Arianism vs the Trinity 

Better watch out, better not pout In the Trinity better have no doubt Santa Claus is coming to town He sees you when you're sleeping He knows when you're awake You'd better be trinitarian, Or he'll slap you in the face!

This channel is underrated. I'm impressed with the knowledge being shared here

Mr Hamar you have an incredible gift for teaching. You are always offering substantial scholarship and historically verified accounts during your lectures. In spite of the academic substance you have a gift for presenting the information in a way that is both tangible and entertaining for the listener. Thank you.

John Hamer gives great lectures, the absolute best on RU-vid!

The Santa aside about St Nicholas just shows how down to earth and decent Mr Hamer is essentially wiping away any confusion and answering what might be distracting curiosities. A genuinely considerate person and one of the reasons he is a great teacher/lecturer. And all for free. We need more people like this who are about enlightening and enriching without it always being about money. A form of Charity you could say his lectures. Bravo.

Arius getting bitch slapped by Santa Claus was not something I expected today.

Santa Claus slapping Arius across the face is crazy, lol

Trinitarians burned people at the stake for not accepting their belief. Non Trinitarians have never been known to burn anyone for not accepting Oneness or the one God.

Thank you for these lectures. They are so interesting. Thank you, John, for all you do.

Your lectures are always so enlightening Dr Hamer..thankyou ..

Oh wow, this has to be one of the most logically and historically comprehensive videos about theology and specially this thorny topic on the whole internet. The mindblows-per-minute are off the charts. Congrats and Thank you for putting this and yourself out there (here) Dr. Hamer!

Thanks for your lectures. Despite how prevoked I am by my disagreements I always find them to be engaging and illuminating.

I'm surprised Arian Christianity died off after being so popular for so long in so many places, as if it never existed, even in places where they were not prosecuted.

One feature of the Council of Nicaea that doesn't usually get mentioned, but is remarked upon by Geza Vermes in his book "Christian Beginnings: From Nazareth to Nicaea AD30-325" is that almost all the participants were from the eastern part of the Roman Empire; I think it was just six bishops from the western part and even the Bishop of Rome did not attend, but sent one of his priests. The argument between the Arians and Trinitarians was of little interest to almost all Christians in the western part of the Roman Empire.

Arianism DID sort of become the Roman state religion for a while. Constantine near the end of his life started favoring Arianism because the closest bishop he had was his relative Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was Arian through and through. Constantine didn't reverse his policies but he listened to Eusebius and exiled many of the anti-Arius bishops (including St. Nick in some accounts). Similarly, the "Church historian" Eusebius of Caesarea who was his main chronicler and one of his main panegyrists was a sympathizer of Arius who tried to reconcile the two parties - he was one of the people who proposed homoiousion as a compromise. That's why the Orthodox never made Eusebius a saint despite relying heavily on his "History of the Church" interpretation. Constantine in the end was baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia and this technically made him an Arian. After his father's passing, Constantius II went all the way and basically reversed Nicaea, exiling many of the anti-Arius bishops who survived and effectively making Arianism the official form of imperial Christianity. Julian's reign was actually the start of the Nicene Christians' return to power, not the Arians', as Julian deliberately equalized the two branches again to make them fight each other.

another slam dunk. hate i missed the live but absolutely amazing channel. been around years now. Don't sleep on the oldest lectures either, the ones with the live audience I always have really appreciated

About the Arian baptistry: Arians don't use halos for their imagery of Jesus and the holy people. That's the most common and distinguishing feature.

I really enjoy the indepth analysis of these vids. Well thought out and presented in an open minded way

Found you again! I used to really enjoy his lectures and then one day, I realised they didn't show up inb my feed anymore and no matter how I tried, I couldn't find a name for him, or his church and I completely forgot and found that it can be surprisingly difficult to look for someone if all you can search is 'some minister guy from a rather groovy, possibly Canadian church that does quite scientific lectures about religion.' Somehow, that doesn't bring him up.

Long ago when I was a Christian, I studied intently the early church, the scriptures, councils, and more. My own developed view on the Trinity was that the Living God's Word (Logos) was the spoken Words of the Father as such eternal being the very language used to create reality, Birthed when the Father first spoke. The Spirit was the Father's breath, in this way they are God as God is the essence of Living, and as such all that comes from his actions in the body live and move and have to be, since the Father is eternal so too are the Father's words and breath and in this way the trinity made sense to me. Father essence, Son Word, Spirit Breath. As such it is one God but that which emanates from the Father. Birthed in the sense of words spoken. Since the Father is unchanging and eternal so too are his words and breath.

Incredible video. And the lecturer is excellent.

Jesus: “The father is greater than I.” Jesus: “To sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give.” Jesus: “Pray to the father [not to me].”

Mr. Hamar's lectures are extremely informative and comprehensive.

Wow thank you this explains so much to me I will forever be grateful to you for your knowledge.And sharing this knowledge.God Bless You.

Very informative review which will help my research. John Milton (at least as I recall from college) incorporated some Arian features into his masterwork 'Paradise Lost'.

Wow! This is tremendous eye opening information. Thank you very much. I couldn't have heard that there was ever a Christianity before Constantine Christianity. Amazing! This is great work, Sir. I appreciate you to the max.

Oh man, I can't stop laughing at Santa punching Arius in the face. This lecture is awesome. 🤣🤣🤣

In regards to the holy spirit, some of the early Christian groups identified the holy spirit as female and could be interpreted as the mother aspect of the monad.

Always the best lectures of RU-vid. Simply blown away.

Hi, thank you for your wonderful videos ! Even if these topics are not new, you manage to explain everything very well, and personnaly I've learned a few things, especially what you have explained about the eucharist. In my opinion, the main problem in the christian trinity is the concept of "the Son", opposed to "the Father", as this implies an idea of generation.... The concept of logos is much more clear, as we can understand that the mind of God, or his intelligence, or his speech can manifest in his consciousness, so it is begotten, but not different in substance from the spirit that God is. It is like the supreme Spirit and his activity. When you said that the Son is always created, this makes perfect sense here. So we got this description of the trinity : - the principle, who is self-conscious - the logos / intelligence / speech - the holy breath, which is the divine power of action, and the source of life Now, the concept of "the Son" seems to come from another system, as when we talk about the father and the son, it implies that there should be the mother as well... In this case, we have this descritpion of the trinity : - the father : the principle, who is self-conscious, - the mother : the logos / intelligence / speech, the power of manifestation - the son, who is an union of the two : the spirit of the father starts to be fascinated by a concept created by his creative mind (the mother), then he unites himself with it, so that this concept becomes self-conscious and can experience itself. As a consequence, his divine freedom becomes a bit limited, but he can "expand himself" into a self-conscious creation, so to speak. I think that this second understanding of the trinity is the one of the gnostics ? In this view, we can uderstand why the son is the same as the father, it is the same consciousness and the same person, but limited to a certain form created by the mother. Besides, I don't understand why you discard all the miracles which are narrated in the gospels. Of course, we cannot be sure of that which really happened two thousands years ago, but, many christian saints "performed" some miracles, so I don't know why Jesus himslef would not have been able to produce some of them as well ?

This was helpful to me in understanding how modern Christians came to accept this really crazy sounding idea of a 3 in 1 god.

Thank you for these very important discussions on Christology. I really enjoy these lectures especially the ones relating to Gnostic Theology regarding Sophia, The Demiurge (Yaldabaoth) and the world being a cosmic mistake yet still only an illusion. I see the Christ as the Eternal Creation not born (begotten) in time but in Eternity and The Father the I AM, the First Cause, the Prime Mover, The Source of all Creation and The One True Un-begotten. I believe nothing exists outside of this Holy Relationship and The Holy One refers to the binding of Father and Son whom are not one but also not two. Forever Creating Infinitely together in Eternity. Many blessings to you and all who read this 🙏 ❤

Excellent lecture. Well-organized, informative, and tantalizing historical analysis.

Arianism makes sense to me. Trinity not.

see we are the son of God. Great lecture. all time great

Excellent lecture !! Thank you !! from San Luis, Argentina.

Swastike is the symbol of the sun. It exists in Thibetian temple , in Acropolis Athens temple, also on hand tattoos of hindoeuropean people around West Balkans.

When I was twelve, while attending a question answer session at my cousins' Southern Baptist Church, a parishioner asked the pastor a question that I still remember. He had been reading the

I've watched some of your lectures. I come from the Roman Catholic belief and very much appreciate your detailed, thorough, thoughtful insight and explanations into the history and background of Christianity and Judeo-Christian religions.

Thank you for these lectures. I always learn and enjoy.

John, as someone who grew up in the JWs and has studied theology since, I can confirm that your categorization of their theology as Neo-Arianism is factually correct. They hold Jesus to be a created being, specifically identified with Michael the Archangel, who was made incarnate and imbued with God’s power and authority through the Holy Spirit, which is itself held to be the noncorporeal vital force that emanates from the Father “Jehovah”, but is not considered a distinct person as such.

Thank you. I look forward to the braided ponytail

I’ve watched so many of these lectures and they are really good. I was wondering if you could provide more detail as to your certainty that Mark (traditionally a child during Jesus’ life) was not written by a “witness.” My understanding is that after his time with Paul, he accompanied Peter and wrote down a combination of what he witnessed and what Peter witnessed. I don’t see the temple destruction argument overcoming the possibility that Mark wrote “his” gospel. (ESP if he was a child)

Regarding what you said about the eucharist, about transubstantiation, could it be said that since it is the purpose that changes, that what is happening (or taken as happening) is a symbolism? All the presentation was great. This part was illuminating as was the centre of a exchange I had with a person on a religious group some years ago.

Thank you for clarifying the doctrine of Transubstantiation. I'm Catholic, and understand that Jesus is really and truly present in the Eucharist, I know it in my heart, but I could only say, "I don't know how it's true, it just is." You've explained the concept more clearly than I've ever heard. I'm going to suggest to my parish priest that this explanation should be taught in religious instruction for Catholics and those who are seeking to know what the Church teaches.

Very interesting lecture I enjoyed it.

Im rather sceptical as to what extent the common Roman pesant was committed to the Trinity. I know historians say that the Goths subjects were Trinitarians, but is this a justified belief about the common people, or an assumption that they agreed with the church hierarchy?

This is why Catholic Trinitarianism is such a mess. Why can't Jesus have been the begotten Son of God. The two persons of the trinity could have been in heaven together prior to Jesus' birth. What's wrong with that? The Father didn't become the Father until He conceived in that woman His Son. What is so hard about that? Jesus prayed that He would rejoin the Father in heaven when He prayed: "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." (Jn. 17:5) So, Jesus was with God in the beginning and shared His glory. In fact, "before the world was", He was with God. Catholicism doesn't think through its doctrines very well at all.

Really enlightening. Thank you.

Thanks John. Another awesome and educational video!

On the contradiction about God creating the universe at a point in time: Aristotle argued that the cosmos must be eternal for this very reason - his Prime Mover creates eternally, not at a specific point

Do you think the use of “Son of God” by Joseph Smith instead of “God” in John in the Inspired Version has Arian implications? This was written well before the Nauvoo theology.

amazing video.. greetings from Egypt

Professor John Hamer you just gave one of the best lectures , I have experienced re Tritariasm and the nature of the divine. Thank you Now having said this I believe the epherial fluidity of triantarism is an excellent methodology to attempt to absorb the mystery of the infinite divine from the perspective of a finite coporeal material world. I especially enjoyed your salient points regarding the somewhat diminished distinction, most particularly, the unnecessary rivalry between polytheism versus monotheism. In actuality, your clarification of what some ancient people believed re the idols, that is , the idol was not the divine God, but rather an conduit or portal, or Stargate , wherein, the divine would transfer supernatural energy via the idol to the material world. Thus, when one ponders upon this the ancient monotheistic culture such as the post polytheistic Israelites also utilized their temple structures in similar fashion. That is, like the philistine idol the temple was a gateway, a conduit , a portal for the incorporeal divine to manifest power through the material edifice of the Israelite sacred temple. In some cases, the polytheist demanded sacrifice; so did the ancient Leveriate deity . However, a moral distinction was annunciated quite early, in that the Caanite God Molech demanded child and virgin human sacrifice. While the ancient Leveriate manifestations of Diety developed to require animal sacrifice. The holy man, Joseph Smith, as a restorationist also required his people to erect holy edifices as sacred temples. And as you often state in your lectures, the nature and purpose of these Latter Day Temples would change. A truism, nonetheless, the foundational fundamental purpose of the Latter Day Temples remained constant, in that, as the ancients the temple functioned as a conduit, a portal, a Stargate wherein the varied manifestations of the divine connected to the material world. ( Is the many manifestations of divinity and exalted celestial beings at the dedication of the Kirkland temple) Your point regarding the concept of the prophet Joseph, in relationship, to the nature and development of his progressing and transformative nature of divinity was well articulated. ( As highlighted and manifested via the very Pauline view of divinity oft cited in the Book of Mormon and thus the articulation and development of notions of the epherial and also corporeal nature of Diety in D&C 132 and other sections of the Doctrine and Covenants. Given legitimate inquiry into the historicity of the scriptures and the potent argument that the metaphysical energy and transformative healing process actually centers in gospel concepts such as love, mercy, forgiveness, grace and compassion. The prophet Joseph should be viewed favorably as a holy one that also uplifted and contributed to the metaphysical advancment and progress of humanity. As I have alluded too on earlier occasions. The account of Lehi's vision or dream of the tree of life deserves to take it's place among similar manifestations in Daniel, Ezekiel and revelations. Joseph Smith's work, therein, is a gifted masterpiece. In addition, as another illustration, the divine notions , he outlined , in DC 132 are amazingly stunningly pronunciation of his view of the divine nature of God, community , marital bonds, and the ancient Leveriate laws of procreation , marital union and celestial musings. Thus , this too earns him a place among the great contributors to celestial theology. As so often the case, it is not the quiet conformist that rises to greatness, but the thinker, the philosophers, the idealist, the innovator which rises from humble beginnings to a unique voice among the conventional and ordinary conformist. As in the case, of Christ, Socrates, Julius Caesar, Gandhi, Smith these men are martyred for their innovations . For example, Julius Caesar immersion in equitable land reform, diversity in granting Roman citizenship, providing more representation to the plebian class and conversely limiting the power of the patrician class guaranteed Cesaor a death sentence ( just as it did the Gracchi brothers) So it was with the Rabbi Christ and the scholar and professor Socrates. The prophet Joseph suffered the same fate for teaching a non Victorian view of marriage, an innovative , non Orthodox viewpoint of the divine. The rationale , trial and murder of these individuals of distinction always purport legitimate rationale for heinous crime, polygamy, corrupting the youth, granting citizenship to barbarians, land reform which steals from the patrician class and feeds the sloth of the plebian class, so forth and so on. Any and every rationale is supplied to justify murder , except for the trusm. That is, the extraordinary contribution each has made to the extension of human understanding, insight and development of thought. And yet, their discipleship often continues to grow long after the assassins knife extinguished the corporeal body because the divine spark is eternal and lives on in some methodology, concept and manner. This is true, whether , it is building a new Zion or building a new constitution including land reform.

I would love to understand how the Holy Spirit got thrown into the trinity. Can easily see how the biblical cannon contradicts itself on whether Jesus is God (capital G) or not but can’t figure out what scriptures would lead any ancient Christian to conclude it was also a third person of God

Great lecture. However, as a muslim (just to be upfront), i do think u misrepresent the sunni view of the uncreatedness of the Qur'an. It is viewed as the literal speech of Allah. That is, it is an attribute that is of Him, like His sight. That is not analogous to the christian view of Jesus in relation to the father. Allah has Sight to see and Speech to speak. But God doesn't need Jesus to be God, but he does need a son to be a father. So i think the difference in views really comes down to the christian view that one of God's attributes is "The Father" which muslims reject. This attribute necessitates a "Son" or "Daughter" and the subsequent theorizing on the relationship between the two and the further extension of "sonship" being anothe attribute of God. I would also note that shia muslims do believe in a created Quran. Ur description implies that sunni muslims engage in similar activity but just don't acknowledge it. I think that's overstating the situation. I would be interested to know why trinitarism prevailed?

Why were some Gospels hidden, lost , rejected? I have blamed Constantine and the bishops but get the impression it's more complicated than that. For some reason they were rejected and perhaps for that reason some were hidden to be discovered later. Thoughts? A whole lecture?

It might be interesting to do a lecture on monism in Polytheist traditions. Even in Greek tradition, the Stoics held the First Principle as nature, identified it directly as Zeus, and then the other Gods are created by Zeus as that divine fire separates out into different elements and divine principles. Meanwhile, Proclus's Neo-Platonism denies that The One is a particular god, but is instead the Principle of Godliness which all of the Gods/Henads/Ones participate, in the same way that Humanity is not a human, but is the principle which all humans participate.

Thank you for an amazing lecture. Regarding monotheism, I do not think any religion is truly monotheistic. I think Jews, Christians, and Muslims simply redefine what a god is and relabel lessor gods as angels, demons, Satan, and saints. I think a better way to label Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as different variations of henotheism.

As a Catholic I’m so Impressed and yet so confused how with all you understand you’re where you’re at. I really trust however that God is using you to help bring people back to the Universal Church

Thank you for intellectual honesty...Though you identify with Traditional Trinitarianism to understand Godhead,you did not lose your integrity in delivering the historical context of d/t views...Am oneness pentecostal & always open to better understand Godhead......1) One question for everyone,tho...(If jesus is the biological son of Mary,how did her 23x become 46xy of the son Jesus & how do you interpret this in the light of the verse saying " The word became flesh"??....)

Is not the father a metaphor for earlier reflections on life which projected one’s current situation?

The relation >is< in the diagram at 31:35 is not used like >is identical to< in 'normal language For example, >The Son is (identical to) God< is meant to be a true statement in this context, whereas the inversion >God is (identical to) The Son< is an unwanted statement, as it would reduce God to the Son only, etc. Other than in normal language, the attribution of identity works here only in one direction. If it would work symmetrically, >Son = God = Father = God = Holy Ghost< would follow - without the use of transitivity. What seems to be an even more severe problem is, that the diagram only works if in addition to Father, Son and Holy Ghost, a fourth logical variable is introduced: God. Unfortunately, according to the diagram, God is even more than one of the three individual components, which can be understood as a degradation of the Father to the level of the Son / Holy Ghost. Somehow, the guys in Nicea were not able to find a way out of the dilemma.

I had to finish watching , again your an excellent teacher , but it still remains that the image of God , is the truth. the son comes out of Father / Mother , they nurture the Born son to the The spirit of God , the spirit of wisdom, understanding knowledge, power , council, and the fear of the Lord. Teaching , guiding raising up the sons, which always come from and after the father and mother. Such an important part of reality said not to be relevant to God , that he would come and die for Mankind , to restore that Image , wow amazing.

I always imagined the first set of tablets Moses brought down had some of what we are talking about here - the mysteries of the cosmological and ontological nature of his being. But, the people obviously weren't ready for it ( worshiping golden calf and so on..). So he (Moses) broke them, went back and had to carve out the Ten Commands. Sort of a way of saying " just follow these rules." It's an very interesting event/story if you think about it... Christ added two more - love God and your neighbor - saying these are the main ones which all other commandments hang upon. It makes sense to me. Humans are still a long way off (collectively) to have God reveal these mysteries, albeit some receive insights

Wow. Your definition of the holy Spirit sounds a lot like what The New age spiritual movement describes as the oversole

This was thorough

Jesus was at least an enlightened being, however I think he gained that enlightenment through travels and gaining wisdoms from multiple ideologies, and combining them with his own roots. Last we see of him before he's 30 in the Bible is when he's 12, debating with philosophers. He was certainly thirsty for knowledge, and there are 18 unaccounted for years of Yeshua's life. I believe he gained enlightenment and tried to spread that enlightenment to his own people.

I have always wanted to go to Iznik (Nicaea), not just for the Christian history, but for the Islamic. Maybe I could find those kiln sites where that high quality Iznik ware, beautiful white porcelain vases with red, blue and green, sometimes peacocks, sometimes flowers. You can find them in the museums of Istanbul, or in any good US museum. Groovy stuff.

“ If you say something against our beliefs we will slap you ! “ - the religion of love.

How do get from the Aramaic vernacular to Greek literature is my question ?

There is no Byzantine Empire: the empire that has Constantinople as its capital city is the Roman Empire itself. Constantine the Great named the new capital city “New Roma” not Byzantium. Citizens called themselves Romans not Byzantines. Hieronymus Wolf invented the term “Byzantine Empire” in 1551 to claim that “Holy Roman Empire” was the real the continuation of the Roman Empire and Holy Roman Emperor should be the Emperor of the Romans and not Mehmet the Conqueror who declared himself Kayser-i Rûm ("Caesar of Rome") after capturing Constantinople. “Byzantine Empire” term was invented because of the Ottoman-Habsburg rivalry and it had no historical basis.

What about the burning bush? The Father communicated with Moses or the Word or both?

I did go to Ravenna and slept out there on the ground, but shot a lot of photos of those mosaics the next day. I will have to check if I got the one on your screen. I think it really groovy that you cover such things and see nothing abnormal about people who believe in such things, so don't feel bad.

Thank you John !

Saint Nicolas was trying to teach Arius how to properly give the other cheek.

I think, once the fact that God is not tied down to time and space is considered, then a lot of the arguments dissolve. You mentioned it only very briefly.

If Arianism would’ve won out, we’d have paintings of Arius slapping St Nicholas

John was not an eyewitness? The Gospel dedicated to explaining the place of Christ in the Cosmos was a report by CNN?

Strange that Constantine, though he favoured Athanasius at Nicea, asked for a friend of Arius, Eusebius to baptize him on his deathbed! Also, easliy forgotten in that Arius was reinstated by Constantine as well as accepted as right by a considerable portion of the church, especially in the east of the kingdom.

15:00 How is Jesus dispassionate in John? "Jesus wept" is from John. I've heard he's very emotionally removed in Luke.

One way I explain Catholicism in part to others who ask, is that the Catholic concept of God indeed defies "Greek logic" (32:00) because logic does not bind God, but instead is God's gift to us so we can make sense of God's creation. All-powerful God can be as illogical as God wants. The heresy of Arius was not in the idea, it's hardly a bad idea, but in his persistence in placing logic before God after being shown otherwise. Heresy requires persistence in error, not merely error or speculation. Heresy really can be a flavor of the sin of pride.

Wonderful scholarship

Great job explaining how Arianism is named after a person, while the Aryans were a group of people from an earlier time than Arius. There's the state in the US called Georgia and a country called Georgia. They are not related, even if spelled the same.

You way overstated the case and theory about the difference between the historical Jesus and the scriptural Jesus. You have obviously never experienced the power of the Gospel in truth and spirit because if you had you wouldn't speak or think that way but would have a different understanding. The Gospels and the NT are not philosophical at all but based in power and historical demonstration of the Spirit's work. . It seems you have simply fully accepted a literary and evolutionary interpretative method and narrative and present it as factual rather than your lens and private non experience. A great deal of the historical tidbits were very good. May Jesus Christ bless you with his manifest presence in your heart according to His good will and word.Thank you

The only way for Christianity to regain it's appeal and believability for the human masses is to return to the teaching of the Church Fathers of the 4th century like Origen and Arius. Modern spiritual teaching by God's Divine Spirits supports the beliefs and theology of their time before worldly men lead by Justinian expunged the concept of learning spiritual matters from spiritual beings as promised by Jesus.

Thanks!

[edit i missed my whole point] Arian and Aryan and iran are tomato tomato. words didnt have Ys in them. Thus I Am that I Am was Iehovah. if you simply fix the consonant I to the sound Ya; We see Yahovah. Like i Vant to suck yo Bloot; Ws werent quite proto-English either; rather Vs. So its just old english spellings. So If we adjust that; Yahweh is an obvious modern transliteration; but Iahovah Is extremely close. Yehowah. not to mention the transliterated Es sound like our A's in semitic languages. so El sounds really like AL. Thats why Eloi and Aloi or Allah are not actually different. its the actual dating and timing and accuracy of the transliterations. Baal means the Mighty god. Almighty too. That also shows this was already present because El Shaddai is really AL-Shaddai. So we mixed up the E's from the A's but most transliterations werent fixed. aside from turning consonant i's into Js. English and spanish unlike German; Kept the Ya pronunciations for the consonant i. Thats why jesus is iesus. Or Jehovah is Iehovah. In trying to keep with tradition this is actually confused a lot of people into thinking that a transliteration error is a mistranslation Which is far from the case. If he ever evolving nature of languages. Just like proto-canaanite and Aramaic as well as ancient Hebrew are all in the exact same language family as Arabic, and are far closer related than even English and French

between orthodox Christian faith and Arianism there is, to be sure, only an "iota" (the Greek letter "i") of difference (homoousios versus homoiousios)...but then, as Jesus implied in Matthew 5:18, itty-bitty iotas can sometimes carry a lot of weight when it comes to religious formulations

I wondered what your thoughts are on the Filioque. The upside down triangle is how Roman Catholic views the Trinity but the Eastern Orthodox has a triangle with the pointed upwards. With the same explanation of is and is it god. But it represents god emanates Jesus and then god and Jesus emanates the Holy Ghost. Thanks for these sessions. I’m enjoying them a lot.

How absurd to think that the Bible is something less than God's word, and that the Protestants are wrong to believe that. Jesus said in the Book of John that he had come to make his father's name known. He came to make his father's characteristics known. The record of that event is recorded in the Bible. To imply that Protestants are wrong to believe that is absurd.

1:55:00 The question is probably referring to Arianism getting a second chance after Nicaea because the Germans were Arians.

Topic starts at 7:05. BTW, the Y in Aryan is a purely English thing.

As regards your question @ 22:32, I would say that our own broken and sinful nature is the only reason that question seems to have any merit. The Jesus I know did not think it robbery to equate oneself with God.

As Richard Dawkins once said to Cardinal Pell, however you're using the word "purpose" (substance) it's not the way normal people use it, speaking the English language. As such, it's meaninglkess.

I’d debate the idea that Arianism could have won out at Constantine’s council. The “State Religionists”, the guy’s looking for an imperial construction, a justification, need to control all of time. The ultimate empire, a doctrine that preserves the Empire requires a State Religion that can not have a time before Christ, the entire trinity requires an unchanging doctrine. There can be no theological justification for change when the ideal is an unending empire. It is the control of time that is a very interesting issue, it could be argued that all religion and is about the control of time. The holidays of the Roman calendar can be argued, are the Roman Empire, controlling how people spend their time is perhaps the very definition of control itself.

Did Athanasius I of Alexandria create another Creede that expands the roll of the holy spirit?

Referring to the Trinity as referring to the states of water, it might all be H2O, but in the different states it’s meaning is significant in of itself so I say, just like a substance that changed its molecular shape would be two distinct substances. I never knew that. I really believed that the father of the son and the Holy Ghost were three distinctive things, because I was never allowed to believe that until I heard of the great schism.

Whataboutism comparing the Christian trinity to conceptions of quantum mechanics?

The Jews who were expecting the appearance of a savior, needed imagery to become "relatable", if not physically, than at least metaphysically. They needed an ally with magical abilities.