mountainman

See Ammonius Saccas


Elsewhere we find that there are two Origens and two Anatolii in the 3rd century.

Do you think there has been a mistake made somewhere?




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

The point being the argument presented is from Arius himself. This is very important to understand.

We do not have much of what Arius thought because the Nicaean Christians burnt everything they could find and the imperial "damnatio memoriae" was quite effective.


The point is that if we look at what Constantine says here (about the argument of Arius) we find that Arius wrote (fabricated) stuff because he did not wish God to appear to be subject to suffering of outrages - such as the fantastic crucifixion story tale.

The point is that Arius did not like the canonical story where god/jesus gets shafted by the Romans and/or Jews.

Therefore on account of this dislike, Arius wrote and fabricated his own stories.

The motivation of Arius to write is the point being explored.


εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Jeffrey Gibson

But you said Platonic school. Are you asserting that Neoplatonsim was essentially the same thing as Platonism -- and that what was taught at Alexandria by, say, Sosipatra and Hypatia, was essentially the same thing that was taught at Plato's Academy in Athens?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Could you do two things for me, please?

(1) tell me what words in the Greek text of this passage stand behind the expression "to be subject to [the] suffering of outrages" and whether the word translated here as "suffering" is a noun or a verb, and whether there is the Greek equivalent of "and" between the Greek words for "suffering" and "outrages" as you seem to think there is when you say that Arius "does not wish his concept of God to be the subject of suffering and outrages"?

(2) show me on the basis of the language and the syntax of the Greek text of this passage me how Arius refers to the crucifixion and how Constantine acknowledges this and/or points it out when he goes on, as he does, to list what Arius does to avoid seeing God subjected to outrages?

With thanks in advance.

Jeffrey

mountainman

The opening two sentences of my essay from the wayback machine


It remains an historical fact that where the Roman Emperor Gallienus publically praised Plotinus, the Roman Emperor Constantine publically executed Sopater.


There was an incumbent lineage of philosophers at Nicaea and the Platonists were well represented following the books of Porphyry.

Constantine burnt Porphyry.




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

Philip of Side (fragment)

Suggests the presence of a large number of philosophers at the Council of Nicaea, who were associates of Arius.

Also see Fr. 5.7 - [The Arian Philosopher and the Simple Old Man] - this appears to be a homily.




Arius and MANY PHILOSOPHERS were bravely saying that .... "Jesus is something created and something made"?



The seemingly idiotic claim that Arius was not a Christian theologian but a philosophical theologian seems supported in the above.

Please discuss.

And while you're at it explain to me why you think Constantine called Arius a "Porphyrian".









εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Toto

No, that quote does not support the idea that Arius was a pagan and not a Christian. Where did pagan philosophers discuss the substance of Jesus, which was a uniquely Christian concept?

We know what pagans thought about Jesus - that he was a failed prophet executed by Pilate who died and stayed dead. Only Christians debated whether Jesus was of the same essence as their god or had been created by god at the beginning of the world.

I'm getting tired of this. You've got nothing in your hand. There are other more important issues.

mountainman

According to the source I have provided (Philip of Side) it is reasonable to assume the possibility that the philosophers discussed the Holy Writ of the Pagan Roman Empire at Nicaea.

These philosophers are clearly opposed to the Bishops.



There are two parties being described.
The victorious bishops and the abominable philosophers.

Are you going to argue that these philosophers were Christians?


What source are you using to do this "knowing"?

Celsus via Origen via Eusebius?

The question here is specific about the time. Nicaea 325 CE.



I think this is a false assumption on mainstream's part. Why would the pagans not be interested in such questions following and at Nicaea?

Also there is the "lovely bath" reference supplied by Clivedurdle.

The Philip of Side fragments suggest otherwise, unless you are prepared to argue that the philosophers so described in the two fragments referenced above were Christian philosophers. Is this your argument?

My argument is that these fragments suggest non Christians were vocal at Nicaea.






εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Jeffrey Gibson

What Greek words stands behind "philosophers"? Is it never used of any pre-nicean apologists or of any within the orthodox party?

Jeffrey

spin

From the same source quoted by mountainman...

Fr. 5.4
[Succession of Bishops in Alexandria—and Arius]

Anonymous Ecclesiastical History 2.1.13f. [p. 23, line 28 - p. 24, line 9 Hansen]

2.1

(12) So, when the Church of Christ our Savior throughout the world was enjoying deep peace, this [peace] having been obtained for it by God, the universal King, through his servant Constantine and his children, (13) after the death of the divine Peter, bishop of the Alexandrian Church, who had been made perfect by the very act of martyrdom and had bound his brow with the incorruptible crown of the contest, the Church there was bereft [of a leader] for one year. And after this year, the throne of that same holy martyr Peter was allotted to Achillas, (14) a man who was strong, noble, holy-minded, and pre-eminent with very great piety and wisdom, as the ancient unerring writings describe; he, after frequent urging, received Arius and made him a deacon. (15) But after this man [i.e., Achillas] had lived on only five months, the authority of high-priest[136] over the Church of Alexandria was received by Alexander, a man who was honored in every respect by both the clergy and laity of the church; small in stature, generous, well-spoken, capable, loving God, loving his fellow man, loving the poor, good and gentle to all as much as anyone ever has been. He himself too installed Arius into a position—that of presbyter, nearest to himself…

Dealing with the church of Christ the Savior the text tells us that Arius was made a deacon, a church officer, and later a presbyter of the church of Alexandria under Alexander. He was obviously considered to be of the same faith before the split occurred.

Arius below accepts "God and His Christ". He makes clear that he does not accept the notion that the son is unbegotten. He states that only god is unbegotten and so the son has a beginning. This means that the son was made like all created life.

Arius' Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia
c 319 CE
(from Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, I, IV. LPNF, ser. 2, vol. 3, 41.

To his very dear lord, the man of God, the faithful and orthodox Eusebius, Arius, unjustly persecuted by Alexander the Pope, on account of that all conquering truth of which you also are a champion, sendeth greeting in the Lord.

Ammonius, my father, being about to depart for Nicomedia, I considered myself bound to salute you by him, and withal to inform that natural affection which you bear towards the brethern for the sake of God and His Christ, that the bishop greatly wastes and persecutes us, and leaves no stone unturned against us. He has driven us out of the city as atheists, because we do not concur in what he publicly preaches, namely, God always, the Son always; as the Father so the Son; the Son co-exists unbegotten with the God; He is everlasting; neither by thought nor by any interval does God precede the Son; always God, always Son; he is begotten of the unbegotten; the Son is of God Himself. Eusebius, your brother bishop of Caesarea, Theodotus, Paulinus, Athanasius, Gregorius, Aetius, and all the bishops of the East, have been condemned because they say that God had an existence prior to that of his Son; except Philogonius, Hellanicus, and Macarius, who are unlearned men, and who have embraced heretical opinions. Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that He is a production, others the He is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe, and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten; and that He does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by His own will and counsel He has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, ot established, He was not. For He was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning. This is the cause of our persecution, and likewise, because we say that He is of the non-existent. And this we say, because He is neither part of God, nor of any essential being. For this are we persecuted; the rest you know. I bid thee farewell in the Lord, remembering our afflictions, my fellow-Lucianist, and true Eusebius.

Here among other things Arius claims to have had the same mentor, Lucian of Antioch, as bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia. Arius plainly considers himself as having beliefs similar to Eusebius of Nicomedia, ie a christian.

-----

As to the pagan and christian parallels mountainman has lined up, it is understandable that Ammonius Saccas, being the teacher of Origen might have been considered a christian by those who knew little of the man, for he taught the great Origen.

As to two Origens, in fact there were:

At this point it is desirable to say something about the pagan Origen (the Christian Origen is treated at length elsewhere in this History). He is mentioned three times in Porphyry's Life in terms which should make it clear to the discerning reader that he was a different person from his Christian namesake, of whom Porphyry so heartily disapproved and that Plotinus and the scholarly Platonist Longinus regarded him with considerable respect. He is also mentioned a number of times by Proclus, and occasionally by other later writers.

(from A.H. Armstrong, The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy, 2007 (1967), p.198)

None of this is any help in identifying Arius as a non-christian Neo-Platonist. Such a conjecture is so far a pure fantasy springing not from any evidence, but from the head of mountainman, just another argument by assertion that doesn't add any support to his main thesis, but merely calls for more evidence.

Supporting failed assertions with other failed assertions seems to be the modus operandi here. There is no reason to believe that Arius was a non-christian, especially when every source that we find including those presented by mountainman and what was written by Arius himself clearly show him within the circle of christian believers, even if seen as a heretic.

There is no logic to tarting Arius up as a non-christian other than because mountainman has to explain Arius somehow. There is no benefit in turning a non-christian into a christian heretic.

Why should Constantine call Arius a "Porphyrian"? You already know the answer for it was explained:

Porphyry wrote wicked and unlawful writings against the religion of Christians, found the reward which befitted him, that he might be a reproach to all generations after, because he fully and insatiably used base fame; so that on this account his writings were righteously destroyed; thus also now it seems good that Arius and the holders of his opinion should all be called Porphyrians

The material Arius wrote is deemed wicked and unlawful, against the religion, as did Porphyry. Arius should become a reproach for all, as should Porphyry. His works should be destroyed as with Porphyry's. As the opinion of Arius and his followers are against the religion that opinion should be regarded like that of Porphyry. The text itself clearly states its own logic.

The purpose of forcibly converting Arius to paganism is transparently a part of mountainman's hobby horse, as is the nonsense about satire. It gives mountainman something to do. He pours this shit onto the forum without regard for the effect it has and his persistently insinuation of the Eusebius conspiracy theory lurking behind it.

:tombstone: . :tombstone: . :tombstone:

. . :tombstone: . :tombstone:

:tombstone: . :tombstone: . :tombstone: