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-Greco-

Roman 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 Greco-
Roman 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.

webmaster@sabbatarian.com