mountainman

Yes, the Arian controversy under mainstream interpretation must
always be seen as related to theology. That the words of Arius
are related to theology. Do you think the common people in the
market places and street corners of the city of Alexandria, involving
themselves in deep and controversial discussions of theology?

My claim is that these words of Arius can be seen to be directly
related to the historical Jesus, in that "there was a time when he
was not" was a really polite way for Arius to say to Constantine,
without losing his head, its all bullshit.

Emperor Julian could afford to call it a fiction.
But Arius could not have afforded to do this.
And so his words were appropriately phrased.



Pete Brown

Solo

I think that is right. The central theological battle in the early church had clearly political motives: first, the human nature of Christ was a historical vector which could not be abandoned. That there was an HJ would have been a secondary consideration, the main issue was the theological relation of man to God which Jesus came to personify and the Church needed to own to assure its dominance among the competitors. On the other hand, as the church was getting established and the creed inched towards becoming an imperial religion, the Johaninne sense of Christ as fully instrumented, serviceable divinity from which the universe was gushing (3:16) became its liturgical lingua franca. So, there was the dual nature of Christ, to which Theodotus and Arius were so slow to cluing. They did not get the baby hopping out of a virgin, announced through celestial fireworks, and joyously pissing into its diapers in a stable of an inn, even though it is hard to imagine that anyone could have served it better than Luke.

Jiri

GakuseiDon

Sure. Think of the Scopes trial at the start of the last century, and the interest it had among ordinary people. Whether Jesus had a beginning or not had major implications with regards to Jesus's relationship with God, and no doubt everyone had an opinion.

Let's look at that letter again: "These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths" It doesn't sound like Arius is too concerned about being polite.

Even more against your claim, Arius was actively promoting Christianity, one that he seems to have been taught. What do you make of his statement at the end of the letter, "I bid thee farewell in the Lord, remembering our afflictions, my fellow-Lucianist, and true Eusebius" How does Lucian fit into your theory, and why does Arius call Eusebius of Nicomedia a "fellow Lucianist"?

No Robots

Here's Gregory of Nyssa speaking about Constantinople c. 400:

If you ask for change, someone philosophizes to you on the Begotten and the Unbegotten. If you ask the price of bread, you are told, ‘The Father is Greater, and the Son inferior.’ If you ask, ‘Is the bath ready?’ someone answers, ‘The Son was created from nothing’—On the Deity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit / St. Gregory of Nyssa. Quoted in Theodosius: the empire at bay / Stephen Williams and Gerard Friell, p. 48.

Toto

excerpt from Terry Jones' Barbarians

Barbarians (or via: amazon.co.uk) on amazon.com

There don't seem to be any cheap used copies floating around.

aa5874

Being begotten or not does not have any bearing on whether there was a time Jesus was or not.

If God is a spirit, it cannot be determined what is or not.

Chili

But Lord God is begotten 'to be' (to on) and has only one presence (einai) in its essence (parousia) or there would be no words (logos) possible for its definition (horismos) to give us something to argue about.

IOW, without me, God could no longer be.

mountainman

Hey GD,

You dont seem understand my position here on the history of it.
The Scope's trial is not a fitting analogy, because we have people
discussing "christian theology", almost 1600 years after this Arian
controversy, with 1600 years of christian theological conditioning
in the interim period.

My position is that the Arian controversy was due to the sending
in advance of Constantine's military campaigns, propaganda into
the eastern empire, which Julian was to call "the fabrication of the
Galilaeans", and it was the very first time anyone had before ever
heard of the new Roman theology of chrstianity.

The discussion was about "Constantine's new Roman-Jewish god".
I can understand the common people talking about this, because
it was new news, and not any ancient theological debate. Of course,
it had the capacity to arouse theological debate, but first of all people
would have interested themselves in finding out about the history of
this new god, and whether that royal road of history deserved reverence.


I doubt these are words of Arius, seeing as though they are being
preserved by the ecclesiastical party who signed against Arius at
the Council of Nicaea.

The words of Arius are those on the Nicaean creed.
These are the words by which I believe he is remembered.



Pete
\

GakuseiDon

Well, if the letter is correct, that would be it for your theory, wouldn't it? Is the letter recognised as a forgery?

Note also that the words from the Nicean creed are the same as in the letter. From the creed:

There was when He was not, and Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing

From the letter:

But we say and believe, and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten... and that before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, He was not

mountainman

Is the TF recognised as a Eusebian forgery?

This letter of Arius was not mentioned (AFAIK) by any of the (at least 6)
historians (of Ecclesiastic history) prior to Theodoret, whom you quote.

We have the emperor Constantine writing a number of nice letters
to Arius, we have correspondence preserved by Eusebius heavily drawn
upon by the "historian" Socrates Scholasticus, but AFAIK, neither Eusebius
or Socrates, or anyone else before the Theodoret, who is clearly seen
to have drawn on Eusebius and Socrates (and others).

My theory does not intend to pursue the manifest forgeries by the
new and strange Roman religious order in the fifth and subsequent
centuries, and it is in the fifth century that your letter from Arius
appears.

Socrates, who is the elder of the historians, tells us:

Chapter V.
The Dispute of Arius with Alexander, his Bishop.


He [Alexander of Alexandria, Bishop],
in the fearless exercise of his functions
for the instruction and government of the Church,
attempted one day in the presence of the presbytery
and the rest of his clergy, to explain,
with perhaps too philosophical minuteness,
that great theological mystery-
the Unity of the Holy Trinity.

A certain one of the presbyters under his jurisdiction,
whose name was Arius,
possessed of no inconsiderable logical acumen,
imaging that the bishop was subtly teaching
the same view of this subject as Sabellius the Libyan,11
from love of controversy took the opposite opinion
to that of the Libyan,
and as he thought vigorously
responded to what was said by the bishop.

`If,' said he, `the Father begat the Son,
he that was begotten had a beginning of existence:
and from this it is evident,
that there was a time when the Son was not.
It therefore necessarily follows,
that he had his substance12 from nothing.'

Eusebius refers to a "holy trinity" of Constantine's three sons, but neither
in his glorification of the THRICE-BLESSED Emperor or in any of the
reports of the Council of Nicaea, is any theologicical trinity mentioned,
AFAIK, but then again, I am still researching the matter.

I have no real problems with the words of Arius.
They are set in stone, as was his obstinant and unchanging response.

I have a problem with these words being fraudulently associated
with a specific philosophy or theology (such as Sabeliianism, for example)
as the use of these terms (as if by Arius in Theodoret's letter).

The words of Arius IMO are the first historical refutation
of the existence of Jesus christ, and support the possibility
that Arius considered that the new and strange fabrication
of the Galilaeans which had been issued forth under the
impending military supremacy of Constantine, was a fiction,
subject to change and alteration.

These following words of Arius, the dogmatic assertions:

* that there was a time when he was not
* before he was born he was not
* he was made out of nothing existing
* God’s Son is from another subsistence or substance
* he is subject to alteration or change

may be seen to be disclaimers of historical integrity.
Arius gets away with calling the fabrication (of the NT) as a fiction,
without saying out mentioning the word "fiction". All the ancient
commentators called him "wise and clever in disputation", and
now it is possible to see his words in another light.

This possibility examines his words as an historical comment
upon the appearance of recent propaganda under Constantine,
a new and strange imperially inspired dogma, written in or near
Rome c.312-317-324, and sent in advance of his military
conquest, into the Eastern Empire, where at the temple
complex of Karnak, the Obelisk of Karnak, was shortly to
be ripped out of its millenially preserved foundations.



Pete Brown
Exploring the Eusebian Fiction Postulate