I am part of a Facebook Group that discusses Textual Criticism, particularly that of the New Testament. There was a little bit of a dust-up yesterday when... I had better not say King James Onlyist, but I really think he is. But just to be on the safe side, I will say he is a strong TR-only advocate. This brother has been on a 1 John 5:7 kick lately, when out of the blue, he made an accusation of "Evidence of Arian Hands on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus".

Here is where we must pause and ask, what is an Arian and why do we care?

Christian heresy that declared that Christ is not truly divine but a created being. According to the Alexandrian presbyter Arius (4th century), God alone is immutable and self-existent, and the Son is not God but a creature with a beginning.

Arius is known for the statement,

If the Father begat the Son, then he who was begotten had a beginning in existence, and from this it follows **there was a time when the Son was not**.

This statement, "there was a time when the Son was not" caused great division and contention in the early church. In order to ensure unity in the church, recent convert to the Christian faith, Emperor Constantine called an ecumenical council now known as The First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. Here, three very important things happened. First, Arianism was declared to be a heresy. Secondly, we were given an important Greek word, "ὁμοούσιος", or "homoousios". This word means "one substance". It is used from the Council of Nicaea to describe that the Father and the Son are of "one substance". Meaning, Christ is truly God. And thirdly, and my personal favorite, Nicholas, Bishop of Myra, famously or infamously lost his cool because of Arius' heretical argument, stood up, crossed the room, and slapped Arius across the face.

CONTACT INFORMATION:
DONATE: [ Ссылка ] or
[ Ссылка ] or
[ Ссылка ]
WEBSITE: [ Ссылка ]
PODCAST: [ Ссылка ]
FACEBOOK: [ Ссылка ]
TWITTER: [ Ссылка ]
EMAIL: drburris@icloud.com

свернуть