Jeffrey Gibson

I really don't see how any of this speaks to the question of what actual evidence -- rather than suppositions and deductions derived from (agenda driven) postulates -- you have that the historical statements of the fathers about who taught what are untrustworthy/historically inaccurate.

Moreover you have failed to address my question of which Fathers in particular you had in mind.

More importantly, and leaving aside the question of whether your notions/claims about just how powerful and invasive and able to dictate writing agendas to Christians the "empire" was are themselves dubious and untrustworthy and question begging, aren't those fathers who wrote about Marcion (i.e., Tertullian) for the most part from the pre-constantinian age and living in places where we have no real reason to believe that "the empire" would be interested in what they wrote, let alone in any way capable of dictating what they should write? Was Tertullian someone who would have allowed himself to be intimidated by and dictated to by Roman authorities?

Sorry, but you are not giving me the impression that you are sufficiently well grounded in either Roman or early church history that I should take anything you say about these topics with any seriousness or as having any merit.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

To Duvduv,

I would be grateful, unless you have something to say that is actually relevant to the specific question raised in the OP

(i.e., what the referents of "he" and "once in Arius's "sophisms" are and whether Peter's claims that "he" refers to the historical Jesus and "once" to the time immediately before Constantine can be substantiated),

that you do not post in this thread.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

I overlooked a claim about Arius that Pete made that should not go unchallenged, if only because it is another shining example of how much Pete has misunderstood and misrepresented the evidence he adduces in support of his claims regrading Arius.

It's this:


This quote -- which BTW, the truth of which Rowan has some difficulties with and does not believe is entirely accurate in what it asserts (see pp. 209-210) -- is actually a summary not of Arius' agenda but of the means he employed in pursuing his agenda -- which, as all primary sources both for and against Arius, as well as Kannengeisser and Williams and other modern scholars of Arius and the Arian controversy, agree, was to maintain Biblical monotheism and to show that what he regarded as tritheism in contemporary trinitarian formulations was not Biblically or logically or philosophically or theologically sound.

So here's more evidence Pete's grasp of the teaching of Arius is not what it should be, that it's based on misreading and misrepresentation of his "evidence", and that what Pete says about Arius's beliefs or the nature of the Arian controversy needs to be viewed with a great deal of skepicism.

Jeffrey

stephan huller

I have to say that will all the time Pete has spent PROMOTING this idea one would have expected that he could actually have spent it more wisely mastering some of the key components that go into this bizarro theory. It's almost as if he knows that if he plumped depths he would lose faith in this silly endeavor and so stays out of the water completely telling people what it is like on the surface, surfing the waves.

mountainman

With due respect I disagree. Your original logic was firstly to have me admit that the five sophisms of Arius may not refer to Jesus but to the logos of the Apostolic John 1.1 and then have me attempt to demonstrate a command of the Greek language and grammar to try and show that the sophisms could not have been referring to the logos but to Jesus.

My response was to agree that I don't know whether the sophisms referred to either the logos or to the "Son Jesus", but that if the sophisms referred to the logos it was not the logos of John 1.1 but to the logos discussed by Plotinus and perpetuated by his followers.

It seems quite reasonable that no matter how good your command of the Greek language and its grammar and syntax is, it would be an impossible task, armed only with these five sophisms, to be able to categorically determine whether if Arius was referring to the logos whether it was the logos of John 1.1 or that of Plotinus.

This appears to be a stalemate.

My hypothesis, contrary to the received tradition, is that Arius of Alexandria was a follower of the philosophy and logic of Plato and Plotinus, and not the philosophy and logic of the "Jesus figure" who appears in the earliest extant Greek new testament codices and fragments as a nomina sacra.

In other words, there was a massive pagan reaction to Constantine's social and religious agenda, and Arius became the focal point. But generations later, when the tax exempt "Ecclesiastical Historians" writing from the 5th century compiled the history of the victory of the church at Nicaea, they made Arius a Christian in order to play down the massive controversy which ensued over the sudden appearance of an historical jesus on planet Earth.





Jeffrey may I remind you that the victors in the conflict wrote the history from a century after the Nicaean boundary event of 325 CE. We must be exceedingly cautious to accept what they say at face value. These victors, all of them, the entire bunch of them that wrote in the 4th and 5th century were hardened and exceedingly committed heresiologists. There was a pathological concern for the classification and categorisation, not of BELIEVERS but of the masses and masses of UNBELIEVERS.

The Christian heresiologists have been known to have written not history about their enemies, but pseudo-historical polemic. We must be therefore be exceedingly cautious to accept what they say at face value.



You don't have to be authority to see that there is something quite suspicious about the appearance of pairs of duplicate personalities in the lineages of the Platonists and the Christian theologians of the 3rd century.



Eusebius "legitimitized" his list of "Bishops" by engaging in the identity theft of the names of well known Platonist theologians.

I am with the notion that Eusebius was the most thoroughly dishonest historian in antiquity.






It's what the victors told us what Arius's supporters believed.


IMO what Arius and his followers believed has been CENSORED by the victors.

"And ever since [the Council of Nicaea] has Arius's error been reckoned for a heresy
more than ordinary, being known as Christ's foe, and harbinger of Antichrist."

You are quibbling about the difference between Athanasius calling Arius the antichrist or the "forerunner" of the antichrist. I accept your quibble, but maintain it was a card game and Athanasius was not at the time forced to play the final card, because the Christians had control.



Isaac Newton expressed a very healthy distrust of anything Athanasius said or did and I share this distrust. Those who were referred to in the letter of John as the many antichrists were not necessarily Christians.

AFAIK they were known as such because they "refused to confess that Jesus appeared in the flesh". I equate this with those who " refused to confess that Jesus was an historical figure".




I think it represents unwitting evidence that Arius of Alexandria was a satirist and satirized Constantine's Jesus.

Eusebius's “Life of Constantine”, Ch. 56,
How Controversies originated at Alexandria through Matters relating to Arius.


In this manner the emperor, like a powerful herald of God, addressed himself by his own letter to all the provinces, at the same time warning his subjects against superstitious ("Demoniacal" or "diabolical") error, and encouraging them in the pursuit of true godliness. But in the midst of his joyful anticipations of the success of this measure, he received tidings of a most serious disturbance which had invaded the peace of the Church. This intelligence he heard with deep concern, and at once endeavored to devise a remedy for the evil. The origin of this disturbance may be thus described. The people of God were in a truly flourishing state, and abounding in the practice of good works. No terror from without assailed them, but a bright and most profound peace, through the favor of God, encompassed his Church on every side. Meantime, however, the spirit of envy was watching to destroy our blessings, which at first crept in unperceived, but soon revelled in the midst of the assemblies of the saints. At length it reached the bishops themselves, and arrayed them in angry hostility against each other, on pretense of a jealous regard for the doctrines of Divine truth.

Hence it was that a mighty fire was kindled as it were from a little spark, and which, originating in the first instance in the Alexandrian church, overspread the whole of Egypt and Libya, and the further Thebaid. Eventually it extended its ravages to the other provinces and cities of the empire; so that not only the prelates of the churches might be seen encountering each other in the strife of words, but the people themselves were completely divided, some adhering to one faction and others to another.

Nay, so notorious did the scandal of these proceedings become, that the sacred matters of inspired teaching were exposed to the most shameful ridicule in the very theatres of the unbelievers.

The hypothesis that I am investigating is that Arius was satirizing the canonical books in the theatres of Alexandria. And that Arius and the rest of the pagan population which witnessed the boundary events of Nicaea and beyond were in fact these UNBELIEVERS referred to by Eusebius.

Thus the Arian controversy was sparked primarily by pagan UNBELIEF in the Jesus Propaganda.
The pagans trashed and satirized Constantine's holy writ. Boy, were they ever in serious trouble.






While issuing contracts for his death.

ARIUS: WANTED DEAD or ALIVE.





Well what else do you expect the Archbishop of Canterbury to say about the received tradition of Arius?




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Jeffrey Gibson

If??

It is reasonable only if (1) you can show that in the actual arguments Arius used to defend his claim -- which included identifying his Logos with the Logos of Jn 1:1, using specifically Johannine language in his descriptions of the Logos/Son he speaks of (where does Plotinus use "Son" as a designation of his Logos?), and appealing to what other Biblical, not Plotinian texts, to outline the nature of the Logos he spoke of and to defend his claims that the Logos was not eterna -- he was discussing and denying the eternal existence of Plotinus' Logos and (2) if you could explain why it is that his sophisms were appended to, presented as heretical denial of what is stated in specifially Johannine language vis a vis the Logos that was incarnated in Jesus in the Nicean creed -- which even you'll admit, I trust, has nothing to do with any of the doctrines of Plotinus.

In other words, it isn't reasonable at all. And you are engaged in special pleading, ignoring all evidence to the contrary of your claim, and thinking fallaciously, when you claim it is

Hardly. At least with respect to how Arius sophism reflect claims that Jesus was a historical and literary fiction created by Constantine.

You have admitted that any claim on your part that the "he" in the sophisms might not be Jesus. Therefore you are admitting that your case about Arius asserting that Jesus is an historical and literary fiction is at best wholly tentative and inconclusive Moreover, in asserting that the "he" of Arius' "sophisms" refers to Plotinus' Logos you are admitting that Arius' declarations had nothing to do with the issue of Jesus' historicity.

How can this be a stalemate when the issue at hand is whether Arius was intent to deny that Jesus was historical? It is actually a concession on your part that this was not his intent.

So there's no stalemate. There is defeat.


False dichotomy, even if your textual claims are true.

Are you really asserting that if/since Arius was a follower of Plontinus, and used P's philosophy and logic, that he could not have been a Christian, let alone that he could not be referring to the Logos of Jn 1:1 in his sophisms. That would be like saying that because Aquinas was a follower of the philosohpy and logic of Aristotle (which he most certainly was), he was not a Christian and that he was not referring to Christian scripture or Christian ideas when he used terms that appear in both Aristotle and scripture.

Tell me, Pete. Arius also use and appealed to Biblical texts in his arguments against the eternal existence of the Logos, didn't he? Can you show me how these factor into -- or would be good evidence against -- a claim that the Logos of Plotinus was not a created thing -- which is exactly what you are claiming that Arius was intent to do and was doing if, when he said "there was a once when he was not" Arius was refering to the Logos of Plotinus..

Moreover, why would any Christian Father, not to mention an Emperor, be upset, let alone upset enough to take time to write lengthy treatises against Arius and hold councils to denounce him, if what Arius was up to (and you now are committed to saying he was) was to say that there was a once when the Plotinian Logos was not, that the Plotinian Logos was created, that the Plotinian Logos was changeable? How would this make Arius a heretic? How and why would it earn him the title of harbinger of the antichrist? What is damnable about that from an orthodox Christian point of view?

Sorry, Pete, but the more you try to defend this new (goal post changed) claim that it was not Jesus but the Plotinian Logos that Arius was referencing when he said things like "there was a once when he was not", the more you show your case for what it is -- absolute horseshit.

Jeffrey

mountainman

How for the sake of Bilbo Baggins is this a false dichotomy let alone a dichotomy?




Yes.


But not for the reasons you suppose above.







εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

To Jeffrey,


I would be grateful if you acknowledge that in order to say anything of significance about the five sophisms of Arius of Alexandria, the political context during which Arius actually wrote the books that caused so many problems and controversies, needs to be known, but is not yet known.

If you think that textual criticism alone can answer questions of political history then I think you need a long holiday.

And finally, if you (or anyone else for that matter Duvduv) think you know the political context within which Arius wrote his horrible books that Constantine took exception to, then you have the podium, and you have your 5th century tax exempt heresiological sources.




Unfaithfully yours



Pete




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Jeffrey Gibson

If it's true that this context is not yet known, then all of claims that you make about what this context was are as bogus as they are historically uninformed.

Jeffrey

mountainman

The following list of information is sourced from a close reading of one of Constantine's letters to Arius (c.333 CE) and on the surface represents how Constantine (or whoever it was that forged this letter) viewed Arius and his actions in relation to the figure of Jesus and the Nicaean Church.

I put this evidence forward for discussion of this political context.

What can be drawn from what Constantine reveals about Arius is open to interpretation, but on the surface of things, Arius sounds even more remote from orthodoxy than the pagans (Arius is depicted as an unbeliever who introduces belief in unbelief [of Jesus]), and it is this evidence which, in part, I rely upon for the hypothesis that Arius may not have been a Christian, but a Platonist theologian who's name and memory have been grotesquely distorted by the Christian victors of the political battle.

Constantine about Arius of Alexandria

He brought state orthodoxy into the light;
He hurled his wretched self into darkness.
He ended his labors with this

He wrote that he did not wish God to appear to be the subject of suffering of outrage
He wrote that (on the above account) he suggested and fabricated wondrous things indeed in respect to faith.


He wrote books that collected and gathered terrible and lawless impieties
He wrote books that agitated tongues [Editor: Very popular books]
He wrote books which deceived and destroyed

He introduced a belief of unbelief.
He introduced a belief of unbelief that is completely new.
He accepted Jesus as a figment
He called Jesus foreign
He did not adapt, he did not adapt (it was said twice) to God [Editor: the "new" orthodox God]
He was twice wretched

He reproached the church
He grieved the church
He wounded he church
He pained the church
He demoted Jesus
He dared to circumscribe Jesus
He undermined the (orthodox) truth
He undermined the (othodox) truth by various discourses
He detracted from Jesus who is indetractable
He questioned the presence of Jesus
He questioned the activity of Jesus
He questioned the all-pervading law of Jesus
He thought that there was a place outside of Jesus
He thought that there something else outside of Jesus
He denied the infiniteness of Jesus
He did not conclude that God is present in Christ
He had no faith in Christ
He did not follow the law that God's law is Christ
He had little piety toward Christ
He detracted from the uncorrupted intelligence of Jesus
He detracted from the belief in immortality of Jesus
He detracted from the uncorrupted intelligence of the Church
He was barred publicly from God’s church

Arius appears to have written books against the canonical books of the New testament.

The blue highlighted phrases above, provide the reason (according to Constantine's intelligence) that Arius suggested and fabricated wondrous things indeed in respect to faith (ie. wrote books of fabrications). The reason it would appear is that Arius "did not wish God to appear to be the subject of suffering of outrage". I take this to be the Jesus crucifixion storytale that Arius objected to. Arius did not condone stories about his conception of God in which this God is subject to such acts. Arius's idea of God is some "inexpressible essence" which I have elsewhere argued is closer to the conception of the (supreme) "One" of Plotinus.

The political context of Nicaea is not known. What we have in its place are "Ecclesiastical Histories" that were written a century after the event. This does not mean that the political context of Nicaea is unknowable, or that hypotheses concerning this political context are necessarily "bogus".




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia