Need help answering questions on Mary

[NoelFitz]

GLx86

You hypothetically ask:

Have the unborn also sinned? If so, what do you make of Romans 9:11?

I would answer “yes”. We have original sin from the moment we began to be, if this is at conception so be it. I am not here discussing Limbo.

In Rom 9 11 (NRSV) one reads “even before they had been born or had done anything good or bad”…

However even before one is born or had done anything good or bad one has original sin. That is what original sin means, we have it from our origin.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has:

The Council of Trent,… (original sin) as a “privation of justice that each child contracts at its conception” (Sess. VI, cap. Iii).

 

[Angelos]

Old Scholar wrote:

I guess it’s about as likely as Mary remaining a virgin and Scripture not telling us—or Mary’s immaculate conception but no mention is made of it at all. And Joseph didn’t wait for twelve years, Scripture tells us he only waited “until” Mary bore Jesus.

Yet you have failed to answer my questions. The same scripture I read tells us that Jesus was the only child taken by His family (Joseph and Mary) to Jerusalem. I still wonder why neither Matthew nor Luke mentions any of Jesus’ siblings while narrating His infancy. Do you think they suffered from short memory?

You are only slandering the Scripture by forcing your faulty presumption into it. Your mistake results from your failure to understand the sense of the word “until” in that sentence. According to your interpretation, Jesus asked His disciples to remain in Jerusalem until the day of Pentecost and meant that they must instantly leave it after the descension of the Spirit. However, the scripture tells us that the apostles remained in Jerusalem AFTER the day of Pentecost and went against the Lord’s command. Look and see how your misunderstanding of a single word turns Jesus’ apostles into disobedient sinners in Protestant mentality.

Old Scholar wrote:
Scripture calls them “brothers”, not “cousins.”

The same scripture also calls Joseph Jesus’ father (Luke 2:33). Why do you think Luke never used the qualifier “foster” with the word father throughout Jesus’ infancy narrative?

Old Scholar wrote:
Do you have any reason to say that Joseph and Mary did not have sexual relations? Other than just someon’es opinion? At least I have Scripture…

You do not have Scripture to say that Joseph and Mary had sexual affair after Jesus’ birth. Your so-called evidence is based on your misunderstanding of a word (until) and subjective conclusions.

Old Scholar wrote:
Please check my prior post.

I have asked you to clarify your reference from the Bible, but you fail to do that and redirect me to your previous post full of obscurity. You could have simply told me that you did not want to answer my question. Thanks anyway.

Old Scholar wrote:
We “Protestants” are not so much concerned with Mary’s virginity. We only want to know what God has told us in His word and He says that Jesus had brothers and sisters and Mary was His mother, so why would you not want to believe that? Just to satisfy what someone wrote hundreds of years ago in some writing that was not inspired? If Mary had not had other children, then Scripture would have told us so. We don’t make up dogmas just to satisfy our desires…

Logic denies that a woman wait until her first born son is 12 and then beget an army of children. Your weird Protestant dogma only functions to portray our Lord’s mother as an uncanny woman. Why should I believe your inferences that were drawn by some men whose only aim was to debunk the teachings of Jesus’ Church?

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Old Scholar wrote:
We “Protestants” are not so much concerned with Mary’s virginity. We only want to know what God has told us in His word and He says that Jesus had brothers and sisters and Mary was His mother, so why would you not want to believe that? Just to satisfy what someone wrote hundreds of years ago in some writing that was not inspired? If Mary had not had other children, then Scripture would have told us so. We don’t make up dogmas just to satisfy our desires…

Logic denies that a woman wait until her first born son is 12 and then beget an army of children. Your weird Protestant dogma only functions to portray our Lord’s mother as an uncanny woman. Why should I believe your inferences that were drawn by some men whose only aim was to debunk the teachings of Jesus’ Church?

bingo.

Excellent post Angelos. May Our Lord’s Mother, the Immaculate Conception, keep you always under Her Mantle of Protection.

If the royal “we” as Protestants are really concerned with Scripture, why do they push away Mary and the Ark?

 

[Angelos]

bingo.

Excellent post Angelos. May Our Lord’s Mother, the Immaculate Conception, keep you always under Her Mantle of Protection.

If the royal “we” as Protestants are really concerned with Scripture, why do they push away Mary and the Ark?

Thanks for your kind wishes. Peace and blessings to you

 

[Old_Scholar]

Old Scholar wrote:

I guess it’s about as likely as Mary remaining a virgin and Scripture not telling us—or Mary’s immaculate conception but no mention is made of it at all. And Joseph didn’t wait for twelve years, Scripture tells us he only waited “until” Mary bore Jesus.

Yet you have failed to answer my questions. The same scripture I read tells us that Jesus was the only child taken by His family (Joseph and Mary) to Jerusalem. I still wonder why neither Matthew nor Luke mentions any of Jesus’ siblings while narrating His infancy. Do you think they suffered from short memory?

Would you please list the Scripture that says Joseph and Mary only took Jesus with them to Jerusalem? I believe the Scripture says there were so many in their party that they did not even notice Jesus missing…?

You are only slandering the Scripture by forcing your faulty presumption into it. Your mistake results from your failure to understand the sense of the word “until” in that sentence. According to your interpretation, Jesus asked His disciples to remain in Jerusalem until the day of Pentecost and meant that they must instantly leave it after the descension of the Spirit. However, the scripture tells us that the apostles remained in Jerusalem AFTER the day of Pentecost and went against the Lord’s command. Look and see how your misunderstanding of a single word turns Jesus’ apostles into disobedient sinners in Protestant mentality.

I’m just reading what Scripture says, not trying to explain that it says something it doesn’t…

Old Scholar wrote:
Scripture calls them “brothers”, not “cousins.”

The same scripture also calls Joseph Jesus’ father (Luke 2:33). Why do you think Luke never used the qualifier “foster” with the word father throughout Jesus’ infancy narrative?

We were discussing brothers and cousins. Why bring Joseph into this? We know that Joseph was the “father” who raised Jesus and no one believed Mary was made pregnant by God at that time either. They all thought Joseph had just “jumped the gun.”

Old Scholar wrote:
Do you have any reason to say that Joseph and Mary did not have sexual relations? Other than just someon’es opinion? At least I have Scripture…

You do not have Scripture to say that Joseph and Mary had sexual affair after Jesus’ birth. Your so-called evidence is based on your misunderstanding of a word (until) and subjective conclusions.

No my understanding is based on the context of the entire statement and verse. You just don’t want to believe it.

Old Scholar wrote:
Please check my prior post.

I have asked you to clarify your reference from the Bible, but you fail to do that and redirect me to your previous post full of obscurity. You could have simply told me that you did not want to answer my question. Thanks anyway.

Actually my post described my reference very well. You won’t accept it because it disagrees with your belief.

Old Scholar wrote:
We “Protestants” are not so much concerned with Mary’s virginity. We only want to know what God has told us in His word and He says that Jesus had brothers and sisters and Mary was His mother, so why would you not want to believe that? Just to satisfy what someone wrote hundreds of years ago in some writing that was not inspired? If Mary had not had other children, then Scripture would have told us so. We don’t make up dogmas just to satisfy our desires…

Logic denies that a woman wait until her first born son is 12 and then beget an army of children. Your weird Protestant dogma only functions to portray our Lord’s mother as an uncanny woman. Why should I believe your inferences that were drawn by some men whose only aim was to debunk the teachings of Jesus’ Church?

Why do you keep saying Mary waited until Jesus was 12 before having any more children? There is no more basis for that belief than the basis that Mary remained a virgin. You are just using wistful thinking—not logic.

 

[mullenpm]

Todd Easton,

:heaven: Excellent answer - thank you.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Thanks for your kind wishes. Peace and blessings to you

I honestly did not know you were of the Orthodox faith and I pray that when you read my post, and saw me referring to Our Lady as the Immaculate Conception, you did not see it as a cheap shot to Orthodoxy or anything of that nature.

 

[Angelos]

Old Scholar wrote:
Would you please list the Scripture that says Joseph and Mary only took Jesus with them to Jerusalem? I believe the Scripture says there were so many in their party that they did not even notice Jesus missing…?

Luke never mentions Jesus’ siblings when he narrates what Mary and Joseph did when they realized that Jesus had stayed in Jerusalem:

Luke 2:44

And thinking that he was in the company, they came a day’s journey and sought him among their kinsfolks and acquaintance.

Where were Mary’s other children in the meantime if Jesus were not her only child?? Why did Mary not care about them? If Jesus had had siblings, at least one of them would have been mentioned in this narrative.

Besides, Luke explicitly states that Jesus was the only child that went to Jerusalem with Joseph and Mary:

Luke 2:41-42
And his parents went every year to Jerusalem, at the solemn day of the pasch. And when he was twelve years old, they going up into Jerusalem, according to the custom of the feast

Old Scholar wrote:
I’m just reading what Scripture says, not trying to explain that it says something it doesn’t…

Everyone can read the same text in tens of different ways. Your reading is different than mine since you are reading it in the light of your personal conclusions.

Old Scholar wrote:
We were discussing brothers and cousins. Why bring Joseph into this? We know that Joseph was the “father” who raised Jesus and no one believed Mary was made pregnant by God at that time either. They all thought Joseph had just “jumped the gun.”

You do not like my approach because it definitely reveals the weak points of your argument. If you are so faithful to scripture, you should also interpret Luke’s designation of Joseph’s fatherhood literally.

Old Scholar wrote:
No my understanding is based on the context of the entire statement and verse. You just don’t want to believe it.

The entire statement and verse you interpret in isolation makes the scripture and Jesus’ words that you rely on sound odd. I would like you to do me a favour by proving from scripture that the time expression (until) used by Matthew attaches to the clause a totally different sense than the same expression used elsewehere in the NT.

Old Scholar wrote:
Actually my post described my reference very well. You won’t accept it because it disagrees with your belief.

Eh? You did not write down Psalm 69 in its entirety to show me which verses allegedly refute Mary’s perpetual virginity. Why is it so difficult for you?

Old Scholar wrote:
Why do you keep saying Mary waited until Jesus was 12 before having any more children? There is no more basis for that belief than the basis that Mary remained a virgin. You are just using wistful thinking—not logic.

Jesus’ infancy narrative in Matthew and Luke never mentions those siblings. It is also clear that Jesus was the only child taken by Joseph and Mary to Jerusalem when Jesus was 12, for Mary does not even imply that she had other children (even younger than Jesus) that she had to take care of or worry about or leave with her relatives so that she could go back to Jerusalem in search of infant Jesus.

I am repeating that it is unthinkable for Mary not to have any kids before Jesus is 12, but suddenly have so many kids in such a short time after that period. Biologically and logically impossible! If you consider it a miracle, I have nothing more to say.

 

[Angelos]

I honestly did not know you were of the Orthodox faith and I pray that when you read my post, and saw me referring to Our Lady as the Immaculate Conception, you did not see it as a cheap shot to Orthodoxy or anything of that nature.

I guessed that you did not check my religious affiliation while responding to my post and therefore did not think of your post as something negative. Thanks anyway for being kind and considerate

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

I guessed that you did not check my religious affiliation while responding to my post and therefore did not think of your post as something negative. Thanks anyway for being kind and considerate

You’re right. I did not check it afterwards only out of curiousity. Anyone who speaks of Our Lady with love and in truth is a friend of mine.

 

[Ilroy]

Doesn’t this mean that Jesus was not God?

Jesus is, was and always will be God—with two natures while He was on earth.

The title Theotokos is more important because of what it says about Jesus than because of what it says about Mary.

What Scriupture gives her that title? God only used her womb.

Your first assertion that Mary was Jesus’ mother, but not the mother of God is an old heresy called Nestorianism. It was soundly refuted in the fifth century…guess you’re not quite such an old scholar that you didn’t know that one…

Try reading the Gospel of St. Luke again if you want to see Mary being called the mother of God…specifically Ch. 1:
41 And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
42 And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
43 And whence is this to me, that the **mother of my Lord **should come to me?

 

[Old_Scholar]

Old Scholar wrote:
Would you please list the Scripture that says Joseph and Mary only took Jesus with them to Jerusalem? I believe the Scripture says there were so many in their party that they did not even notice Jesus missing…?

Luke never mentions Jesus’ siblings when he narrates what Mary and Joseph did when they realized that Jesus had stayed in Jerusalem:

Luke 2:44

And thinking that he was in the company, they came a day’s journey and sought him among their kinsfolks and acquaintance.

Where were Mary’s other children in the meantime if Jesus were not her only child?? Why did Mary not care about them? If Jesus had had siblings, at least one of them would have been mentioned in this narrative.

Besides, Luke explicitly states that Jesus was the only child that went to Jerusalem with Joseph and Mary:

Luke 2:41-42
And his parents went every year to Jerusalem, at the solemn day of the pasch. And when he was twelve years old, they going up into Jerusalem, according to the custom of the feast

I don’t think you are being honest here. It DOES NOT say that Jesus was the only child that went, just that He went…

Old Scholar wrote:
I’m just reading what Scripture says, not trying to explain that it says something it doesn’t…

Everyone can read the same text in tens of different ways. Your reading is different than mine since you are reading it in the light of your personal conclusions.

Old Scholar wrote:
We were discussing brothers and cousins. Why bring Joseph into this? We know that Joseph was the “father” who raised Jesus and no one believed Mary was made pregnant by God at that time either. They all thought Joseph had just “jumped the gun.”

You do not like my approach because it definitely reveals the weak points of your argument. If you are so faithful to scripture, you should also interpret Luke’s designation of Joseph’s fatherhood literally.

Old Scholar wrote:
No my understanding is based on the context of the entire statement and verse. You just don’t want to believe it.

The entire statement and verse you interpret in isolation makes the scripture and Jesus’ words that you rely on sound odd. I would like you to do me a favour by proving from scripture that the time expression (until) used by Matthew attaches to the clause a totally different sense than the same expression used elsewehere in the NT.

Do you think a word used in different places always means the same thing? How would you ever find the truth that way? Especially using a preposition or adjective.

Old Scholar wrote:
Actually my post described my reference very well. You won’t accept it because it disagrees with your belief.

Eh? You did not write down Psalm 69 in its entirety to show me which verses allegedly refute Mary’s perpetual virginity. Why is it so difficult for you?

Old Scholar wrote:
Why do you keep saying Mary waited until Jesus was 12 before having any more children? There is no more basis for that belief than the basis that Mary remained a virgin. You are just using wistful thinking—not logic.

Jesus’ infancy narrative in Matthew and Luke never mentions those siblings. It is also clear that Jesus was the only child taken by Joseph and Mary to Jerusalem when Jesus was 12, for Mary does not even imply that she had other children (even younger than Jesus) that she had to take care of or worry about or leave with her relatives so that she could go back to Jerusalem in search of infant Jesus.

I am repeating that it is unthinkable for Mary not to have any kids before Jesus is 12, but suddenly have so many kids in such a short time after that period. Biologically and logically impossible! If you consider it a miracle, I have nothing more to say.

I should hope not!

 

[Old_Scholar]

Your first assertion that Mary was Jesus’ mother, but not the mother of God is an old heresy called Nestorianism. It was soundly refuted in the fifth century…guess you’re not quite such an old scholar that you didn’t know that one…

Try reading the Gospel of St. Luke again if you want to see Mary being called the mother of God…specifically Ch. 1:
41 And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
42 And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
43 And whence is this to me, that the **mother of my Lord **should come to me?

Since God existed in the beginning and Mary did not, then Mary could not have borne God.

And for your information, the word “Lord” did not mean the same as “God” even in those days. There were many “Lords,” but only one God.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Since God existed in the beginning and Mary did not, then Mary could not have borne God.

And for your information, the word “Lord” did not mean the same as “God” even in those days. There were many “Lords,” but only one God.

What business does an aged lady, Elizabeth, wife of the High Priest that year, have calling a young girl, possibly 13 years of age, “my Lord?”

 

[Angelos]

Old Scholar wrote:
I don’t think you are being honest here. It DOES NOT say that Jesus was the only child that went, just that He went…

Could you please show me evidence from scripture that there were more than 3 people in Jesus’ family going to Jerusalem for the feast of Passover??? I quoted the verses from Luke, but your prejudice still prevents you from seeing the truth. Can you do nothing better than declare me a dishonest person solely because I cite evidence from Luke’s Gospel? Do you actually mean that Luke was a dishonest writer??

Forget about me for a second and read that section in Luke’s Gospel once more. The Evangelist first talks of Jesus’ parents (Joseph and Mary: 2 people) and then adds only Jesus to that group. The next pronoun used by Luke (they) absolutely refers to the “three” people mentioned in the previous sentence. You do not have to be an expert on grammar or linguistics to understand this either.

Old Scholar wrote:
Do you think a word used in different places always means the same thing? How would you ever find the truth that way? Especially using a preposition or adjective.

How can you prove it otherwise by using the scripture?? What is your criterion? How can you know that Matthew uses that time expression in that sentence with a different sense? What evidence helps you reach that conclusion?

More, every language has the prevalent characteristic of being standard in most cases although there are exceptions. However, even the exceptional cases are systematic and can be formed into regular groups.

 

[Axion]

Originally Posted by Old Scholar http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Since God existed in the beginning and Mary did not, then Mary could not have borne God.

Are you saying Jesus is Not God the Son???
God exists outside time is not ruled by it. He can be borne at any point.

And for your information, the word “Lord” did not mean the same as “God” even in those days. There were many “Lords,” but only one God.

The word used in Luke 1.43 is the greek Kurios. (Strong’s Number: 2962). It is generally used in the new testament to refer to the Lord God. As in “Prepare ye the way of the Lord,”

 

[po18guy]

Here are some responses that I keep handy:

Following is a private revelation that erased my last objections to Mary’s perpetual virginity. A little language and culture study helps, and this was revealed to me at a Catholic bible study. In those days, a woman relied on her husband for support. When he died, the children then supported her. If she was childless, she was in dire straights, because she had no one to rely on for support. Even worse, society considered her to be cursed by God, who gave her no children. Such women were shunned, and suffered greatly, reduced to begging for subsistence.

Jesus had great love for widows. This was evidenced by the “widow’s mite” story in both Luke 21:1-4 and Mark 13:41-44. Christ was so impressed at the widow in the temple that he made a point of teaching His disciples about her selflessness, for the sake of God. Again, Jesus showed His great love for the widow in Luke 7:11. When He and his entourage met the funeral party leaving the gates of the city of Nain, He took Heavenly pity upon the now childless widow who was enroute to bury her only son. He, as God in Christ, raised her only son to life and presented him to her. God raising an only Son to life. See any similarity? Imagine the awe!

Then, in John 19:26-27, Jesus’ last physical act on earth was to give Mary to John, telling him, “This is your mother” and saying to Mary, “This is your son”. Why did He do this at all, and why as He was dying on the cross? If Mary had any other children, they would have supported her for the remainder of her life. For Jesus to do this would have been a great insult and disrespect to Mary’s other children, IF SHE HAD ANY. There’s the rub! She had no other children to support her, as John “took her into his home from that hour”

Again, in the Aramaic, there was no word for “cousin”. So, “brother” and “sister” were used to describe various relatives. Remember that in some cultures, to this day, brother and sister can be used to address even those from the same town or village. Union members, did your mother actually give birth to all those “brothers” and “sisters” in the photos at the union hall?

The evidence goes against Mary having human children and in favor of her perpetual virginity, inspite of what Protestants love to claim. Remember that Protestants have to attack the Catholic faith, so as to justify their separation from the One True Church. Pray for them, that their hearts may be illumined.

There was to be only one woman in the course of eternity destined to give God a human nature. Did He send the angel Gabriel to a run-of-the-mill girl? No. Since Mary was so young, what on earth could she have accomplished as a teenager to be addressed as “full of grace” or “highly favored” by the Angel Gabriel? No one else in scripture was so addressed - especially not by the angel Gabriel, who stands in God’s presence. Since nothing is written about Mary prior to the annunciation other than Isaiah 7:14, we firmly believe that she was “highly favored” by God, Who preserved her from sin. Consider the contrast from scripture:

Psalm 30:7 (of King David) O LORD, when you favored me, you made my mountain stand firm;

Luke 1:28
The angel went to her (Mary) and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

Luke 1:43 (Elizabeth) But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

King David, and Elizabeth, by their own reckoning, were “favored”. Only Mary was “highly favored”, spoken by the Angel of the Lord, not by her own reckoning. Yet, we absolutely believe that Mary was created, 100% human, just as you or I - only that God, her Savior, preserved her from sin because of the absolutely unique role He had for her.

Her messenger and God’s mission came directly from the Throne of the Most High. He alone gave her a personal mission, one requiring her to honor Him and in turn be honored, (Luke 1:48) to give human nature to God at the risk of her own flesh. Can you see the parallel with Christ Himself here? Both Adam and Eve were conceived without sin, and both were created to be the major part of God’s plan, the only part of creation which could return the Father’s love. It is consistent that God would act in the same way (preserving Mary from sin to bear Christ’s sinless nature) as He introduced His plan of man’s redemption.

Veneration of Mary often appears as worship to unbelievers, or those who do not practice as Catholics do. Catholic practice can be difficult to understand, as God Himself is difficult to understand. Our practices came from Him, and bear His same mysterious ways.

Now, know that I was Catholic for almost two decades before the Lord revealed the truth about Mary to me. Such is God. He sends His Spirit where He wills, and when He wills. The fact that I am here, defending church teaching on Mary, is a miracle in itself.

I would rather explain to the Lord why I venerated His chosen, than why I denigrated her memory, especially since her veneration is in Luke 1:48.

Consider the parallels between 2 Samuel 6:2-16 regarding King David and the Ark of the Covenant, with Mary in Luke 1:39-56.

Compare:

2 Samuel 6:2 David went “to Baalah of Judah.”

• with -
  Luke 1:39 Mary went “to a town of Judah.”

2 Samuel 6:9 David asks “How can the Ark of Yahweh come to be with me?”

• with -
  Luke 1:43 Elizabeth asks: “How is it that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”

2 Samuel 6:10 David took the Ark aside to a house.

• with -
  Luke 1:40 Mary went to the house of Zechariah and Elizabeth.

2 Samuel 6:11 The Ark stayed at the house three months.

• with -
  Luke 1:56 Mary stayed with Elizabeth three months

2 Samuel 6:5 David and the people celebrated before the Ark.

• with -
  Luke 1:47 Mary’s spirit rejoiced in God, her Savior

2 Samuel 6:15 David brought the Ark accompanied by shouting.

• with -
  Luke 1:42 Elizabeth “Cried out in a loud voice”

2 Samuel 6:16 King David was “leaping and dancing”

• with -
  Luke 1:41 The child in Elizabeth’s womb “leapt for joy”.

Thus, she was and is believed to be the “Ark of the New Covenant”

There are also many books and booklets available which explain our ancient beliefs. Stop by your Catholic book store and have a look.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Ilroy]

Since God existed in the beginning and Mary did not, then Mary could not have borne God.

And for your information, the word “Lord” did not mean the same as “God” even in those days. There were many “Lords,” but only one God.

HA!!!
So, Jesus was not God huh? Like I said previously, that old heresy was soundly refuted in the 5th century. Research Nestorianism…maybe you’ll learn something.

It could and very often DID mean God even in those days…and clearly in the context of the verse it DOES mean God.

 

[po18guy]

Since God existed in the beginning and Mary did not, then Mary could not have borne God.

And for your information, the word “Lord” did not mean the same as “God” even in those days. There were many “Lords,” but only one God.

Except when Thomas uttered: (John 20:28) “My Lord and My God”.

And when Elizabeth exclaimed: (Luke 1:43) But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

Therefore, it was revealed to the church that Mary was both mother of “my Lord” and of Jesus, “my God”.

Even in the simplest of matters, the error of sola scriptura blinds to the truth.

 

[NoelFitz]

Ilroy You wrote:

HA!!!
So, Jesus was not God huh? Like I said previously, that old heresy was soundly refuted in the 5th century. Research Nestorianism…maybe you’ll learn something.

HAHA!!!
You might like also to reseach Arianism in the 4th century (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism)).