[Hindsite]

True ^. Even Persia is a name is Greek while the native name for the land is Arya, and its people are called Aryans.
With the change from mid persian language to the new Persian language in the 12-14th century, the spelling changed gradually to Ira, and the people's name to Irans. Then in the modern age, turned further into Iran being the name of the land and Irani the name of the people.
It also happened that the Germans took the name Aryans to describe themselves, and took along with it the Swastika which is originally a spiritual symbol mainly used in Armenia and Elam then by the Hindus in India also as a spiritual symbol.

Fun fact, the Swastika is thought to be first used in ancient Elam when the first cities and clay vessels and statues and carvings were beginning to appear around 8000 BC. Which means its an atleast 10000 years old symbol.

Then what does it have to do with Christianity?
I don't get why you even brought it up.

[anasawad]

@Hindsite
You are saying its a racist white supremacist cult because its called Aryan orthodoxy. I told you no, its a Christian sect that is not related to white supremacy or racism in anyway but rather called like that because of the people mainly following it being Aryans, historically speaking. (they still do but the name stuck from anther historical era )

The first mention of it was me asking you a normal question about whether you follow that sect or not because you said that Jesus prayed to god and that means he's separate from god, atleast that how i understood it. And that seemed alot like what Aryan orthodox believe so i asked. And specifically intrigued because you don't follow their teachings and argue in many times against it, but now suddenly you believe in the same view as they do. So it looked weird.

[Hindsite]

@Hindsite
You are saying its a racist white supremacist cult because its called Aryan orthodoxy. I told you no, its a Christian sect that is not related to white supremacy or racism in anyway but rather called like that because of the people mainly following it being Aryans, historically speaking. (they still do but the name stuck from anther historical era )

The first mention of it was me asking you a normal question about whether you follow that sect or not because you said that Jesus prayed to god and that means he's separate from god, atleast that how i understood it. And that seemed alot like what Aryan orthodox believe so i asked. And specifically intrigued because you don't follow their teachings and argue in many times against it, but now suddenly you believe in the same view as they do. So it looked weird.

Okay, I think I understand your question now. My believe is that Jesus being the Son of God and also the son of man, because of a human mother, is both fully divine and fully man. In other words, Jesus has two distinct natures: divine and human. Jesus is the Word who was God and was with God and was made flesh (John 1:1, 14).

So as a man He prays to His Father as an example to His disciples as to how to pray to God. When they asked Him to teach them how to pray, He said to them,

"And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

This, then, is how you should pray:

'Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.’"
(Matthew 6:7-13)

Praise the Lord.
HalleluYah

[Potemkin]

For the name, not really, 'm not confusing the name. Its called by many Aryan orthodoxy because Its mainly followed by Aryans (i.e Iranians).

Arian Christianity has nothing whatever to do with the Aryan race (note the difference in spelling). Arian Christianity is so-called because it was founded by Bishop Arius in about 300 AD. It almost became the dominant orthodoxy in Christianity, before being decisively defeated by the emergent orthodoxy of Nicene Christianity in the late 4th century. Quite frankly, I'm amazed it's still around after all this time.

[anasawad]

@Potemkin
I know it is called by westerners Arian not Aryan. I said its called by others Aryan ortohdoxy mainly in Iran and the middle east in general because Iranians are usually the ones to have stuck to it. I said in a previous post its called either Aryan orthodoxy or Arianism. Not an error of spelling, but simply two different names of the same thing.
The name Aryan orthodoxy doesn't refer to its origin but rather to the people mainly holding it. You can call it Iranian orthodoxy, but the older name stuck so we call it that.

(Side note, it also exists in Belarus and Russia, not large numbers but significant enough. And they also call it Aryan Orthodoxy in reference to the Aryans -Iranians- whom brought it to the land once migrating back up to southern Russia and Kazakhstan)

[Drlee]

I think that some consider Jehovah's Witness to be Arians. They have some notion of rank among classes of beings so that (and I am way out on a limb about this) God and Jesus are the same 'class' of beings but God outranks Jesus. They feel the same way about men and women. I am probably way off base but this is how I once heard it explained.

[anasawad]

@Potemkin

The Modern Persian word Īrān (ایران) derives immediately from Middle Persian Ērān (Pahlavi spelling: ʼyrʼn), first attested in an inscription that accompanies the investiture relief of the first Sassanid king Ardashir I at Naqsh-e Rustam.In this inscription, the king's Middle Persian appellation is ardašīr šāhān šāh ērān while in the Parthian language inscription that accompanies the Middle Persian one the king is titled ardašīr šāhān šāh aryān (Pahlavi: ... ʼryʼn) both meaning king of kings of Iranians.[citation needed]

The gentilic ēr- and ary- in ērān and aryān derives from Old Iranian *arya- (Old Persian airya-, Avestan airiia-, etc.), meaning "Aryan", in the sense of "of the Iranians".This term is attested as an ethnic designator in Achaemenid inscriptions and in Zoroastrianism's Avesta tradition,and it seems "very likely" that in Ardashir's inscription ērān still retained this meaning, denoting the people rather than the empire.

@Drlee
Not sure about Jehovahs witnesses but Aryan orthodox believes that Jesus is mere prophet of god, however unlike other prophets before hem, god have created hem pure and without sin and thus without father as in old times the son can hold the sins of the father. With Jesus He is virgin born where god have blessed Mariam with a son to be born without sin and of the light of god to guide humanity.

For men and women, i would disagree, they're surprisingly egalitarian for a sect as old as theirs.

Note that they have adopted a good number of traditions from Zoroastrianism in their time being in Persia.

[Drlee]

For men and women, i would disagree, they're surprisingly egalitarian for a sect as old as theirs.

That may well be. I was referring to the Jehovah's Witness with the man/woman comment. And I really know little about it.

[Potemkin]

I know it is called by westerners Arian not Aryan. I said its called by others Aryan ortohdoxy mainly in Iran and the middle east in general because Iranians are usually the ones to have stuck to it. I said in a previous post its called either Aryan orthodoxy or Arianism. Not an error of spelling, but simply two different names of the same thing.
The name Aryan orthodoxy doesn't refer to its origin but rather to the people mainly holding it. You can call it Iranian orthodoxy, but the older name stuck so we call it that.

No anasawad, Arian Christianity was not so named because it is followed mainly by Iranians (or Aryans). This is not etymologically correct, and is just a folk tradition. Bishop Arius founded Arian Christianity in the late 3rd century, and that is why it is called 'Arian Christianity'. For no other reason. Arian Christianity actually had its biggest following in Western Europe for the first few centuries of its existence. In fact, for a brief time, most European Christians were Arians. It was only when the Franks converted to Nicene Christianity that the tide began to turn, and it was eventually eradicated in Europe over the following centuries, finally finding refuge in what is now Iran and the Middle East. Arian Christianity is not named after the Aryan people of Iran; that's just folk etymology.

[anasawad]

@Potemkin
And we call it Aryan orthodoxy since long centuries and thats the most common name for it.
I said i know westerners call it Arianism or Arian Christianity based on its origin, but not everyone does. Namely, us.
And in southern Russia and central Asia, they call it Aryan orthodoxy based on the immigrants that brought it, again us, and thats what they called it after.
It being called different names based on different factors doesn't mean one of the names is wrong or one is more right than the other, specially since its centuries old.
And no, it didn't spread in Iran after it died in Europe, it spread in Iran around 400 AD, and since at the time there was hostilities with the Romans, Christians were banned and persecuted, except this new coming sect of was to many extent in good agreement with Zoroastrianism, the then ruling religion. Its followers were signaled out as different from all the other Christians as while all the rest of the Christians were persecuted in the empire during the era and considered traitors and outsiders, the followers of this sect were not and thus called Aryan Christians or basically translated to Persian Christians. That name went on to describe the sect as Aryan Christianity.

i.e the conflict between the Orthodox and the Arians was not limited to Europe but rather to all places where Christians lived. And even though they were a small minority in Persian, they still existed there.

[Potemkin]

And we call it Aryan orthodoxy since long centuries and thats the most common name for it.
I said i know westerners call it Arianism or Arian Christianity based on its origin, but not everyone does. Namely, us.
And in southern Russia and central Asia, they call it Aryan orthodoxy based on the immigrants that brought it, again us, and thats what they called it after.
It being called different names based on different factors doesn't mean one of the names is wrong or one is more right than the other, specially since its centuries old.
And no, it didn't spread in Iran after it died in Europe, it spread in Iran around 400 AD, and since at the time there was hostilities with the Romans, Christians were banned and persecuted, except this new coming sect of was to many extent in good agreement with Zoroastrianism, the then ruling religion. Its followers were signaled out as different from all the other Christians as while all the rest of the Christians were persecuted in the empire during the era and considered traitors and outsiders, the followers of this sect were not and thus called Aryan Christians or basically Persian Christians. That name went on to describe the sect as Aryan Christianity or Persian Christianity.

I'm an academic, so I believe in getting facts right, anasawad. In other words, I'm a pedant. Lol. Calling it 'Aryan Christianity' is wrong, and calling it 'Arian Christianity' is right. Okay?! Lol.

[anasawad]

@Potemkin
We've been calling it our Christianity since 1500 years or so and we will remain to do so. Why ? because fuck everyone else thats why.
Aryan Christianity it is.

If you wish to get the facts right, then you must know that right is what the empire says is right.

[Potemkin]

That's the spirit, anasawad!

(you're still wrong though. Lol.)

[anasawad]

LoL. More so both right.

[Potemkin]

To paraphrase George Orwell: Everyone is right, but some are more right than others, anasawad. Lol.

[anasawad]

Ooh for fuck's sake. LoL
Both names are from the same period describing the same thing.

[Potemkin]

Both names are from the same period describing the same thing.

Indeed, but one of those names is correct and the other is incorrect.

[anasawad]

LOL

[Paradigm]

There are a few dialectical tensions within Christianity. The idea of God's immanence vs transcendence, the goodness of the created world vs its fallenness in sin, God's providence vs free will, etc. But the one that has sparked the most debate in the church is Christ's divine vs human nature. You had Gnostics who denied Christ's humanity altogether; then you had some messianic Jews who saw him as the messiah but not God; then you had Arius and his heresy that led to the Nicene Council; then you had Monophysites who said that while Christ was both human and divine, his whole nature was divine; then you had Nestorius who emphasized a separation between two natures; then you had Miaphysites who said that his divine and human nature formed a single, compound nature. All these positions were rejected by various councils, though many of them continue to this day. Arianism is adhered to by the Jehovah's Witnesses, Nestorianism is still the position of the Assyrian Church of the East, and Miaphysites formed the Oriental Orthodox (as opposed to Eastern Orthodox) churches, who reject the Council of Chalcedon. In theology, we refer to "Low Christology" as theology that starts with Christ's humanity and going up toward his revealed divinity in the resurrection, while "High Christology" takes a top-down approach, emphasizing God incarnating as Jesus in order to save humanity. Both approaches are integral to the essence of Christianity, which is really about the unity of heaven and Earth, revealed to us through the life of Christ and the Holy Trinity.

Since Buddhism was brought up, I should mention that Buddhism has its own dialectic between "eternalism" (in this case meaning the idea of something enduring) and nihilism (pure impermanence and emptiness). Buddhism started off with the latter turn, in which the Buddha taught the nonexistence of self. But then you had some Theravada traditions that gradually added more substance-like qualities to the teaching, which Nagarjuna then refuted and posited the emptiness of form. Then you have the Yogacara (mind only) school, positing a kind of idealism and introducing the concept of Buddha nature. Then you have these two schools integrated into the Mahayana schools. Then you have Tibetan Buddhism introduce all these Tantric deities and an emphasis on the luminosity of Sambhogakaya ("subtle body of limitless form"), and then within Tibetan Buddhism you have the Gelug School (headed by the Dalai Lama), which rationally deconstructs all these thought forms.

So religions, like most things, live in the dialectic between their contradictions.