, and ‘over all blessed for ever,’ is it not becoming to obliterate and blot out those other phrases and that Arian Thalia, as but a pattern of evil, a store of all irreligion, into which, whoso falls, ‘knoweth not that giants perish with her, and reacheth the depths of Hades?"
    • *My commentary on Four Discourses Against the Arians: Athanasius angrily shoves words in Arius' mouth with misleading descriptions of Arius' notable book called "Thalia" – in the genuine Thalia, Arius did not dismiss Yeshua's divinity or the Trinity like his enemies claimed, he simply taught the original tradition of the Godhead hierarchy during the earliest church centuries.

More Info on the Thalia (source: Fourth Century Christianity):

  • Arius's Thalia (literally, 'Festivity', 'banquet'), a popularized work combining prose and verse and summarizing his views on the Logos, survives in quoted fragmentary form. In the Thalia, Arius says that God's first thought was the creation of the Son, before all ages, therefore time started with the creation of the Logos or Word in Heaven (lines 1–9, 30–32); explains how the Son could still be God, even if he did not exist eternally (lines 20–23); and endeavors to explain the ultimate incomprehensibility of the Father to the Son (lines 33–39). The two available references from this work are recorded by his opponent Athanasius: the first is a report of Arius's teaching in Orations Against the Arians, 1:5-6. This paraphrase has negative comments interspersed throughout, so it is difficult to consider it as being completely reliable.
  • The second quotation is found on page 15 of the document On the Councils of Arminum and Seleucia, also known as De Synodis. This second passage is entirely in irregular verse, and seems to be a direct quotation or a compilation of quotations; it may have been written by someone other than Athanasius, perhaps even a person sympathetic to Arius. This second quotation does not contain several statements usually attributed to Arius by his opponents, is in metrical form, and resembles other passages that have been attributed to Arius. It also contains some positive statements about the Son. But although these quotations seem reasonably accurate, their proper context is lost, so their place in Arius's larger system of thought is impossible to reconstruct.
  • The part of Arius's Thalia quoted in Athanasius's De Synodis is the longest extant fragment. The most commonly cited edition of De Synodis is by Hans-Georg Opitz. A translation of this fragment has been made by Aaron J. West, but based not on Opitz' text but on a previous edition: "When compared to Opitz' more recent edition of the text, we found that our text varies only in punctuation, capitalization, and one variant reading (χρόνῳ for χρόνοις, line 5)." The Opitz edition with the West translation is as follows:



Αὐτὸς γοῦν ὁ θεὸς καθό ἐστιν ἄρρητος ἅπασιν ὑπάρχει.

ἴσον οὐδὲ ὅμοιον, οὐχ ὁμόδοξον ἔχει μόνος οὗτος.

ἀγέννητον δὲ αὐτόν φαμεν διὰ τὸν τὴν φύσιν γεννητόν·

τοῦτον ἄναρχον ἀνυμνοῦμεν διὰ τὸν ἀρχὴν ἔχοντα,

ἀίδιον δὲ αὐτὸν σέβομεν διὰ τὸν ἐν χρόνοις γεγαότα.

ἀρχὴν τὸν υἰὸν ἔθηκε τῶν γενητῶν ὁ ἄναρχος

καὶ ἤνεγκεν εἰς υἱὸν ἑαυτῷ τόνδε τεκνοποιήσας,

ἴδιον οὐδὲν ἔχει τοῦ θεοῦ καθ᾽¦ ὑπόστασιν ἰδιότητος,

οὐδὲ γάρ ἐστιν ἴσος, ἀλλ' οὐδὲ ὁμοούσιος αὐτῷ.

σοφὸς δέ ἐστιν ὁ θεός, ὅτι τῆς σοφίας διδάσκαλος αύτός.

ἱκανὴ δὲ ἀπόδειξις ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἀόρατος ἅπασι,

τοῖς τε διὰ υἱοῦ καὶ αὐτῷ τῷ υἱῷ ἀόρατος ὁ αὐτός.

ῥητῶς δὲ λέχω, πῶς τῷ υἱῷ ὁρᾶται ὁ ἀόρατος·

τῇ δυνάμει ᾗ δύναται ὁ θεὸς ἰδεῖν· ἰδίοις τε μέτροις

ὑπομένει ὁ υἱὸς ἰδεῖν τὸν πατέρα, ὡς θέμις ἐστίν.

ἤγουν τριάς ἐστι δόξαις οὐχ ὁμοίαις, ἀνεπίμικτοι ἑαυταῖς εἰσιν αἱ ὑποστάσεις αὐτῶν,

μία τῆς μιᾶς ἐνδοξοτέρα δόξαις ἐπ' ἄπειρον.

ξένος τοῦ υἱοῦ κατ' οὐσίαν ὁ πατήρ, ὅτι ἄναρχος ὐπάρχει.

σύνες ὅτι ἡ μονὰς ἦν, ἡ δυὰς δὲ οὐκ ἦν, πρὶν ὑπάρξῃ.

αὐτίκα γοῦν υἱοῦ μὴ ὄντος ὁ πατὴρ θεός ἐστι.

λοιπὸν ὁ υἰὸς οὐκ ὢν (ὐπῆρξε δὲ θελήσει πατρῴᾳ)

μονογενὴς θεός ἐστι καὶ ἑκατέρων ἀλλότριος οὗτος.

ἡ σοφία σοφία ὑπῆρξε σοφοῦ θεοῦ θελήσει.

επινοεῖται γοῦν μυρίαις ὅσαις ἐπινοίαις πνεῦμα, δύναμις, σοφία,

δόξα θεοῦ, ἀλήθειά τε καὶ εἰκὼν καὶ λόγος οὗτος.

σύνες ὅτι καὶ ἀπαύγασμα καὶ φῶς ἐπινοεῖται.

ἴσον μὲν τοῦ υἱοῦ γεννᾶν δυνατός ἐστιν ὁ κρείττων,

διαφορώτερον δὲ ἢ κρείττονα ἢ μείζονα οὐχί.

θεοῦ ¦ θελήσει ὁ υἱὸς ἡλίκος καὶ ὅσος ἐστίν,

ἐξ ὅτε καὶ ἀφ' οὖ καὶ ἀπὸ τότε ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ὑπέστη,

ἰσχυρὸς θεὸς ὢν τὸν κρείττονα ἐκ μέρους ὑμνεῖ.

συνελόντι εἰπεῖν τῷ υἱῷ ὁ θεὀς ἄρρητος ὑπάρχει·

ἔστι γὰρ ἑαυτῷ ὅ ἐστι τοῦτ' ἔστιν ἄλεκτος,

ὥστε οὐδὲν τῶν λεγομένων κατά τε κατάληψιν συνίει ἐξειπεῖν ὁ υἱός.

ἀδύνατα γὰρ αὐτῷ τὸν πατέρα τε ἐξιχνιάσει, ὅς ἐστιν ἐφ' ἑαυτοῦ.

αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ οὐσίαν οὐκ οἶδεν,

υἱὸς γὰρ ὢν θελήσει πατρὸς ὑπῆρξεν ἀληθῶς.

τίς γοῦν λόγος συγχωρεῖ τὸν ἐκ πατρὸς ὄντα

αὐτὸν τὸν γεννήσαντα γνῶναι ἐν καταλήψει;

δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι τὸ αρχὴν ἔχον, τὸν ἄναρχον, ὡς ἔστιν,

ἐμπερινοῆσαι ἢ ἐμπεριδράξασθαι οὐχ οἷόν τέ ἐστιν.

... And so God Himself, as he really is, is inexpressible to all.

He alone has no equal, no one similar, and no one of the same glory.

We call him unbegotten, in contrast to him who by nature is begotten.

We praise him as without beginning in contrast to him who has a beginning.

We worship him as timeless, in contrast to him who in time has come to exist.

He who is without beginning made the Son a beginning of created things

He produced him as a son for himself by begetting him.

He [the son] has none of the distinct characteristics of God's own being

For he is not equal to, nor is he of the same being as him.

God is wise, for he himself is the teacher of Wisdom

Sufficient proof that God is invisible to all:

He is invisible both to things which were made through the Son, and also to the Son himself.

I will say specifically how the invisible is seen by the Son:

by that power by which God is able to see, each according to his own measure,

the Son can bear to see the Father, as is determined

So there is a Triad, not in equal glories. Their beings are not mixed together among themselves.

As far as their glories, one infinitely more glorious than the other.

The Father in his essence is a foreigner to the Son, because he exists without beginning.

Understand that the Monad [eternally] was; but the Dyad was not before it came into existence.

It immediately follows that, although the Son did not exist, the Father was still God.

Hence the Son, not being [eternal] came into existence by the Father's will,

He is the Only-begotten God, and this one is alien from [all] others

Wisdom came to be Wisdom by the will of the Wise God.

Hence he is conceived in innumerable aspects. He is Spirit, Power, Wisdom,

God's glory, Truth, Image, and Word.

Understand that he is also conceived of as Radiance and Light.

The one who is superior is able to beget one equal to the Son,

But not someone more important, or superior, or greater.

At God's will the Son has the greatness and qualities that he has.

His existence from when and from whom and from then – are all from God.

He, though strong God, praises in part his superior.

In brief, God is inexpressible to the Son.

For he is in himself what he is, that is, indescribable,

So that the son does not comprehend any of these things or have the understanding to explain them.

For it is impossible for him to fathom the Father, who is by himself.

For the Son himself does not even know his own essence,

For being Son, his existence is most certainly at the will of the Father.

What reasoning allows, that he who is from the Father

should comprehend and know his own parent?

For clearly that which has a beginning

is not able to conceive of or grasp the existence of that which has no beginning.

A slightly different edition of the fragment of the Thalia from De Synodis is given by G.C. Stead, and served as the basis for a translation by R.P.C. Hanson. Stead argued that the Thalia was written in anapestic meter, and edited the fragment to show what it would look like in anapests with different line breaks. Hanson based his translation of this fragment directly on Stead's text.

Scriptural references for Arianism and Subordinationism with commentary:

*Have your Bible's ready! Read the verses first for context before reading the commentary.

  • Colossians 1:15-20 says, "The Supremacy of Christ - He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation, for all things in heaven and on earth were created in him—all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers—all things were created through him and for him." – keywords: firstborn, creation. You cannot be “born” without having a time when you were not in existence, hence the word, “born”. You cannot become something if you were already that beforehand. Plus, the emphasis on ‘creation’ here is vital as well – firstborn, over all, creation.
  • Colossians 2:2-3 – this reaffirms Proverbs 8:22 describing Yeshua's creation under one of his many aliases, "wisdom".
  • Colossians 2:12 – more description of Yeshua being raised by the Father, not from his own ability.
  • 1 Corinthians 1:24 (But to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.) – again, Christ's alias as God's Wisdom (as in Proverbs 8:22).
  • 1 Corinthians‬ ‭1‬:‭30‬ – keywords: became, wisdom (as in Proverbs 8:22).
  • 1 Corinthians 8:6 (yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we live, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we live.) – more proof of hierarchy with the Father and Jesus, and insight to the class differences of the term 'God' and 'Lord'.
  • 1 Corinthians 11:3 – interesting distinction of hierarchy for the household for husband and wife, but most importantly, this also shows another example of the hierarchy of Yeshua and the Father.
  • 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 – Yeshua is subjected to the Father...
  • 2 Corinthians 4:4 – satan is referred to as a "god"...clearly the term 'god' is describing a type of being, not a title or name of a person/entity since we do not even know the new names (and perhaps original names?) of Yeshua and the Father (Revelation 3:12-13). Capital 'G' means divine creator, lower case 'g' means divine being but not a creator (in Greek, "El". See Psalms 82:1, "God stands in the assembly of El;") – both types of beings (G/g) are inherently immortal, but little g's (satan, angels, mankind) can still perish from sin while capital 'G' (Abba, Son & Holy Spirit) is forever perfect and sovereign.
  • 2 Corinthians 11:31 – God and Father, not just Father – the Father is Yeshua's God – it says, the God and Father of the Lord Yeshua. More proof of the hierarchy, the Elohim.
  • Ephesians 1:3 – keywords: the God and Father of...the God of...Yeshua is again described as having a God over him, not a Homoousion oneness like Trinitarians believe.
  • Ephesians 1:17 – keywords: “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ”. So Jesus Himself also has a ‘God’ over Him. Interesting to note the word “wisdom” being used here as well.
  • Ephesians 4:3-6 - Yeshua is differentiated from the Father as ‘Lord’ while the Father is referred to as ‘God’. This doesn’t lower Yeshua’s divinity as God to mankind, but it emphasizes the Father as the greater God over Yeshua.
  • Exodus 15:11 (Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like you?—majestic in holiness, fearful in praises, working wonders?) – another example confirming the existence of “gods,” lowercase ‘g’.
  • Genesis 1:26 – keyword: "our", not "my". This is the true meaning of the plural term "Elohim" (a greek word).
  • Genesis 6:4 – "sons of God" proving Yeshua is not the only "god" (a lowercase 'g' family like Satan, angels, etc.), but He is the firstborn God (uppercase 'G'), the one true Heir as 1/3 of Elohim, unlike any other gods after Him.
  • Hebrews 1:3 – The Greek word “Charaktér” is used here ("the ultimate radiance") which is more proof for Arianism since this word means "a tool for engraving". Usage: an impression, representation, exact reproduction; a graving-tool.
  • Isaiah 43:10 (No god was formed before me, and none will outlive me.) – keywords: and none will; signifying the existence of others. Arians believe Yeshua was the firstborn God, the only begotten God that's like the Father, hence, the Son of God, while all others are nowhere near the glory of the right hand of the Father, which is where Yeshua sits. The word God is a misunderstood term, it is a type of being, not a title.
  • John 1:1 – Yeshua is the word, aka "wisdom" like Proverbs 8:22-31. Also, in the original scriptural language (Greek), this verse can be read differently – here's an excerpt of the NET translation footnote: tn Or "and what God was the Word was." Colwell's Rule is often invoked to support the translation of eós (qeos) as definite ("God") rather than indefinite ("a god") here. However, Colwell's Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. For more info, read the NET translation (*Christian Scholar Daniel B. Wallace was apart of overseeing the production of NET).
  • John 4:34 (Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of the one who sent me and to complete his work.) – another example of two separate wills.
  • John 5:19 (So Jesus answered them, “I tell you the solemn truth, the Son can do nothing on his own initiative, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise.) – key sentence: the Son can do nothing on his own initiative – more proof of the Godhead hierarchy.
  • John 5:27-30 – more separation of his will from God's will in preceding rank. The messenger is never greater than the one who sent the message (John 13:16-17).
  • John 6:57 – keywords: BECAUSE of the father…again, a preceding rank.
  • John 7:16-17 – key sentence: whether it is from God or whether I speak from my own authority... Yeshua differentiates Himself from the only true God above Him, as stated in John 17:3. He identifies the Father as the one true God and clearly declares His subordination as a messenger who only speaks with the authority of the Father, not with an authority of His own.
  • John 10:29-30 – to be given something means it wasn't yours before that, and the Father is the one who no one can snatch anything from – doesn't say Yeshua or the Trinity, only the Father...that's hierarchy (Elohim). But because of the Father, Yeshua has the same grip as well.
  • John 10:34-36 – key sentence: "if those people to whom the word of God came" = this is clearly referring to humans (ie. prophets, kings, etc.), BUT, Yeshua speaks in a sarcastic tone implying that others were respected as 'gods' for revealing divine wisdom so why would the phrase "Son of God" offend the Jews? Trinitarians say this proves that Jews understood Him to claim equality with the Father, but that's a grave mistake (by the Jews) as was their verdict of condemning Him to the cross since Yeshua was trying to express his title as God/Father over mankind, hence worthy of worship, but even he himself has one superior to him which is the Father as expressed in several scriptures (ie. John 14:28) – a concept that is still debated 'til this day!
  • John 11:41-43 – Yeshua didn't raise the dead, the Father did. He even looked up away from himself indicating the separation from himself and Abba. *ALSO, another thought: Bart Ehrman says Yeshua appearing to 500 people doesnt prove his resurrection since modern times has shown other groups of people swearing they saw the Spirit of Mary...but my rebuttal to Bart is: this verse is further proof of a testimony describing a resurrection caused by Yeshua (let alone his own resurrection) so technically that's three resurrections to His legacy including Mark 5:41! lol
  • John 13:16-17 – more proof that the Father (the Master) is greater than Yeshua (the Messenger – but not in the way Muslims say it, Yeshua's a messenger as in the good news!).
  • John 16:26-27 – when people understand who they're really receiving from (the Father) and not Yeshua, then Yeshua doesn't have to be the middleman anymore because you recognize Yeshua's status respectfully (as Son of God, the only Heir to the Father, the God & Creator of Earth and mankind, and the Son of Man aka Messiah) and understand his true nature. – also, these keywords: I CAME FROM God (hence, "firstborn") – if he "came from", that means he had a beginning. Plus, to have to ask the Father on our behalf is more proof of Yeshua being the middleman who mediates for us on God's behalf, which again is an example of preceding ranks.
  • John 17:3-5 – keywords: "the only true God", and "whom you sent" which implies preceding rank, following orders, subordination, etc. He was given a task ("work you gave me to do"), to be given a task is an example of rank, sender > deliverer, general > soldier, father > son, etc. – Yeshua was always separate from the Father even before incarnation but the Trinity (Elohim) functions as one divine council.
  • John 17:20-26 – Jesus prays for the Believers to be “one” the same way the Son & Father are “one”. This is an example of how the term "Elohim" refers to "oneness" as three Gods operating as one divine council, since the singular version of Elohim is "Eloah".
  • John 20:17 – keywords: my God, again, preceding rank aka Elohim.
  • Luke 10:22 – to be 'given' something, that means it was apart from you before it was handed to your possession. How is Yeshua equal to the Father without already having what the Father always had?
  • Mark 7:6-8 – this verse reminds me of what the Catholics did by creating the trinitarian orthodox traditions and denouncing Arius as if their rules were correct when the Bible states numerous times the different hierarchy between the Father and Yeshua and the importance of unity over division (1 Corinthians 1:10-12).
  • Mark 10:18 – Yeshua is exemplifying how to always deflect all praise back to the Father. Yeshua is not the Father and is subordinate to his glory, and he reminds us of this hierarchy which teaches us how to properly glorify God, since we glorify Yeshua and he redirects all glory back to the Father. God over Christ, Christ over man, and men over women, respectfully.
  • Mark 12:36 – keywords: "until I put", meaning the Father was the ultimate power in favor of Yeshua's inheritance as the firstborn Son, the term "Lord" is used interchangeably here referring to the Father as "Lord of my Lord" (trinitarians understand "Lord" to only refer to Yeshua while "God" is the Father); "Lord" means sovereign ruler/superior, so this is describing the Elohim since Christ is Lord of mankind, and the Father is Lord of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:3).
  • Matthew 11:18-19 (For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon!’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him, a glutton and a drunk, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ But wisdom is vindicated by her deeds.”) – WHOA! This is another receipt from Yeshua's own words merging his identity with the personification of Wisdom in Proverbs 8!
  • Matthew 11:27 – to be “handed over” something is a statement that implies a preceding rank…
  • Matthew 12:42 (The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon—and now, something greater than Solomon is here!) – Yeshua refers to the wisdom of Solomon again to identify Himself.
  • Matthew 24:36 – more proof of division of wills between Yeshua and the Father = a hierarchy of demand, one greater than the other.
  • Matthew 26:39 – this proves Yeshua's will is not the same will of God since he answers to the Father so his will is dependent on our Father's will, which is again, more proof of preceding rank. Trinitarians believe in a "Homoousios" view which goes against what this verse is describing. Hebrews 5:7 echoes this notion by saying Yeshua cried and prayed “to the one who was able to save him from death”.
  • Matthew 26:53 – why would Yeshua need to call on the Father to summon a legion of angels for his protection if he's co-eternal and equal to the Father? Why not summon the legions himself?
  • Matthew 28:17-18 - Yeshua was "given authority", signaling a preceding rank from the one who granted authority to Him (the Father)…and this was after His resurrection.
  • Proverbs 8:22 – Yeshua (aka "wisdom", "the word") was before us, before mankind, before Earth, but he was after God. Father of mankind, but Son of the Father. The NET footnote says: There are two roots קָנָה (qanah) in Hebrew, one meaning “to possess,” and the other meaning “to create.” The earlier English versions did not know of the second root, but suspected in certain places that a meaning like that was necessary (e.g., Gen 4:1; 14:19; Deut 32:6). Ugaritic confirmed that it was indeed another root. The older versions have the translation “possess” because otherwise it sounds like God lacked wisdom and therefore created it at the beginning. They wanted to avoid saying that wisdom was not eternal. Arius liked the idea of Christ as the wisdom of God and so chose the translation “create.” Athanasius translated it, “constituted me as the head of creation.” The verb occurs twelve times in Proverbs with the meaning of “to acquire,” but the Greek and the Syriac versions have the meaning “create.” Although the idea is that wisdom existed before creation, the parallel ideas in these verses (“appointed,” “given birth”) argue for the translation of “create” or “establish” (R. N. Whybray, “Proverbs 8:22-31 and Its Supposed Prototypes,” VT 15 [1965]: 504-14; and W. A. Irwin, “Where Will Wisdom Be Found?” JBL 80 [1961]: 133-42).

     An excerpt from Bart Ehrman's blog is helpful for further explanation, saying: "Later Christians would take the feminine companion of God at creation, “Wisdom” (Greek “Sophia” –  a feminine noun, and sometimes regarded as a feminie deity) and transform her into the masculine “Word” (Greek: “Logos” – a masculine noun) and claim that this one in the beginning, who was with God, and was the one through whom God created all things, was in fact Christ before he became an incarnate human (see John 1:1-4).   The difficulty for both Jews and Christians involved understanding how this other being (Sophia/Logos) could be divine, if in fact there is only one God.   For the Christians, it is this puzzle that eventually led to the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, that even though God is manifest in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy spirit – not one person, but three), there is still only one God (not three).  This doctrine would not begin to be formulated clearly, however, until at least a century after the writing of the New Testament." 

    Another great blog post with more insight on this verse titled "John’s Logos and Jewish Wisdom" can be read here. – so to recap, even if Yeshua is not the "Wisdom" spoken of in Prov. 8:22, both translations of "qanah" (create or attain) still imply that the Father once lacked Wisdom...there's no getting around that, therefore, it makes sense to attribute that honor and joy to Yeshua, the firstborn creation, the first Word ever spoken, the Logos, fulfilling the role of Wisdom for the Father as described in the whole Prov. 8 chapter.

    Read Dr. Michael Heiser's breakdown on Prov. 8:22 and Arianism: http://jesus-wisdom.yeshuan.org
  • Psalms 82:1 – the word "gods" is used here. For historical context, see NET footnote for Psalms 82:1: sn The present translation assumes that the Hebrew term D'n7x ('elohim, "gods") here refers to the pagan gods who supposedly comprise El's assembly according to Canaanite religion. Those who reject the polemical view of the psalm prefer to see the referent as human judges or rulers (D'n'7x sometimes refers to officials appointed by God, see Exod 21:6; 22:8-9; Ps 45:6) or as angelic beings (D'17N sometimes refers to angelic beings, see Gen 3:5; Ps 8:5). ––– So as you can see once again this is a matter of debate among fallible men, some say this event is describing an assembly among mere men – but that is NOT what I discern...this is speaking of an event among actual gods in heaven with the Father, the same way Satan walked into the assembly in Job 1:6 (“Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.”) – so to my heart, these verses are some of many verses that prove the Arianism view. The term "God/god/divine" is very, very, very misunderstood. It is a type of being, not a title/name. We don't even know the Father's or Yeshua's true name yet, as scripture says in Revelation 3:12-13, in which Yeshua says "my God" as a statement of reverence for a superior being, Yeshua is expressing the Godhead hierarchy again, addressing themselves as their type of being (God) but their names are unknown...for now...
  • Psalm 110:1 (Here is the Lord’s proclamation to my lord: “Sit down at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool!”) – not only is this one of the many verses supporting Postmillennialism, but the keywords: "the Lord’s proclamation to my lord", details Yeshua's subordination (the Lord of mankind) under His Lord (the Father, the only true God and Lord of all creation), giving the Father the glory with Yeshua at His right hand and promising His aid for Yeshua to defeat His enemies, instead of Yeshua doing it solely Himself, he relies on the Father's power and support to accomplish it…a beautiful example of the trinitarian unison explained by Tertullian.
  • Psalm 136:2 (Give thanks to the God of gods, for his loyal love endures.) – another example confirming the existence of “gods,” lowercase ‘g’.
  • Revelation 1:6 (“and has appointed us as a kingdom, as priests serving his God and Father – to him be the glory and the power for ever and ever! Amen.”) - keywords: his God and Father; so Yeshua has a God as well!
  • Romans 3:30 – the phrase “God is one” here is another example of the metaphorical use of the word “one”, implying two distinct parts treated as one whole, like the Jews and Gentiles are. Yeshua and the Father are one, but metaphorically, not homoousios.
  • Romans 8:29 – Yeshua is "Firstborn", similar to how he's 'begotten' before all other 'sons of God' (see Genesis 6:4)...but He's the Father & Creator of all things after Him, including lesser divine beings (ie. angels), as well as the 'the Last Adam' as our forefather in the new covenant. The father of mankind spiritually before all creation, and physically as the Messiah.
  • 1 Samuel 28:13 (The king said to her, “Don’t be afraid! What have you seen?” The woman replied to Saul, “I have seen one like a god coming up from the ground!) – Saul, a man of God who is dead, is referred to as ‘a god’. This is more confirmation of the word “god” alluding to immortality, it does not mean the same as “God” which is the sovereign Creator of all things.
  • 1 Timothy 2:3-5 – this clearly separates Yeshua from the Father as a mediator between mankind and the only true God, while maintaining Yeshua’s divinity as God over mankind. The use of the word “God” is shown here as a title belonging to the Father and Yeshua within a hierarchy of Gods, unified as one sovereign family (Elohim), “God” is not a name of one being.
  • Titus 3:4 – Yeshua is capital 'G' God in the sense that he's our creator, he created mankind (Proverbs 8:22) but even the Father is capital 'G' God to Yeshua, while other 'gods' are always referred to with lower case g implying that they're not creators like Yeshua or the Father but instead are merely divine/immortal.

Early Church History references and links:

In conclusion...

The amount of info I referenced only scratches the surface of the hours (totaling 2+ years) I researched, but I feel like these are the strongest sources I can use to make my point (while trying not to write a book...which I clearly at least wrote a pamphlet by the size of this blog haha). I sincerely hope this information helps anyone interested in the true views of Arius. 

*Note: I am not insisting that my understanding is irrefutably correct, I am willing to admit I am wrong about the trinity so I enthusiastically invite anyone to debate me so I can polish my views if necessary (Iron sharpens iron right?)...but from my honest wholehearted prayer to Yeshua and the Holy Spirit, and hours on hours of time-consuming research with sincere request for clarity from God (Hebrews 10:16-17), in good conscious, I cannot align with the Nicene Trinitarian view. Until someone can disprove the notion of "Wisdom" being created as a personified being as taught in Proverbs 8:22, in combination with the affirmation of Yeshua Himself identifying with Prov. 8:22 in Matthew 11:19, I cannot recant my belief. But, I also do not see why the body of Christ needs to rip apart over this schism considering the true facts of how these views were debated in history. To read my brief testimony how I became a passionate follower of Yeshua, click here.

Bonus food for thought:

  • 2 Peter 3:8, "Now, dear friends, do not let this one thing escape your notice, that a single day is like a thousand years with the Lord and a thousand years are like a single day."
  • This 2 Peter 3 verse is a reminder that the Church is only 2 days old in God's time since we're in the early 2020's...we're merely infants!

Much love and salute to all the soldiers of God during these Last Days... 

– Airic aka "blxck airius"

*Note: I'm currently writing my first book (called "Thalia Unveiled") by converting this blog post into an entertaining novel story adaptation for easier consumption since I know it's a lot of information...if you're interested, get a free copy as soon as the book is released by texting "ARIUS" to +1 305-705-5533!

[Blog edited 1/8/2024. *Added John 4:34.]


Join my Bible Study & Cultural Commentary group based on Arianism here.