Jeffrey Gibson

Pete,

You have recently claimed that the Logos that Arius refers to -- and which he denies is eternal -- is, if not the historical Jesus or the Logos spoken of in Jn 1:1, the Plotinian Logos.

Since you made this claim I've been doing a little reading in Plotinus and in some scholarly literature which discusses Plotinus' use of that term (i.e., what he means by Logos), and it has caused me to wonder if you really understand what, according to Plotinus, the Logos is.

So I ask you now tell me exactly what you understand Plotinus to be referring to when he uses the term.

I'm also curious to know whether your understanding of Plotinian usage of Logos is an informed one (i.e. more than Wiki article based and actually grounded in the texts of Plotinus where he discusses the Logos or uses the term and scholarly studies on them).

So I'll be grateful if you also tell me what informs your understanding of the Plotinian use of Logos. What books and articles or other sources on Plotinus and his use of the term have you read?

With thanks in advance for your answers to these questions,

Jeffrey

mountainman

Here is a start to some of your questions.
The metaphysics of Plotinus starts and ends with a trinity: one spirit soul.
These are not equal like the members of the Christian trinity.


Bertrand Russell introduces it as follows:

The Logos of Plotinus is therefore related to Spirit (as mind, intellect), but it is not equal to the One.

The following is from Rowan Williams supposedly quoting Arius in "Thalia". If we were to agree that the following does fairly represent the authorship of Arius, then it is my claim that Arius is speaking about the "God Himself" of Plotinus, in other words, the One in his trinity.


In the Plotinic trinity the Logos is not the same as the supreme One.

If the Christians were the protagonists at Nicaea (with their holy writ), the Platonists appear to have been the antagonists. 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.



Was Jesus the same in essence ('homoousios') or similar in essence ('homoiousios') to what?

It is well known that Arius and the Arians refused to describe Jesus with the term 'homoousios' (same essence) and instead appeared to have invented another term 'homoiousios' (similar essence). This distinction separated Arius and the Arians, who consistently used the latter term, and led to their ultimate condemnation as heretics from the main body of Christianity, whom we are advised, prefered to use the former term.

While one word ('homoousios') implied that Jesus was of the same essence or being,
another word ('homoiousios') implied that Jesus was of a similar essence or being.

The critical question that must be asked is precisely what was this conceptual essence or being
to which the essence or being of Jesus was being compared by Arius and the Arians



Let me say Jeffrey, that I do not buy the official church dogma.

Do you?





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

stephan huller

but you're dodging the question again Pete. No one would take issue with Alexandrian Christians being influenced by neo-Platonism. It's your (apparent) denial that Arius connected Jesus with the Logos of the gospel of John

Horatio Parker

In a general sense, which is consistent with Plotinus, but not exclusive to him, the logos is intelligibility. To the extent that we can determine, communicate and agree on terms( or data) which describe something, anything, constitutes its intelligibility. Applying that universally, the logos is all intelligibility.

In Platonic metaphysics, the emanation of the intelligible from the One is a process that takes place outside of time. Therefore Arius' claim of there being a time when the son(son equalling logos) was not would be a violation of Platonic metaphysics.

But if Arius rejected portions of Platonic metaphysics, such as a static eternity for the intelligible, then his concept is theoretically possible.

Jeffrey Gibson

If your source for this is Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy (as you note below it is), you have misrepresented what he says.

He does not say "The metaphysics of Plotinus starts with a trinity" let alone "starts and ends with a trinity". What Russel says is:

Quote:

The metaphysics of Plotinus begins with a Holy Trinity: The One, Spirit and Soul. These three are not equal, like the Persons of the Christian Trinity; the One is supreme, Spirit conies next, and Soul last.

Not a good start if you are trying to convince me that you actually know much about Plotinus and that you have not misread and misunderstood what you have gathered about Plotinus from reading secondary sources on him.

Quote:

Bertrand Russell introduces it as follows:

This not Russel''s summary of the teaching of Plotinus on the One, the Nous, and the Soul. It's your (potted) summary of his summary.

His summary is this:

In any case, should we assume that your acquaintance with what Plotinus said is primarily through Russell(and maybe a few discussions of Plotinus within discussions of something else) )? You've not actually read Plotinus himself?

Yes or no, Pete.

If yes, what (presumably English only) Plotinian texts have you read?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MM

Therefore??? How does this follow? And from what of the above does it follow?

Where in the above does Russel speak at all of the λόγος, or of its use by Plotinus, let alone of any -- alleged or real -- relation of the λόγος to the One, or of the λόγος as a part (and one third of) of an alleged Plotinian trinity?

Are you assuming that behind the term "soul" that Russell (correctly) notes Plotinus speaks of is the Greek λόγος ?

And with respect to your claim that the metaphysics of Plotinus begins and ends [sic] with a trinity, does Plotinus actually use Τριάς at all, let alone of the three entities of the One, the mind, and the soul? If so, does he note that the λόγος is part of it?

Yes or no, Pete. And if so, where may I find him doing so??

Does he speak of his three entities in his alleged trinity as equal to, and unified with, one another, let alone in terms of, and on the basis of their, οὐσία, as Arius and the orthodox did when they spoke of the basis of the relationship that they knew existed between between the Father and the λόγος/Son?Does Plotinus ever speak of the elements of his alleged trinity in terms ofὑπόστᾰσις as Arius and the orthodox did of theirs? Yes or no, Pete.

And if he did, does he use the term with the same meaning that Arius and the orthodox did.

Yes or no, Pete

Does Plotinus ever speak of the λόγος as something that was "with' the one (ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν) in the beginning (Ἐν ἀρχῇ ) and before the creation of the world, let alone was God as well as the instrument through which all things came into being ( πάντα διʼ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο) and the sine qua non for any created thing existing (καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ) and the light and life of men (ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων) and something that gives human beings the authority to become children of God (ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι) and which became flesh (σὰρξ ἐγένετο) and lived among us (καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν) , as Arius and the orthodox and the author of the Gospel of John did of the Logos?

Yes or no, Pete. And if so, where in his writings does he do this?

Did he ever call the λόγος a υἱός as Arius and the orthodox and the author of the Gospel of John did, let alone address the One as, or view the One as a, πατὴρ?

Yes or no, Pete.

Did Plotinus ever speak of the relationship between the One and the λόγος as that of a πατὴρ to a υἱός and of a υἱός to a πατὴρ as both Arius and the orthodox and the author of the Gospel of John did? Do you even know? Can you point me to texts where he does this?

If your answers to these questions are no, then isn't your claim that Arius is speaking of the Plotinian logos (which you have yet to define) rather than the logos of the Gospel of John when he speaks of the Logos and denies that it existed before Constantine's time (as you have claimed the "once" that Arius refers to in his declaration that "there was a once when he was not" means and refers to) is very poorly supported?

After all, the validity of your case depends on your being able show that the answer is yes to all the questions above.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

OK (even though, if we wish to be precise, you should be speaking of Neo-Platonic metaphysics). But why would any Christian, not to such prominent ones as Athanasius, or such Christian sympathizers like Constantine, give a rats ass about a purely philosophical dispute over, or a notice of, what a pagan philosopher said, let alone view it as in any way threatening to their concept of what God did in the incarnation -- which ultimately was what the Arian controversy was about?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

I thought you said that it was the Logos of Plotinus that Arius and the Arians were speaking of when they objected to the appropriateness and legitimacy of the use of the term ὁμοούσιος.

Are you saying that there was no instance of the use of ὁμοιούσιος before the Arian controversy nor originally by anyone other than Arians? Is this what Lampe indicates? Did not the Sabellians also use it, let alone Galen and Clement of Rome, Chrysippus, Clement of Alexandria, and many others?

separated them from what or whom?

Advised? Preferred?


More misrepresentations and misunderstandings, I'm afraid, which once again show that you have not done your homework, mastered your sources, or understand or fairly and accurately present what is said in the ones you say inform your historical claims.

The Arians did not refuse "to describe Jesus with the term ὁμοούσιος". since the issue for them was not whether Jesus was "one in being with/of the same substance as" the Father, but whether the Logos/Son that was incarnated in him was. (If you have any texts that show that I am wrong in this, and that you have not misread and do not misrepresent, I'd appreciate seeing them).

Tell me, Pete. Why was it that Arius rejected term ὁμοούσιος as a theologically sound description of the relationship between the Father and the Logos/Son? What did he appeal to when he wanted to show that it was not sound?

Jeffrey

mountainman

But surely it was the author of John who first connected the original Greek literary expressions of the logos (via Heraclites) with Jesus when he wrote the gospel of John.

My position is that Arius was trying to deal with the sudden and unexpected "elevation to the purple" of the new testament bible story figure of Jesus over the traditional ideas of divinity. My claim is that these traditional ideas of divinity, at that time c.325 CE, were Platonic and that Plotinus (in his "Enneads", preserved in Porphyry) recapitulated the Platonic literature.

In dealing with John's connection of the purportedly historical Jesus with the Greek logos, Arius was pointing out that the logos is not the same as the Plotinic conception of the (supreme) One (whom the Christians call the God Father).




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

stephan huller

The use of 'memra' is found in the Targumim - i.e. translated (Gen 28:21) 'Then the Lord will be my God' as 'and the word of the Lord will be my God" Philo of Alexandria is another pre-Christian use of the Greek terminology.

But why must we assume that Arius was 'inventing' something new? The Arians themselves only claimed to be carrying on the traditions of Dionysius (c. 250 CE). They were probably too scared to invoke Clement and Origen. But Arius was presbyter of the Church of St Mark in Boucolia. It is difficult for me to imagine Arius as the innovator (although the experts like Haas disagree with me).

But why have such an idiotic worldview when Clement, Origen and everyone else from Alexandria were neo-Platonists. It's stupid to assume that the fusion of Platonic ideas with scripture wasn't an essential expression of Alexandrian Christianity from the earliest period.

I don't know why you attempt to bring in Plotinus when you haven't even read him. You should also make yourself aware of the subtleties of Alexandrian Christianity and the understanding of the Logos. Clement of Alexandria is known to have held the existence of two divine logoi (http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/conten...97/43.full.pdf). This information comes to us principally from Photius of Constantinople who had access to texts of Clement which are no longer available to us. The point is that it is stupid to argue that Arius developed this adaptation of Plotinus given that (a) you know nothing about Plato (b) you know nothing about neo-Platonism (c) you know nothing about the Christian use of Platonic ideas from the second century onward to Arius and (d) perhaps most importantly, you know nothing about Plotinus.

Why on earth would you think that your silly reconstruction of history - adapted only so as to sustain your conspiracy theory - is a better choice than assuming that Arius and his opponents were part of a tradition which had already had a long history of filtering neo-Platonic ideas into their interpretation of scripture and the gospels? Read Clement. Read Origen. Read books like Tim Vivian's Peter of Alexandria in order to fill gaps between Clement and Arius. But then again you would only be looking for sentences to quote out of context to further your hobby horse.

Horatio Parker

I don't think it matters for this question. Whenever possible, I prefer to emphasize the continuity of the tradition. Plotinus himself said he was only elucidating Plato.

I doubt they cared much about the technicalities, even if they understood them. But if the clergy derives their authority from Jesus' charge to Peter, and now Jesus is only the assistant manager, they have a problem. Any Paul wanna-be would have an equal claim to authority.

That's my guess anyhoo.