FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-09-2013, 07:30 AM   #1
Jeffrey Gibson
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default Arius and the Passion story

We’ve seen here that Pete has claimed that within his letter to Arius preserved in Decretis 40, Constantine’s “Away! I do not wish God to appear to be subject to suffering of outrages ..."is to be taken not only as an indirect reference to the Canonical Story of the crucifixion of Jesus" but as something that shows that “Arius does not like this story” and denied its validity if not its historicity.

Now Pete at least notes that nothing in language and grammar (or even the context) of this text supports this claim. But he still maintains it nevertheless because, as he notes, "the entire occasion of Nicaea was to introduce the imperial support to the NT Bible (physically at that time the Constantine Bible) as the holy writ at the focus of a centralised monotheistic state religion."

According to Pete

Quote:
All the citizens in the (pagan) Roman Empire at that time would have been aware of the proclamation of the new kingdom of the new god and were essentially being FORCED into it. I see this as the novel political reality in the Roman Empire c.325 CE.
Accordingly

Quote:
The pagans were taken by surprise with this new god in the form of a dead Jew on a stick. Any reasonable analyst of such a situation IMO must expect a reaction from the pagans. WHERE IS THIS REACTION to the bible?
So from this Pete concludes that

Quote:
Arius's statement [w]as a reaction to the new God STORY where the GOOD GOD was subject to suffering of outrages.
Leaving aside the question begging nature of his premises, let’s note that if Arius denied the crucifixion story or in any way underplayed the Gospel accounts of the sufferings of Jesus and was known to have done so, it would be reasonable to expect that he would have been excoriated for this by his enemies who at Nicea proclaimed that Jesus "suffered" for "us".

But to my knowledge, he is not. So far as I know, there is not a single text in the whole of our extant Anti Arian writings that either says that Arius does this or that excoriates him for doing so.

In fact, when we look at the anti Arian literature what we find his enemies doing is claiming just the opposite --- that he concentrates too much on the passion of Jesus.

Take, for instance, the statement that Bishop Alexander of Alexandria sent to Alexander of Constantinople that one of the galling things about Arius and his followers was that they retain

Quote:
in their memory all that they can collect concerning the suffering, humiliation, emptying of Himself , and so-called poverty, and everything of which the Saviour for our sake accepted the acquired name, they bring forward those passages to disprove His eternal existence and divinity, while they forget all those which declare His glory and nobility and abiding with the Father. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/27021.htm
Consider, too, the rather impressive list of scriptural quotations that in Book 3 of his Orations against the Arians, Athanasius tells us that Arius and his followers frequently used in support of their claim that the Logos/son had to be a creature. Prominent among them were those texts that emphasized bodily humiliation even to the point of death on a cross.

The Arians, reports Athanasius, ask

Quote:
How dare you say that the one having a body is the proper word of the Father’s essence, su that he endured such a thing as this [that is, the cross] (3.27)
So in the light of this (and other texts that I have not adduced -- but are cited and discussed in the work by Gregg and Groh that I mention below -- it appears that quite contrary to what Pete claims, Arius and Arians were not offended by the image of a "jew on a stick". Nor did they seek to downplay or deny or expunge or eliminate the story of Jesus' crucifixion, let alone any of the stories in the Gospels in which he was said to be subjected to "outrages". Rather, these things were central to their theology and beliefs.

In the light of this, what do we make of Peter’s claim that in Decretis 40, Constantine’s “Away! I do not wish God to appear to be subject to suffering of outrages ..." is to be taken not only as an indirect reference to the Canonical Story of the crucifixion of Jesus but something that shows that “Arius does not like this story” and apparently denied its validity if not its historicity?

At the very least, it is woefully uninformed. And, as evidence that Pete does not seem to be aware of shows, it is dead wrong.

I would suggest that anyone who wants to see what Arius’ views on the passion were, and what his enemies said regarding his use of the passion story to buttress his theological views, that you read the Chapter entitled “The Arian Christ” on pp. 1-42 in Gregg and Groh Early Arianism: a View of Salvation.

This will show in no uncertain what by now probably does not need to be shown – that when it comes to his claims regarding what Arius believed about the Logos/son and Jesus, not to mention what Arius thought of scripture, Pete does not know what he is talking about, that he misreads and misrepresents the “evidence” that he adduces to support his thesis, and that he continually rapes that "evidence" to make it say what it does not say.


Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 06-09-2013, 08:36 AM   #2
stephan huller
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Philostorgius when he wrote his history of the Church from the Arian perspective, making numerous references to Arius, mustn't have got the right memo. So too when the Arian bishop George headed the Alexandrian church and must have issued Paschal decrees. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_of_Cappadocia Again failed to get the memo
stephan huller is offline  
Old 06-09-2013, 08:46 AM   #3
Jeffrey Gibson
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
Philostorgius when he wrote his history of the Church from the Arian perspective, making numerous references to Arius, mustn't have got the right memo. So too when the Arian bishop George headed the Alexandrian church and must have issues Paschal decrees. Again failed to get the memo
Without quotes from Philostorgius or George, your point (whatever it is) is not made, and your message is as empty as it is useless. It's a mirror image of Pete's "Epiphanius."

Apparently you haven't received the memo that claims made here about what an ancient figure reputedly said now have to be backed up with evidence.

Please comply or stay out of this thread.

Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 06-09-2013, 09:43 AM   #4
stephan huller
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

well I thought it common knowledge that Arius is mentioned in this text

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/philostorgius.htm
stephan huller is offline  
Old 06-09-2013, 10:58 AM   #5
Jeffrey Gibson
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
well I thought it common knowledge that Arius is mentioned in this text

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/philostorgius.htm

Forgive me, but I was unaware that the issue I raised was what is or is not common knowledge of where Arius is "mentioned". Silly me, I thought it was something more specific than that.

Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 06-09-2013, 12:13 PM   #6
stephan huller
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Why do we have to go through the whole debate over whether Arius was a Christian when this is explicitly referenced as such in Philostorgius
stephan huller is offline  
Old 06-09-2013, 12:24 PM   #7
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Jeffrey is trying to get Pete to say "uncle." We'll see if that every happens.
Toto is offline  
Old 06-09-2013, 12:45 PM   #8
Jeffrey Gibson
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
Why do we have to go through the whole debate over whether Arius was a Christian when this is explicitly referenced as such in Philostorgius
Sorry, but you misunderstand what this debate is about. Here the issue is whether even if Arius was not a Christian, Arius did what Pete says he did with respect to the story of Jesus' crucifixion.

Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 06-09-2013, 12:57 PM   #9
Jeffrey Gibson
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Jeffrey is trying to get Pete to say "uncle." We'll see if that every happens.
What we'll see, I'll wager, is Pete raping evidence in order to show that church fathers did not say that Arius and his followers accepted the historicity of the passion story, did not cite and use texts that spoke of it, did not celebrate it as showing the way to perfection, and did not focus as much approving attention on the cross and Jesus' sufferings as they say he did.

How long will it be, do you think, before Pete claims that the texts I cited -- as well as the ones adduced and discussed in Gregg and Groh (whose work it seems Pete has never looked at) -- are forgeries?

Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 06-10-2013, 03:16 PM   #10
Chili
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

<edit>
Chili is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:24 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.