A comparison of orthodox and Arian depicting of christ in the late antigue iconography

This work has a difficult task to try to summarise the difference between the orthodox and Arian iconographic concept of depicting Christ, mainly in late antiquity. The issue is taken from the point of systematic theology, ecclesial history and the history of art. The memory of Arianism, as the most widespread form of heresy, was a real threat for the church in the 3 rd century and therefore was almost fully eradicated. Arianism was met with the usual punishment of bad roman emperors - damnatio memoriae. It was be forgotten forever. So, all we know is taken from Arianism's opponents, orthodox Catholic historians and scholars. This concerns theological works as well as visual art works. When we study the theological background of this form of heresy, we see Jesus Christ as the first, the highest and the noblest creation of all, but as nothing more. God the Father, the only one, according to Arius, a presbyter from Alexandria, the founder of Arianism, is completely independent. He can not to have any Son. He cannot even be the Father. On principle God the Father is different from Jesus Christ the Son. The next progression in Arianism stated that the Son and the Father are alike. Arius's main opponent Athanasius, later orthodox bishop of Alexandria, insisted on the full godliness of Jesus Christ as the Son of..