MrMacSon

A significant other option (beyond the dichotomy proposed) is that the then Christianity - that Arius, Lucian of Antioch, & bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia were a part of - had a more vague / less corporeal saviour than was later proposed.

ie. the story evolved from a proposal of a saviour to concretion of one.

Jeffrey Gibson

It is reasonable if and only if the Greek word translated as "philosophers" (which is what, BTW? Do you know?) has no other meaning or connotation than someone schooled in pagan philosophy (wasn't Justin and Athanasius?) and was never applied to any pre-nicean Christian writer or to any within the orthodox party. Until you show that this is indeed the case, you are engaging in petitio princippi not to mention eisegeses.

Not all the bishops. As Philip himself testifies, they held the same theological views about the logos/son as did Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea.

Sorry, but you are once more not only engaged in logical fallacies, but in skewing the evidence to fit your thesis.


Jeffrey (who is still waiting for you to tell us not only what the "signature of satire" looked like formally and linguistically and stylistically, but to whom Constantine was referring when at Decretis 40 27 he says σὲ τὴν κατὰ τὸν τόπον κινεῖσθαι, δέσποτα, κίνησιν οἴεται).

Jeffrey Gibson

And your evidence for this is what? What texts from Lucian or Arius or Eusebius of Nicomedia (or their enemies) can you bring forth to show that these fellows did not accept the incarnation, but believed only in vague/less corporeal saviour that was later (when exactly?) "proposed".

I suspect that you've never read much if any of the primary sources that detail what these men believed. Am I correct in my suspicion?

Jeffrey

Duvduv

MM, has your website been fixed yet??

Iskander

Mountainman,

You may have already read this and rejected it as being outdated, but have a look at it, anyway.


Mr. Gibson may be willing to explain the Greek words appearing in the text and we all may enjoy reading about the Christian problem of subordination.

Studies of Arianism, Henry Melvill Gwatkin


http://www.propheticvoice.co.uk/down...%20Gwatkin.pdf

Jeffrey Gibson

It appears that you failed to notice that I already mentioned this (and another) study of Arius and Arianism by Gwatkin here.

Jeffrey

Iskander

Mountaiman.

You were right to ignore it; you should now extend you indifference. There is nothing of any interest here.

stephan huller

<edit>

mountainman

I know not the Greek Jeffrey. You already know this.

Please make your point.



The basis for my thinking that Arius refers to the canonical crucifixion when Constantine asserts (or reconstructs) that Arius states: “Away! I do not wish God to appear to be subject to suffering of outrages ..." is not contained in the text.

The basis for my thinking that Arius is refers to the canonical crucifixion with this statement is that 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.

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.

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?

I see Arius's statement as a reaction to the new God STORY where the GOOD GOD was subject to suffering of outrages.



εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

Hi Duvduv,

The operations support have advised they have fixed the hack. I have requested a review by Google but this may take a few days.

Thanks.



εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia