mountainman

Dear gentleexit,

How do we know this for sure? How do we know that Arius of Alexandria for example basically said Jesus was historical bullshit. Before he was born he was not. He was made out of nothing existent. Tell me, how do we really know he did not in fact take this hard line utter unbelief in the new gift-wrapped textual god, and the state monotheistic church suppressed this unbelief, by making him a "standard type of heretic"? How can we be sure this did not happen?


Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

W.C.Wright makes the following note:
I have yet to establish what the others say as a disclaimer against the integrity of the bishop Cyril. Wright's notes however raise the issue of the subject matter of what it was that Cyril omitted to preserve of Julian's arraignment against the christians in the fourth century.

Best wishes,


Pete

Toto

This is your fantasy, based on your misinterpretation of Arius. Please stop repeating it until you have something new to say.

mountainman

Dear Toto,

How do you interpret the following:

What is to be "imagined" by the phrase he introduces a belief of unbelief – new and never yet at any time seen since men have been born. in relation to the OP? Arius is being charged with unbelief. What is the substance of this "unbelief"? What explanation is to be offered for the nature of the "reproaches, grief, wounds and pains" dealt out by Arius against the newly elevated church? Without using any imagination, it appears to be a reasonable position that these above charges are far more serious that just some simple theological dispute.

Best wishes,


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

No, he's not.

If I'm reading this correctly, it is actually an imaginary diatribal opponent whom Constantine here speaks. And he does not charge this opponent with unbelief, but with introducing (εἰσάγει) disbelief (ἀπιστίας) to that which (is held to be) trustworthy (πίστιν). [Note that the form of ἀπιστία used here is not genitive, is it?]

It is not "unbelief". It is "disbelief". And it has nothing to do with when Christianity came into being. Rather it centers in a rejection of the orthodox position that the Logos/Son was begotten, not made, and therefore was not, as Arius claimed (in the interest of protecting monotheism), a creature who, being a creature, was finite and therefore incapable of being the one through whom the orthodox believed men received salvation.

You beg the question -- and show how unread you are [as you yourself admitted] in the primary and the secondary literature on and about the Arian controversy and its history --when you say that the dispute over whether or not the Logos/Son was a creature was a "simple" one, let alone only a "theological" one and that, even if "only" a "theological" one, it was not capable of having (and/or did not have) grave political and social consequences.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

"Yet to establish"??? Does that mean "yet to read"?

You are changing the subject. The issue is not how much of Julian did Cyril preserve. Rather, given your own claim that "we need to be extremely careful about making pronouncements concerning the intentions of Julian" (a principle that you yourself do not observe in practice), it is whether Cyril distorted what Julian said in those portions of CG that he preserved (and which you quote in support of your claims).

Please note that in the very quote from Wright that you have provided us with, Wright does not think so. Nor -- as you'd see if you ever read him -- does Neumann.

Jeffrey

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

The translator P.R.Coleman-Norton does not appear to agree with you.

I am aware of the orthodox position recoverable from the histories of the orthodox state monotheistic religious historians who continued where Eusebius left off. I am not a follower of this orthodox dogma.

My position is that the Arian controversy is consistent with the simple political and social consequences of the ascetic Arius' position (paraphrased for the OP) that although he believed in the Hellenistic Logos/Son (what many people today read as "god") he did not believe in the existence of Jesus.

As an interesting counterpoint to the significance of subliminal advertising and the belief industry associated with christianity (in all centuries, not just the fourth). One author states:
Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

I am not changing the subject. The OP seeks whether anyone suspected Jesus did not exist. The opening paragraph Cyril preserved of Julian discloses the emperor Julian was convinced the fabrication of the christians (ie: the canon) was fiction. He legislates that the christians were to be named "Galilaeans", and it therefore appears that during the brief period Julian ruled, it is safe to say that in fact there were no legal christians in the empire, since they were not referred to as "christians", but "Galilaeans" during that period. We are entitled to ask the question in principal whether Julian in fact suspected Jesus did not exist. We have only Cyril's preservation of Julian -- and Cyril is a hostile witness to Julian (and many others). The question as to whether Cyril is presenting Julian fairly and squarely is appropriate.

Wright points out that Cyril omitted invectives against Christ and such matter as might contaminate the minds of Christians. The authenticity of Jesus, assessed negatively (by Julian), might certainly contaminate the minds of Christians. What exactly did Cyril omit? We dont know. Whatever he omitted appears to be conjectural. My position is that the omissions may be critical. The orthodox position is the assumption that Cyril has not omitted critical data. I do not agree with this assumption.

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear Toto,

Addressing the OP if I declare a position that -- "I suspect Jesus never existed" is this a valid position? I suspect that it has to be. Therefore, I would like to know --- in principal --- why this valid position could not have been shared by Arius and Julian and then covered over (ie: censored) by the orthodox Cyril and his continuators of the fifth century who successfully sought (by the sword and the fire) to secure legitimacy? Why does anyone think this position is impossible - firstly in principal, and then secondly with direct reference to the remaining evidence (including the archaeology) of that epoch (the first 400 years CE)?

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear Toto,

Additionally, and no disrespect intended to the "mythicists" but I am curious as to why you use the euphemism "mythicism" theory when I have -- if not once but thousands of times -- used the term "fiction" (theory) ? Do you see the two terms as interchangeable?

Best wishes,


Pete