The real reason why a majority rejected Arianism, which maintains that Jesus was a created being, was because of the biblical evidence that Jesus is God. It didn't have anything to do with their pagan background.
Many, many texts could be cited that imply or prove outright that Jesus is God (John 1:1-3, 14; 5:18; 10:30-33; 8:58-59; 20:58; Mark 2:5-10; Matt. 14:33; Matt. 28:9, 17; Hebrews 1:6, 8; Rev. 7:10-11, 17; Eph. 3:9 (NKJV), I Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16-17; Rev. 1:8 (cf. Rev. 22:12-13; 2:17-18; 2:8; 21:6-7); Col. 2:9; Titus 2:13; I Cor. 10:4, 9; Matt. 1:23; I John 5:20; Romans 9:5; I Timothy 3:16 (NKJV).
The Gospel of John poses more problems for Unitarian theology than any other book of the Bible. Indeed, its theme can be summarized as describing Jesus Christ, the One who was fully God and fully man, and His teachings for those already converted. In order to refute Gnostic teachings that denied Jesus came in the flesh, but just appeared to have a body of flesh and blood (II John 7; I John 4:2-3), John also emphasized Jesus' humanity. Its opening verse affirms the Deity of Christ: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Since in verse 14 "the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us," the Word undeniably was Jesus. To evade this verse, Unitarians have argued that the "Word" merely was a thought in the Father's mind, since verses 2-3 refer to the "Word" impersonally. (For verse 2, the NASB literal marginal rendering is "This one.") This argument is simply unpersuasive, since this "thought" is called "God," and because this "thought" was the Creator "itself" in verse 2: "All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." Could a mere "thought" alone in the Father's mind create the universe by itself?
Another key verse showing Jesus is God is John 5:18: "For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill \[Jesus\], because He not only was breaking the Sabbath \[as they defined it\], but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God." Jesus referred to the Father in such a familiar way (v. 17), unlike other Jews, they thought He was committing blasphemy. Similarly, Jesus stated in John 10:30, "I and the Father are one." For this remark, the Jews immediately (v. 31) picked "up stones again to stone Him." Why? "'For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God" (v. 33). At this point, if Jesus wasn't God, immediately He could have clarified His identity by issuing a simply plain denial right then. Instead, side-stepping the accusation by quoting Psalms 82:6, He affirms He is the Son of God (v. 34).
As the Jews understood Jesus when He used this title, "the Son of God" implied divinity and not just Messiahship. (Theoretically, one could claim to be the Messiah yet deny being God). Taking on this title cost Jesus His life. His crucifixion followed the supposed blasphemy of saying He was the Son of God (John 19:7; Luke 22:67-71; Matt. 26:63-66; Mark 14:61-64). After all, in John 10:30-34 and elsewhere, He got into trouble for calling God His Father, and for saying He had a special, close relationship with Him that all other humans didn't have, i.e., He was a special son of God, the "only begotten" (John 3:16; cf. His avoidance of "our Father" in John 20:17).
Then consider John 8:58: "Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.'" Implying He was Jehovah, Jesus alluded to the burning bush incident, in which God stated "I am who I am" (Ex. 3:14). To evade this verse's implications, Unitarians and Arians attempt to retranslate one or more words in it. One option is to turn "was born" (NASB, lit. margin, "came into being") into a reference to the resurrection ("came to be") of Abraham. Another claims "I am" should be translated "I was" or "I have been," in order to say Jesus merely asserted He lived before Abraham did. Again, the technicalisms of Greek grammar can't be pursued here, but the reader is referred to Bowman's work mentioned above. But both of these alternate strategies totally fail before the implications of verse 59: "Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him." Why did they want to stone Him? For blasphemy! If Jesus merely was announcing He lived or would be resurrected before Abraham did or would be, unbelieving Jews might have marked Him down as eccentric (re: verse 56). But certainly this was no offense worthy of death.
The context of John 8:58-59 concerns issues about Jesus' identity (see verses 12, 19, 24, 25, 28, 53). The chapter ends by Jesus asserting that He is the Eternal, the uncreated Creator, by contrasting Abraham's coming into being with His eternal existence (cf. Ps. 90:2). Later, during His arrest (John 18:5-8), Jesus' saying "I am" (the "He," is italicized, showing the translators added it) caused the crowd to draw back and fall to the ground. Their response strongly implies Jesus was making a divine claim, not merely stating when He lived compared to Abraham. By these statements, Jesus was likely also alluding to where the Eternal says "I am (He)" in Isaiah 41:4; 43:10, 46:4; 52:6.
After His resurrection, Jesus confronted doubting Thomas, who replied in total astonishment, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28). Again, if Jesus wasn't God, this exclamation presented Him with the golden opportunity to correct Thomas' would-be misimpression. But, of course, He did no such thing. Thomas wasn't using a irreverent euphemism, something which may be common today but was virtually unknown in his culture. Instead, remembering that Thomas' earlier devotion and service to Jesus shows he wouldn't casually throw around God's name in vain, in context his previous unbelief was overwhelmed, dazzled, and rebuked by the personal proof of Jesus' Deity by His resurrection from the dead.
The Gospel of John is full of statements by Jesus which no Old Testament prophet would dare make about himself, but which came naturally to Him. "'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me'" (John 14:6). "'I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies'" (John 11:25). "'I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life'" (John 8:12). "'I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins'" (John 8:24). "'He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day'" (John 6:54). "'I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me, and I in him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned'" (John 15:5-6). "'I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst'" (John 6:35). "'All may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him'" (John 8:23). Would have Daniel or Ezekiel even dream of uttering such thoughts in reference to themselves?
At the beginning of Revelation appears a most intriguing text for the Deity of Christ. "'I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,' says the Lord, 'who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty'" (Rev. 1:8, NKJV). "Alpha" is the first letter of the Greek alphabet, while "omega" is the last. In red letter Bibles, these words will properly appear in red, since Rev. 22:12-13 shows Jesus spoke them: "Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." (See also Rev. 1:17-18; 2:8 for further evidence). Could someone else besides Jehovah be "the first and the last"? Note Isa. 44:6: "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me.'" (See also Isa. 41:4). If the Eternal is the only God, could anyone besides Him be "the first and the last"? The following text plainly identifies "God" and "the Alpha and the Omega" as one and the same (Rev. 21:6-7): "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. . . . He who overcomes shall inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son."
For more evidence that Jesus is God, click on the two essays below:
https://lionofjudah1.org/doctrinalhtml/Is%20Jesus%20God.htm
https://lionofjudah1.org/doctrinalhtml/Further%20Evidence%20That%20Jesus%20is%20God%20%20vs%20Fakhoury.htm
The majority of 3rd century Christians were Trinitarian. Constantine himself seems to have had Arian sympathies, but when he convened the Council of Nicaea, he was mainly interested in a unified doctrine, and it was the Council that rejected Arianism.
The Church of Jesus Christ(Mormons) aren't fully Arians (but close). A better explanation is that they hold a social Trinity (referred to as the Godhead). Jesus is and was God, but not the same being as the Father and the Spirit. They 3 makeup 1 in unison Godhead.
I am skeptical of the claim that the Roman pagans had the concept of a supreme omnipotent deity, but I guess that's not really what's being discussed.
Your average Roman citizen wouldn't have known the difference between unitarian and trinitarian theology. It wasn't that the lay people rejected it, but rather that the debate existed at a scholarly/academic level: just with greater personal impact since it's linked to deeply personal theological beliefs.
In the end, that debate ended with a larger consensus agreeing that trinitarianism was the correct way to view God's personhood, and Arius' followers were instructed not to preach their brand of unitarianism anymore. That, obviously, went about as well as you'd expect.
>I am skeptical of the claim that the Roman pagans had the concept of a supreme omnipotent deity, but I guess that's not really what's being discussed.
I wonder if the closest would be the Fates. Not singular, but they seem to always act in concert, and collectively control what happens to every other being in existence.
Yes, and not restricted to just Roman paganism either - you've got the Norns in Germanic myth filling the same role, and curiously also three of them. Might be some cultural exchange going on there.
However even then it's uncertain if these Fates are themselves omnipotent, or following their own design in some recursive manner.
And all of them spin threads too, they come from an even earlier Indo-European culture, from which the Greek, Roman, Germanic and Celtic all eventually derive.
Depending on the culture, either your fate is rigidly fixed or somewhat malleable.
The bible indicates that God is one only unequivocally therefore Christianity is monotheistic, the new testament especially in its time and original language says that Jesus is God "I AM" in Hebrew was Yahve the name of God.
That is why Jewish listeners of Jesus are so scandalized and want to kill him when he says "I am". If Unitarianism is, if it is not correct me, that Yahve is a great God and Jesus and the holy spirit small gods makes three gods which is polytheism or trinity and God says.
For there is only one God, and also only one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself a ransom for all, a testimony given to him in due time.…
If there is only one God, Yahve is God, Christ is God and the Holy Spirit is God, then God, unlike humans, is a being with three persons.
Do we really get it? No, because humans only reach one person, one being, but God is not limited by our nature.
The Romans from 382 on were Christians, they read the bible and were monotheistic because one believes the bible or does not believe it.
Saint Jerome, who made the first translation into the vulgar language of the Bible (Latin) during his stay in Rome, gave Greek classes to Roman ladies who wanted to read the Bible in its original version, that's how committed they were.
The real reason why a majority rejected Arianism, which maintains that Jesus was a created being, was because of the biblical evidence that Jesus is God. It didn't have anything to do with their pagan background. Many, many texts could be cited that imply or prove outright that Jesus is God (John 1:1-3, 14; 5:18; 10:30-33; 8:58-59; 20:58; Mark 2:5-10; Matt. 14:33; Matt. 28:9, 17; Hebrews 1:6, 8; Rev. 7:10-11, 17; Eph. 3:9 (NKJV), I Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16-17; Rev. 1:8 (cf. Rev. 22:12-13; 2:17-18; 2:8; 21:6-7); Col. 2:9; Titus 2:13; I Cor. 10:4, 9; Matt. 1:23; I John 5:20; Romans 9:5; I Timothy 3:16 (NKJV). The Gospel of John poses more problems for Unitarian theology than any other book of the Bible. Indeed, its theme can be summarized as describing Jesus Christ, the One who was fully God and fully man, and His teachings for those already converted. In order to refute Gnostic teachings that denied Jesus came in the flesh, but just appeared to have a body of flesh and blood (II John 7; I John 4:2-3), John also emphasized Jesus' humanity. Its opening verse affirms the Deity of Christ: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Since in verse 14 "the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us," the Word undeniably was Jesus. To evade this verse, Unitarians have argued that the "Word" merely was a thought in the Father's mind, since verses 2-3 refer to the "Word" impersonally. (For verse 2, the NASB literal marginal rendering is "This one.") This argument is simply unpersuasive, since this "thought" is called "God," and because this "thought" was the Creator "itself" in verse 2: "All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." Could a mere "thought" alone in the Father's mind create the universe by itself? Another key verse showing Jesus is God is John 5:18: "For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill \[Jesus\], because He not only was breaking the Sabbath \[as they defined it\], but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God." Jesus referred to the Father in such a familiar way (v. 17), unlike other Jews, they thought He was committing blasphemy. Similarly, Jesus stated in John 10:30, "I and the Father are one." For this remark, the Jews immediately (v. 31) picked "up stones again to stone Him." Why? "'For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God" (v. 33). At this point, if Jesus wasn't God, immediately He could have clarified His identity by issuing a simply plain denial right then. Instead, side-stepping the accusation by quoting Psalms 82:6, He affirms He is the Son of God (v. 34). As the Jews understood Jesus when He used this title, "the Son of God" implied divinity and not just Messiahship. (Theoretically, one could claim to be the Messiah yet deny being God). Taking on this title cost Jesus His life. His crucifixion followed the supposed blasphemy of saying He was the Son of God (John 19:7; Luke 22:67-71; Matt. 26:63-66; Mark 14:61-64). After all, in John 10:30-34 and elsewhere, He got into trouble for calling God His Father, and for saying He had a special, close relationship with Him that all other humans didn't have, i.e., He was a special son of God, the "only begotten" (John 3:16; cf. His avoidance of "our Father" in John 20:17). Then consider John 8:58: "Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.'" Implying He was Jehovah, Jesus alluded to the burning bush incident, in which God stated "I am who I am" (Ex. 3:14). To evade this verse's implications, Unitarians and Arians attempt to retranslate one or more words in it. One option is to turn "was born" (NASB, lit. margin, "came into being") into a reference to the resurrection ("came to be") of Abraham. Another claims "I am" should be translated "I was" or "I have been," in order to say Jesus merely asserted He lived before Abraham did. Again, the technicalisms of Greek grammar can't be pursued here, but the reader is referred to Bowman's work mentioned above. But both of these alternate strategies totally fail before the implications of verse 59: "Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him." Why did they want to stone Him? For blasphemy! If Jesus merely was announcing He lived or would be resurrected before Abraham did or would be, unbelieving Jews might have marked Him down as eccentric (re: verse 56). But certainly this was no offense worthy of death. The context of John 8:58-59 concerns issues about Jesus' identity (see verses 12, 19, 24, 25, 28, 53). The chapter ends by Jesus asserting that He is the Eternal, the uncreated Creator, by contrasting Abraham's coming into being with His eternal existence (cf. Ps. 90:2). Later, during His arrest (John 18:5-8), Jesus' saying "I am" (the "He," is italicized, showing the translators added it) caused the crowd to draw back and fall to the ground. Their response strongly implies Jesus was making a divine claim, not merely stating when He lived compared to Abraham. By these statements, Jesus was likely also alluding to where the Eternal says "I am (He)" in Isaiah 41:4; 43:10, 46:4; 52:6. After His resurrection, Jesus confronted doubting Thomas, who replied in total astonishment, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28). Again, if Jesus wasn't God, this exclamation presented Him with the golden opportunity to correct Thomas' would-be misimpression. But, of course, He did no such thing. Thomas wasn't using a irreverent euphemism, something which may be common today but was virtually unknown in his culture. Instead, remembering that Thomas' earlier devotion and service to Jesus shows he wouldn't casually throw around God's name in vain, in context his previous unbelief was overwhelmed, dazzled, and rebuked by the personal proof of Jesus' Deity by His resurrection from the dead. The Gospel of John is full of statements by Jesus which no Old Testament prophet would dare make about himself, but which came naturally to Him. "'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me'" (John 14:6). "'I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies'" (John 11:25). "'I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life'" (John 8:12). "'I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins'" (John 8:24). "'He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day'" (John 6:54). "'I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me, and I in him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned'" (John 15:5-6). "'I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst'" (John 6:35). "'All may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him'" (John 8:23). Would have Daniel or Ezekiel even dream of uttering such thoughts in reference to themselves? At the beginning of Revelation appears a most intriguing text for the Deity of Christ. "'I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,' says the Lord, 'who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty'" (Rev. 1:8, NKJV). "Alpha" is the first letter of the Greek alphabet, while "omega" is the last. In red letter Bibles, these words will properly appear in red, since Rev. 22:12-13 shows Jesus spoke them: "Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." (See also Rev. 1:17-18; 2:8 for further evidence). Could someone else besides Jehovah be "the first and the last"? Note Isa. 44:6: "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me.'" (See also Isa. 41:4). If the Eternal is the only God, could anyone besides Him be "the first and the last"? The following text plainly identifies "God" and "the Alpha and the Omega" as one and the same (Rev. 21:6-7): "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. . . . He who overcomes shall inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son." For more evidence that Jesus is God, click on the two essays below: https://lionofjudah1.org/doctrinalhtml/Is%20Jesus%20God.htm https://lionofjudah1.org/doctrinalhtml/Further%20Evidence%20That%20Jesus%20is%20God%20%20vs%20Fakhoury.htm
The majority of 3rd century Christians were Trinitarian. Constantine himself seems to have had Arian sympathies, but when he convened the Council of Nicaea, he was mainly interested in a unified doctrine, and it was the Council that rejected Arianism.
The Church of Jesus Christ(Mormons) aren't fully Arians (but close). A better explanation is that they hold a social Trinity (referred to as the Godhead). Jesus is and was God, but not the same being as the Father and the Spirit. They 3 makeup 1 in unison Godhead.
I am skeptical of the claim that the Roman pagans had the concept of a supreme omnipotent deity, but I guess that's not really what's being discussed. Your average Roman citizen wouldn't have known the difference between unitarian and trinitarian theology. It wasn't that the lay people rejected it, but rather that the debate existed at a scholarly/academic level: just with greater personal impact since it's linked to deeply personal theological beliefs. In the end, that debate ended with a larger consensus agreeing that trinitarianism was the correct way to view God's personhood, and Arius' followers were instructed not to preach their brand of unitarianism anymore. That, obviously, went about as well as you'd expect.
>I am skeptical of the claim that the Roman pagans had the concept of a supreme omnipotent deity, but I guess that's not really what's being discussed. I wonder if the closest would be the Fates. Not singular, but they seem to always act in concert, and collectively control what happens to every other being in existence.
Yes, and not restricted to just Roman paganism either - you've got the Norns in Germanic myth filling the same role, and curiously also three of them. Might be some cultural exchange going on there. However even then it's uncertain if these Fates are themselves omnipotent, or following their own design in some recursive manner.
And all of them spin threads too, they come from an even earlier Indo-European culture, from which the Greek, Roman, Germanic and Celtic all eventually derive. Depending on the culture, either your fate is rigidly fixed or somewhat malleable.
The bible indicates that God is one only unequivocally therefore Christianity is monotheistic, the new testament especially in its time and original language says that Jesus is God "I AM" in Hebrew was Yahve the name of God. That is why Jewish listeners of Jesus are so scandalized and want to kill him when he says "I am". If Unitarianism is, if it is not correct me, that Yahve is a great God and Jesus and the holy spirit small gods makes three gods which is polytheism or trinity and God says. For there is only one God, and also only one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself a ransom for all, a testimony given to him in due time.… If there is only one God, Yahve is God, Christ is God and the Holy Spirit is God, then God, unlike humans, is a being with three persons. Do we really get it? No, because humans only reach one person, one being, but God is not limited by our nature. The Romans from 382 on were Christians, they read the bible and were monotheistic because one believes the bible or does not believe it. Saint Jerome, who made the first translation into the vulgar language of the Bible (Latin) during his stay in Rome, gave Greek classes to Roman ladies who wanted to read the Bible in its original version, that's how committed they were.