ipl-logo

Arius And Athanasius's Argument Analysis

489 Words2 Pages

The argument between Arius and Athanasius was about Jesus Christ and how he was related to God. Arius believed that God’s son was made out of nothing while Athanasius believed that God’s son was “begotten” by his Father. Arius and Athanasius disagreed on many other beliefs. Arius also believed that Jesus Christ was a lesser God while Athanasius believed that Jesus Christ was human and equal to God himself with the other Holy Trinities. During this time, Constantine held the first Council of Nicaea to settle the controversy. The Council of Nicaea was influenced by Constantine who favored Athanasius beliefs stating that, Jesus Christ was similar to God, but had differences. As a result, they formed a creed from Athanasius’s viewpoints. Also, Athanasius won the argument because, salvation was the issue of that time period and his logic was assumed to be true about the nature of Christ so it was put into the New Testament. …show more content…

Also, he was an outcast for his “unorthodox” teachings, so he was unable to go to the same Church, so he made his own for people who had similar beliefs. In addition, he was opposed to the sayings in the Old Testament, and the Church could not allow Marcion to omit the Old Testament because, he was known as the “Messiah of a Jewish God” because he did know understand Christianity.

Many people had anxiety of not knowing if they were going to heaven or not and the reasoning came from if you were blessed or not. Many people began believing that if they were wealthy and/or healthy, that means they are on good terms with God and will go to heaven. In contrast, if a person was malformed, sick and/or poor, that means they are not on good terms with God. In other words, everything is planned before a person is on the Earth and they cannot change God’s

Open Document