When 

Constantine took over the eastern half of the Roman Empire from Licinius and
founded his new capital at Constantinople in 324 AD, he was upset to find out that there
was a big fight going on between the Christians in West Asia. He had had about enough of
that with the Donatists in Africa!

Still, he needed God on his side. Constantine’s advisors told him that God wanted all
Christians to believe the same way and not to argue. So Constantine tried to get
the Arians and the Athanasians(the two sides) to agree.

What were Christians arguing about?

Here’s what the argument was about. Arians (the followers of a priest named Arius Anhänger
eines Priesters
) believed that since there was only one God, Jesus was not exactly the same as God. First
there was God, and then a little later He made Jesus. The Athanasians (the followers of a
bishop named Athanasius) believed that there was absolutely no difference between Jesus
and God.

How did Constantine try to fix this problem?

Egyptian caves where early monks and nuns lived

Maybe these differences don’t seem important to you? But in the 300s AD ordinary people
like you got into fights about this in the streets, and hit each other over the head with sticks.
Each side had songs about how they were right. They went around in big gangs
of monks and priests singing their songs and getting into fights with the other side,
especially. in Alexandria, in Egypt.

Constantine held a big meeting for both sides in Nicaea (nye-SEE-ah) in 327 AD. He went
to the meeting himself to try to clear things up. But he could not get the sides to agree.

they do not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity.

Sie glauben nicht an die Trinitätslehre.

unabhängig

Here is Newton's list:- of being an arian

He found that he was arian in 1672 aber nu in 1936 war seine Liste gefunden.
1. The word God is nowhere in the scriptures used to signify more than one of the
three persons at once.( 1. Das Wort "Gott" steht nirgendwo in den heiligen
Schriften, um mehr als eine der drei Personen gleichzeitig zu bezeichnen.)

2. The word God put absolutely without restriction to the Son or Holy Ghost doth
always signify the Father from one end of the scriptures to the other.( 2. Das
Wort, das Gott absolut ohne Einschränkung auf den Sohn oder den Heiligen
Geist gesetzt hat, bedeutet immer den Vater von einem Ende der heiligen
Schriften bis zum anderen.)
3. Whenever it is said in the scriptures that there is but one God, it is meant the
Father.
4. When, after some heretics had taken Christ for a mere man and others for the
supreme God, St John in his Gospel endeavoured to state his nature so that
men might have from thence a right apprehension of him and avoid those
heresies and to that end calls him the word or logos: we must suppose that he
intended that term in the sense that it was taken in the world before he used it
when in like manner applied to an intelligent being. For if the Apostles had not
used words as they found them how could they expect to have been rightly
understood. Now the term logos before St John wrote, was generally used in
the sense of the Platonists, when applied to an intelligent being and the Arians
understood it in the same sense, and therefore theirs is the true sense of St
John.
5. The Son in several places confesseth his dependence on the will of the Father.
6. The Son confesseth the Father greater, then calls him his God etc.
7. The Son acknowledgeth the original prescience of all future things to be in the
Father only.
8. There is nowhere mention of a human soul in our Saviour besides the word, by
the meditation of which the word should be incarnate. But the word itself was
made flesh and took upon him the form of a servant.
9. It was the son of God which He sent into the world and not a human soul that
suffered for us. If there had been such a human soul in our Saviour, it would
have been a thing of too great consequence to have been wholly omitted by the
Apostles.
10.It is a proper epithet of the Father to be called almighty. For by God almighty
we always understand the Father. Yet this is not to limit the power of the Son.
For he doth whatsoever he seeth the Father do; but to acknowledge that all
power is originally in the Father and that the Son hath power in him but what
he derives fro the Father, for he professes that of himself he can do nothing.
 11.The Son in all things submits his will to the will of the Father, which could be
unreasonable if he were equal to the Father.
12.The union between him and the Father he interprets to be like that of the saints
with one another. That is in agreement of will and counsel.

Pidgin Spachen
Kreolische sparchen
Lingua francas
Esperanto (artifizielle Sprache)
Was sie sind und Beispiele