[beavus]

The definition of a Christian, as found in Scripture: one who believes he is a sinner, that Christ died for his sin, who accepts Christ as his Savior, and believes in Him, who was sent by the Father, and who is then indwelled by the Holy Spirit.

I'm sure there is a reason why you are ignoring my main argument regarding the heresies. Once again, for clarity, I will rerererererereiterate. Specifically regarding the Arians and their notion of the Trinity...

The Arians were, of course, NOT "polytheistic". In fact, they would likely argue that the Nicenes, whose interpretation of the Trinity is that of the Catholics AND all protestant denominations, were polytheistic by way of their belief in 3 deities. The Arians differed from the Nicenes primarily in their interpretaion of the early gospels (not some later corrupted Catholic scriptures that you keep referring to, but the same gospels that you read) as being strictly monotheistic with one God, and the Holy Spirit and Christ being something less and different. The argument is made possible by the apparent conflict in interpretation as presented, for example, in Mark versus John.

I thank you for providing your definition of a Christian above. That certainly does advance the argument. Perhaps now, at long last, you will agree that Arians are indeed Christians.

Thanks for your brief chronology of some of the religious persecutions (though we could debate your interpration of them--lets not get diverted further), you still fail to recognize the imperial history as relevent to my argument--there were emperors who were alternately Nicene and Arian. Thus, you have Christians persecuting Christians. The Christians whose view of the Trinity dominates today are precisely those who won this historic political battle. Do you doubt that the emperors' efforts made a historical difference in the predominance of the Nicene view of the Trinity?

[nicmarlo]

The Arians . . . would likely argue that the Nicenes, whose interpretation of the Trinity is that of the Catholics AND all protestant denominations, were polytheistic by way of their belief in 3 deities. The Arians differed from the Nicenes primarily in their interpretaion of the early gospels (not some later corrupted Catholic scriptures that you keep referring to, but the same gospels that you read) as being strictly monotheistic with one God, and the Holy Spirit and Christ being something less and different.

If the Arians, who believed they were Christians, and did not believe in the Trinity (3 beings co-equally God), but, instead, believed there was one God and believed that the Holy Spirit and Christ were something less and different, then what did they believe Christ was? "The Son of God" or a "Prophet," or something else? If they believed He was only a prophet, then that would have made Christ a liar, because He Himself admitted to being God when accused of such. If they only believed He was the "Son of God," (i.e., a mortal), then again they disbelieved who He claimed to be. He also referred back to Old Testament Scriptures used to describe Himself and His coming--the long-awaited Messiah.

The Christians whose view of the Trinity dominates today are precisely those who won this historic political battle. Do you doubt that the emperors' efforts made a historical difference in the predominance of the Nicene view of the Trinity?

No, I have no doubt that their efforts made a difference in many more people being taught that God is 3 co-equal beings. I would be foolish to say otherwise.

But I must clarify something here. Just because someone believes that God is three co-equal beings (the Trinity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit), does not automatically make that person a Christian, either. I was baptised and raised Catholic, taught to believe the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is/are God. But that did not make me a Christian. I became a Christian when I was 13, when I accepted Christ as my personal Savior.