Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 06-10-2013, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Tim Vivian once raised the question of whether Arius was an Origenist or not (Peter of Alexandria, pp. 110-126. see also Grant, "Theological Education at Alexandria', p. 188f). But no one has ever, ever, ever, ever suggested that Arius was not a Christian. The idea is fucking absurd.

The idea appears fucking absurd to Christian theological history but my claims relate to profane political history.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 06-10-2013, 07:09 PM

Toto - what don't I understand about ridicule?

What do you understand about the reference that allows you to ignore that Arius is involved in these events?

It's clear about the beginnings of the Arian controversy - the words of Arius.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

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.

What don't I understand about this reference? Be specific.

I have supplied the forum with a citation that Toto claims has nothing to do with anything Arius did when the citation has been extracted from "Vita Constantini" and the chapter CHAPTER LXI headed: How Controversies originated at Alexandria through Matters relating to Arius

Is it not reasonable to think that (1) Arius is somehow involved in this ridicule of these sacred matters of inspired teaching at that time in Alexandria, and (2) that these sacred matters of inspired teaching is a reference to the canonical books of the bible.

Here is the quote in context ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHAPTER LXI 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 2 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, (3) 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 theaters of the unbelievers.

Toto · 06-10-2013, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

.. my claims relate to profane political history...

Where they are still absurd because you have no real evidence.

What if you put all the time this is taking into fighting global warming? Or rescuing homeless kittens and puppies? I keep thinking about that.

mountainman · 06-10-2013, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

MM, do you know of anyone with a website who tries to refute your arguments for the 4th century Christianity?

No.

Quote:

Some people around here often get personal rather than substantive in terms of challenging your specific claims one by one.

That's true.

Quote:

Or have you ever made any videos where you debate with others on the major substantive issues?

No.

The http://ehrmanproject.com used to host a page entitled "Could it all have been a conspiracy?" authored by Dr. Ed Gravely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Ed Gravely

I am often asked “well what if it was all just a big conspiracy?” “What if there was a conspiracy to put the canon together?” “Did that happen in the 5th century?”

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

MM, has your website been fixed yet??

Fixed but the fix not yet reviewed via google.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Toto · 06-10-2013, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Toto - what don't I understand about ridicule?

What do you understand about the reference that allows you to ignore that Arius is involved in these events?

It's clear about the beginnings of the Arian controversy - the words of Arius.

The ridicule referred to here was pagans ridiculing Christians for not getting their act together.

Parse through your quote:

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.

In other words, everything was going fine for Christians, but then envy led to trouble. Christians at this time ascribed many ills to the sin of "envy," a violation of one or two of the 10 Commandments depending on how you count them.

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, (3) overspread the whole of Egypt and Libya, and the further Thebaid.

The result of envy was dissension in the church, sparked from Arius' home church in Alexandria...

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 theaters of the unbelievers.

Read carefully - the church was divided, the prelates were arguing. (This would be the "orthodox" faction versus Arius.) As a result, non-Christian unbelievers ridiculed them in their theaters. [Ha ha - look at those silly Christians arguing over an iota!]

The ridicule was that of non-believers making fun of the Christian factions duking it out over some silly theological doctrine. There is no reference to Arius ridiculing orthodox Christians, or one group of Christians ridiculing another.

Quote:

Is it not reasonable to think that (1) Arius is somehow involved in this ridicule of these sacred matters of inspired teaching at that time in Alexandria, and (2) that these sacred matters of inspired teaching is a reference to the canonical books of the bible.

No, it is not reasonable. The sacred matters of inspired teaching would be the orthodox teaching on the trinity.

mountainman · 06-10-2013, 07:37 PM

I am not absolutely sure about anything, but I have posted this for discussion. You write that "You make it seem as though these bishops and the emperor were simply making up stories, when they were in fact deliberating on what they considered the very important issue..."

My response is that the issue was extremely controversial and I am looking at the evidence from the perspective of political history rather than theological history (namely what you refer to as the "Christian version of the debates between the Platonic and Aristotelian schools over the first principals of the cosmic order.")

The sources on Arius are abysmal. He was after all subject to censorship. The bishops and the emperors IMO have downplayed the controversy because it was in their political interests to do so.

I still think that the text indicates that Arius wrote other books on account of his dislike for the canonical accounts. The word fabricate, as you point out below, may be taken to be "form" or "mold". In this case Arius molds his books and writings in reaction to the canon.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Are you sure of that?

That Arius was not happy that God Himself (in the person of Jesus Christ) suffers "outrages" under the orthodox concept of the relationship between Jesus Christ and God the father is not in dispute. Nor do I dispute his conclusion that God prepared an aid for himself by making a newly born and newly created essence of Christ.

How he got there, he says, was to make assumptions or suppositions and mold them into wonders of faith.

He says: “Away! I do not wish God to appear to be subject to suffering of outrages,	«ἄπαγε», φησίν, «οὐ βούλομαι τὸν θεὸν ἐγὼ ὕβρεων πάθει δοκεῖν ἐνέχεσθαι».
and on this account I suggest [ὑποτίθεμαι = assume, suppose, estimate] and fabricate [πλάττω = form, mold] wondrous things indeed in respect to faith:	καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὑποτίθεμαι καὶ πλάττω θαυμάσιά γε τῇ πίστει,
that God, when he had made the newly born and the newly created essence of Christ,	ὡς ὁ θεὸς νεογενῆ καὶ νεόκτιστον οὐσίαν Χριστοῦ ποιησάμενος
prepared aid for himself, as it seems indeed to me.	βοήθειαν ἑαυτῷ παρεσκευάσατο, ὥς γέ μοι δοκεῖ.

That is a far cry from the present day meaning of "fabricate" (that is, to lie). You make it seem as though these bishops and the emperor were simply making up stories, when they were in fact deliberating on what they considered the very important issue, how does the Creator God adopted by Christians from the Jews, and the Savior God of their salvation theology, relate to the metaphysical first principals. This was the Christian version of the debates between the Platonic and Aristotelian schools over the first principals of the cosmic order.

PS: That Greek text was from this web page, a fact that I do not think anyone so far has shared with the rest of us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

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:

...

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.

Toto · 06-10-2013, 09:26 PM

How long, O Lord?

Well, this thread was started by Jeffrey, who has now withdrawn. I can close it, or people can just stop posting.

spin · 06-10-2013, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Actually, there are a few other forums/websites where Pete has mounted his thesis and where almost everyone except those who already have an axe to grind against Christianity have responded with substantive criticisms of his claims (as is done here):

http://www.atheistnexus.org/forum/to...that-jesus-did

http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=13370

http://www.secularcafe.org/archive/i...p/t-12064.html

http://historum.com/speculative-hist...-religion.html

http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...d.php?t=134121

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=76151

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/...ead.php?t=3118

And Pete does the same dodges and raping of evidence on all of these sites that he does here

Jeffrey

I stand corrected.

I'm not so sure. If you notice the dates of these, most are from 2009--if memory serves me. Kookaburra Jack seems to have given up the ghost and stayed to haunt us.

mountainman · 06-11-2013, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

.. my claims relate to profane political history...

Where they are still absurd because you have no real evidence.

The books of the political history of Ammianus for the epoch 324 to 353 CE have been (purposefully?) not preserved. The ecclesiastical histories written in the 5th century in respect of the epoch 324-353 CE are not political histories. Other histories (of various kinds) written in the 4th century in respect of the epoch 324-353 CE were passed over by these 5th century historians and are not preserved.

Correct me if I am mistaken but AFAIK a political history for this epoch has yet to be recovered.

Hence the significance of whatever politics may be perceived in the Nag Hammadi Codices.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 06-11-2013, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Toto - what don't I understand about ridicule?

What do you understand about the reference that allows you to ignore that Arius is involved in these events?

It's clear about the beginnings of the Arian controversy - the words of Arius.

The ridicule referred to here was pagans ridiculing Christians for not getting their act together.

Parse through your quote:

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.

In other words, everything was going fine for Christians, but then envy led to trouble. Christians at this time ascribed many ills to the sin of "envy," a violation of one or two of the 10 Commandments depending on how you count them.

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, (3) overspread the whole of Egypt and Libya, and the further Thebaid.

The result of envy was dissension in the church, sparked from Arius' home church in Alexandria...

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 theaters of the unbelievers.

Read carefully - the church was divided, the prelates were arguing. (This would be the "orthodox" faction versus Arius.) As a result, non-Christian unbelievers ridiculed them in their theaters. [Ha ha - look at those silly Christians arguing over an iota!]

The ridicule was that of non-believers making fun of the Christian factions duking it out over some silly theological doctrine. There is no reference to Arius ridiculing orthodox Christians, or one group of Christians ridiculing another.

Quote:

Is it not reasonable to think that (1) Arius is somehow involved in this ridicule of these sacred matters of inspired teaching at that time in Alexandria, and (2) that these sacred matters of inspired teaching is a reference to the canonical books of the bible.

No, it is not reasonable. The sacred matters of inspired teaching would be the orthodox teaching on the trinity.

Thanks for the time with your reply here.

I will respond in full in a further post.

Basically your description [Ha ha - look at those silly Christians arguing over an iota!] does not quite describe the problem, because the iota problem was separate (although related) to the "Arian Controversy". The Arian controversy seems to have started and ended with Arius's five sophisms - the words of Arius.

My position is expressed like this:

[Ha ha - look at those silly Christians .... !]

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

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

06-10-2013, 09:26 PM	#117
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	How long, O Lord? Well, this thread was started by Jeffrey, who has now withdrawn. I can close it, or people can just stop posting.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.