Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 06-05-2013, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

This is interesting -

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

...

Defense of the Nicene Definition

Quote:

Do you, God, then hear; do you, all the people, pay attention. For this fellow is shameless and useless, who, having progressed to the height both of wickedness and likewise of lawlessness, pretends piety. (29.) He says: “Away! I do not wish God to appear to be subject to suffering of outrages, and on this account I suggest and fabricate wondrous things indeed in respect to faith: that God, when he had made the newly born and the newly created essence of Christ, prepared aid for himself, as it seems indeed to me. For what you have taken from him, this you have made less.” Is this, then, your faith, spoiler and destroyer? (30.) According to hypothesis do you accept as a figment him who has condemned the figments of the heathen? Do you call foreign and – as it were – a servant of duties him who without reflection and reasoning, in that he coexists with the Father’s eternity, perfected all things? Now adapt, if indeed you dare, adapt I say, to God both precaution and hope of what will happen, also reflection, reasoning, declaration and articulation of considered judgment, and, in short, delight, laughter, grief. ...

http://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-34/

Seems to acknowledge fabrication and creation of 'an essence'

All this is more than interesting.

Please allow me to point out the obvious. Constantine is actually quoting Arius in part of the blue highlit text. The full quote runs like this. I have taken the liberty of splitting it into bits...

He [ARIUS of Alexandria] says:

“Away! I do not wish God to appear to be subject to suffering of outrages,

and on this account I suggest and fabricate wondrous things indeed in respect to faith:

that God, when he had made the newly born and the newly created essence of Christ, prepared aid for himself, as it seems indeed to me.

For what you have taken from him, this you have made less.”

The first bit “Away! I do not wish God to appear to be subject to suffering of outrages ..." seems to me to be an indirect reference to the Canonical Story of the Jesus/God figure. In the canon (i.e. in the Bible widely published and supported by Bullneck) the Jesus/God figure gets a raw deal in the crucifixion. Arius does not like this story. He does not wish his concept of God to be the subject of suffering and outrages.

What next?

Well, it seems to me anyway, that because of this wish of Arius, Arius as a result ... on this account I suggest and fabricate wondrous things indeed in respect to faith". Here we have more or less a direct statement that Arius wrote (suggested and fabricated) other very wonderous things about having faith in the divine concept of a god.

This suggests that Arius wrote "other stories" at that time, stories that displeased Constantine and his very authoritarian following orthodoxy.

The interesting thing for me in this, so far, is that we have the reasons that Arius felt compelled to write against the canonical story of suffering and outrage against the concept of (Bullneck's) god. It provides evidence that Arius THEREFORE wrote and fabricated wonderous things in respect of his (Arius's) conception of what god and faith meant at that time in history.

Arius grieved and pained and wounded Constantine and his newly created church by these writings.

It's quite simple.

Arius wrote some books in response to the Bullneck Bible.

These books may have been read in Alexandrian theatres.

"the sacred matters of inspired teaching
were exposed to the most shameful ridicule
in the very theaters of the unbelievers."

How Controversies originated at Alexandria
through Matters relating to Arius
Eusebius, "Life of Constantine", Ch. LXI

This leads us to the contention that Arius was NOT a "believer".

My idea is that Arius was not a Christian theologian at all.

My idea is that Arius was a Platonic theologian at the wrong place at the wrong time.

An essay on this

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

stephan huller · 06-05-2013, 10:00 PM

Quote:

My idea is that Arius was not a Christian theologian at all.

My idea is that Arius was a Platonic theologian at the wrong place at the wrong time.

This is an argument forum; not an 'ideas' forum. 'My idea that Big Bird is President of the United States.' 'My idea that the sun is really blue.' This could - and has - gone on forever with you. You simply have no argument to back up that assertion so please stop repeating it ad nauseam. If you don't have a rational argument you really should stop posting this nonsense here.

Toto · 06-05-2013, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

..

All this is more than interesting.

Please allow me to point out the obvious. Constantine is actually quoting Arius in part of the blue highlit text.

I don't think so. It appears that he is framing Arius' argument so that he can refute it.

Quote:

The full quote runs like this. I have taken the liberty of splitting it into bits...

He [ARIUS of Alexandria] says:

“Away! I do not wish God to appear to be subject to suffering of outrages,

and on this account I suggest and fabricate wondrous things indeed in respect to faith:

that God, when he had made the newly born and the newly created essence of Christ, prepared aid for himself, as it seems indeed to me.

For what you have taken from him, this you have made less.”

The first bit “Away! I do not wish God to appear to be subject to suffering of outrages ..." seems to me to be an indirect reference to the Canonical Story of the Jesus/God figure. In the canon (i.e. in the Bible widely published and supported by Bullneck) the Jesus/God figure gets a raw deal in the crucifixion. Arius does not like this story. He does not wish his concept of God to be the subject of suffering and outrages.

What next?

Well, it seems to me anyway, that because of this wish of Arius, Arius as a result ... on this account I suggest and fabricate wondrous things indeed in respect to faith". Here we have more or less a direct statement that Arius wrote (suggested and fabricated) other very wonderous things about having faith in the divine concept of a god.

This suggests that Arius wrote "other stories" at that time, stories that displeased Constantine and his very authoritarian following orthodoxy.

The interesting thing for me in this, so far, is that we have the reasons that Arius felt compelled to write against the canonical story of suffering and outrage against the concept of (Bullneck's) god. It provides evidence that Arius THEREFORE wrote and fabricated wonderous things in respect of his (Arius's) conception of what god and faith meant at that time in history.

Have you actually made a point here? I can't find it. You are missing the real point of contention between Arius and Athanasius - whether Christ was of the same essence as god or merely a similar essence.

Quote:

Arius grieved and pained and wounded Constantine and his newly created church by these writings.

It's quite simple.

Arius wrote some books in response to the Bullneck Bible.

These books may have been read in Alexandrian theatres.

"the sacred matters of inspired teaching were exposed to the most shameful ridicule in the very theaters of the unbelievers."

How Controversies originated at Alexandria through Matters relating to Arius Eusebius, "Life of Constantine", Ch. LXI

And now you pull out one of your favorite soundbites about ridicule that you don't understand, with no indication that this refers to anything Arius did.

Quote:

This leads us to the contention that Arius was NOT a "believer".

My idea is that Arius was not a Christian theologian at all.

My idea is that Arius was a Platonic theologian at the wrong place at the wrong time.

An essay on this

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norton

Reported Attack Page!

This web page at www.mountainman.com.au has been reported as an attack page and has been blocked based on your security preferences.

Attack pages try to install programs that steal private information, use your computer to attack others, or damage your system.Some attack pages intentionally distribute harmful software, but many are compromised without the knowledge or permission of their owners.

mountainman · 06-05-2013, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

My idea is that Arius was not a Christian theologian at all.

My idea is that Arius was a Platonic theologian at the wrong place at the wrong time.

If you don't have a rational argument you really should stop posting this nonsense here.

FFS the argument is in the essay you snipped.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 06-05-2013, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

An essay on this

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norton

Reported Attack Page!

This web page at www.mountainman.com.au has been reported as an attack page and has been blocked based on your security preferences.

Attack pages try to install programs that steal private information, use your computer to attack others, or damage your system.Some attack pages intentionally distribute harmful software, but many are compromised without the knowledge or permission of their owners.

Does anyone else have this problem with the essay page?

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

stephan huller · 06-06-2013, 12:07 AM

Quote:

FFS the argument is in the essay you snipped.

<edit>

Toto · 06-06-2013, 12:39 AM

The wayback machine has a copy:

Archived 4 9 2013

Your argument with regard to Arius is that Constantine completely rewrote the history, etc. I think the rest of it has been discussed here or in another thread.

ETA - the most recent discussion was on this thread. You were not persuasive there.

The idea that Arius did not even claim to be a Christian, but was rewritten in history by Constantine and his henchmen to be an unorthodox Christian, has no support anywhere. It makes no sense.

mountainman · 06-06-2013, 02:13 AM

My website has been hacked and infected with malware.

Please do not visit it.

I have alerted the operational support.

Thanks for the link Toto.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The wayback machine has a copy:

Archived 4 9 2013

Your argument with regard to Arius is that Constantine completely rewrote the history, etc. I think the rest of it has been discussed here or in another thread.

That is not the argument presented in the essay.

The key term is identity fraud.

The argument presented has an abstract which reads as follows:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ABSTRACT

A Pageant of Christian Identity Frauds
masquerade in the Academy of Plato

ABSTRACT

Evidence is presented to substantiate the presence of at least a trinity of Christian Identity Frauds masquerading in the Academy of Plato during the 3rd century. (1,2,3) From the 4th century mention is resurrected of Porphyry's Christian Identity Fraud and the likelihood is explored that the Christian Presbyter Arius of Alexandria, is just another Identity Fraud in a pattern of similar evidence. (4,5) The events of the Council of Nicaea are reconstructed in such a manner as to narrate from the profane perspective, the heresy, the exile and the "damnatio memoriae" of Arius of Alexandria, a non christian theologian/philosopher associated with the Alexandrian academy of Plato c.324 CE. (6,7)

•(0) Introduction - The Nondual God of Plato, Plato's Canon and its Apostolic Lineage

•(1) The Two Ammonii - Ammonius Saccas the Platonist and Ammonius the Christian

•(2) The Two Origen's - Origen the Platonist and Origen the Christian.

•(3) The Two Anatolii - Anatolius of Alexandria the Platonist and Anatolius the Christian Bishop

•(4) The Two Porphyrii - Porphyry the Platonist and Porphyry the Christian author

•(5) The Two Arii - Arius of Alexandria the Platonist and Arius the Christian Presbyter.

•(6) Reconstructing a Profane History of Nicaea - The Gods in the books of Plato and Constantine

•(7) Identity Frauds, conclusions and recommendations - Condemnation of pious forgery.

•(8) Reference: the Apostolic Lineage of the Academy of Plato - a chronological tabulation

Identity Fraud: - A criminal activity involving the use of a stolen or misappropriated identity. The process usually involves either stolen or forged identity documents used to obtain goods or services by deception.

Quote:

The idea that Arius did not even claim to be a Christian, but was rewritten in history by Constantine and his henchmen to be an unorthodox Christian, has no support anywhere. It makes no sense.

It makes no sense to me that there were

•(1) The Two Ammonii - Ammonius Saccas the Platonist and Ammonius the Christian

•(2) The Two Origen's - Origen the Platonist and Origen the Christian.

•(3) The Two Anatolii - Anatolius of Alexandria the Platonist and Anatolius the Christian Bishop

What makes perfect sense to me is that Eusebius borrowed a few names from the high profile lineage of the Platonist philosophers and theologians (and mathematicians) to become part of his lineage of Christian bishops, for whom we have no evidence in the archaeology or anywhere outside of Eusebius's thesis in history about the "Early church".

Do you think these name duplications are a coincidence?

I don't.

I am naturally very suspicious about Eusebius.

He used fraud in the service of religion more than once.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Jeffrey Gibson · 06-06-2013, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

the heresy, the exile and the "damnatio memoriae" of Arius of Alexandria, a non christian theologian/philosopher associated with the Alexandrian academy of Plato c.324 CE. (6,7)

Associated with the what??

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 06-06-2013, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

This is interesting -

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

...

Defense of the Nicene Definition

Quote:

Do you, God, then hear; do you, all the people, pay attention. For this fellow is shameless and useless, who, having progressed to the height both of wickedness and likewise of lawlessness, pretends piety. (29.) He says: “Away! I do not wish God to appear to be subject to suffering of outrages, and on this account I suggest and fabricate wondrous things indeed in respect to faith: that God, when he had made the newly born and the newly created essence of Christ, prepared aid for himself, as it seems indeed to me. For what you have taken from him, this you have made less.” Is this, then, your faith, spoiler and destroyer? (30.) According to hypothesis do you accept as a figment him who has condemned the figments of the heathen? Do you call foreign and – as it were – a servant of duties him who without reflection and reasoning, in that he coexists with the Father’s eternity, perfected all things? Now adapt, if indeed you dare, adapt I say, to God both precaution and hope of what will happen, also reflection, reasoning, declaration and articulation of considered judgment, and, in short, delight, laughter, grief. ...

http://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-34/

Seems to acknowledge fabrication and creation of 'an essence'

What is the Greek word which underlies "essence"?

Quote:

All this is more than interesting.

Please allow me to point out the obvious. Constantine is actually quoting Arius in part of the blue highlit text. The full quote runs like this. I have taken the liberty of splitting it into bits...

Even if he is, so what? Of whom is Constantine speaking when he says σὲ τῆς ἀφωρισμένης καθέδρας κύκλῳ περιγράφειν τολμᾷ?

Of whom is Constantine speaking when at 27 (before his "away with you") he says σὲ τὴν κατὰ τὸν τόπον κινεῖσθαι, δέσποτα, κίνησιν οἴεται?

Who is the referent of the σὲ in Constantines's address σὲ τῆς ἀφωρισμένης καθέδρας κύκλῳ περιγράφειν τολμᾷ?

Jeffrey

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-06-2013, 12:39 AM	#37
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The wayback machine has a copy: Archived 4 9 2013 Your argument with regard to Arius is that Constantine completely rewrote the history, etc. I think the rest of it has been discussed here or in another thread. ETA - the most recent discussion was on this thread. You were not persuasive there. The idea that Arius did not even claim to be a Christian, but was rewritten in history by Constantine and his henchmen to be an unorthodox Christian, has no support anywhere. It makes no sense.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.