Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 12-29-2008, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It is not impossible, but

Dear Toto,

Thankyou for this small concession - it is appreciated.

I concede nothing.

Quote:

What about the Jesus in the new testament apochrypha? The non canonical jesus appears and reappears as a child, a small boy, in visions, did not leave footprints, appeared insubstantial, was a slave-master, received and signed contracts (bills) of exchange, was a boat captain with a crew - all these things and many more. What was in the mind of the pre-enlightenment author(s) of the non canonical gospels and acts when it came to this Jesus figure?

How does this relate to whether Constantine invented Christianity? People invent stories all the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Is there anyone who knows anything about Arius who agrees with your interpretation?

I doubt it very much. In order to reach such a position a person would have to be able to take a completely objective stance and say to themselves "I am about to consider the possibility that Jesus did not exist until the fourth century" as a valid hypothesis. The hegemon is with Eusebius' lonely and untrodden road. To discard Eusebius is to literally throw out the baby Jesus with the Eusebian bathwater. Nobody that I can recall is prepared to take this as a working hypothesis.

The field of amateur Biblical Studies is open to anyone, and there are some wild-eyed theories out there. But you have a particular claim about reading what Arius wrote in a language you are not familiar with. You should be able to find someone who knows that language and the period who thinks that your interpretation is something other than totally misinformed.

Quote:

Does you interpretation add anything to our understanding of history?

My claim is that it allows us - perhaps for the first time - to investigate a possible alternative history of antiquity in which christianity is an entirely fourth century literary, religious, social and political phenomenom. In gentle and relaxed discussion I will freely admit that my interpretation could be wrong. When I am pressed to defend it, I feel free not to make such admissions/concessions to attack.

The fact is that we have no New Testament archaeology to support the Eusebian framework despite centuries of conjecture and fraud. Hector Avalos stresses this point. (He also addresses the older Hebrew Bible.) My interpretation is put forward as an alternative to be considered in due course as an option to be explored by the enquiring minds of researchers in the field of ancient history. I will accept arguments of authority (in chronology) only by the C14.

Sorry, you have nothing new to say. Your theory has no advantage in explanation over some variation of the standard history, that Constantine and Eusebius took an existing religion that operated underground and turned it into a recognized state religion.

mountainman · 12-31-2008, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The field of amateur Biblical Studies is open to anyone, and there are some wild-eyed theories out there. But you have a particular claim about reading what Arius wrote in a language you are not familiar with. You should be able to find someone who knows that language and the period who thinks that your interpretation is something other than totally misinformed.

Dear Toto,

The words of Arius as preserved in the Nicaean creed are found to be associated with the Arian controversy which raged for centuries. All interpretations of these words by others in the past have followed the authority by which Eusebius is asserted to have represented an "early christian history" in association to the background formation of what was to become the christian "holy writ" - the NT canon.

My position explores the possibility that Eusebius presents a fictitious fabrication and a literary collage of snippets of falsely represented literature. I have reviewed the archaeological and monumental evidence, and there does not seem to be in a logical sense any one citation (Dura - Europos included) by which the Eusebian fiction postulate may not be invoked.

The Eusebian fiction postulate allows that Arius was responding not as a christian to a christian doctrine of theology, but as a political resistance figurehead - the last of the ancient Hellenic temple cult priests and flamen - that he was reacting to a work of fiction. The words preserved of Arius in the Nicaean creed can be tested for consistency against this postulate and it implications. "He was made out of nothing existing" is a clever way of saying "he is a fiction character". The other four short dogmatic phrases associated with Arius' resistance it may be also argued are similar.

Quote:

The fact is that we have no New Testament archaeology to support the Eusebian framework despite centuries of conjecture and fraud. Hector Avalos stresses this point. (He also addresses the older Hebrew Bible.) My interpretation is put forward as an alternative to be considered in due course as an option to be explored by the enquiring minds of researchers in the field of ancient history. I will accept arguments of authority (in chronology) only by the C14.

Sorry, you have nothing new to say. Your theory has no advantage in explanation over some variation of the standard history, that Constantine and Eusebius took an existing religion that operated underground and turned it into a recognized state religion.

My theory suggests that this underground group of preservers and/or followers of the new testament canon may not have actually existed, but were fabricated as part of the official state religious dogma. Such a theory has little advantage for anyone who wishes to continue to believe in jesus as any sort of historical person per se. Apollonius of Tyana is cited as one of the key figures used by the fabricators to mould the two figures of jesus and Paul - the wandering sage, author of books?, man of letters, collected by emperors and other important people after his death.

I would like to state that the theory is put forward in order to understand the ancient history of the new testament canon, and its "flip-side" the new testament apochrypha. It is a theory dealing with ancient political history, and the origins of christianity itself - as an imperial politically motivated fraud. The words of Arius, Julian and Nestorius are cited as evidence to the possibility that the NT canon was a fiction. The bishop Cyril of Alexandria is cited as the subsequent censor who dealt with all the inconsistencies, refuted all the adverse publicity, and justified the authentic origins. Many centuries then passed by.

Here is a revealing article on Cyril entitled The Lynching of Nestorius

Quote:

NESTORIUS. Many people, in western civilization, do not know this man. If they do know the name, they only have a vague understanding of this man and the group he represents. The name Nestorius or Nestorian on a popular level is used to stigmatize. This name divides the world of Christendom into two groups.

Nestorius was likely born of Persian parents and spent his early years at Germanicia in Syria Euphratensis, present day Maras in southern Turkey. He became a pupil of Theodore of Mopsuestia and studied at Antioch before becoming a monk at the nearby Euprepius Monastery and a presbyter (priest) shortly thereafter. He acquired a great reputation for asceticism, orthodoxy and eloquence. He was nominated to the See of Constantinople by Theodosius II in 428 C.E. Although the exact date of his birth is not known, his death occurred shortly after the Council of Chalcedon in 451 C.E.

CYRIL. Almost as obscure as Nestorius, Cyril was the leading antagonist to Nestorius. He was born in Alexandria to Greek (pagan) parents around 375 C.E. Cyril was destined at an early age for an ecclesiastical career. His uncle, Theophilus, was Patriarch of Alexandria and convened the Synod of the Oak in 403 C.E. where Cyril assisted him. He succeeded his uncle to the See of Alexandria in 412 and retained it until his death in 444.

This article will deal primarily with the time period surrounding the Council of Ephesus, 431 C.E., between 425 and 435 C.E. By the time of the Council, a severe conflict between Nestorius and Cyril was epidemic. The conflict is most often perceived to be a theological dispute, which it no doubt was, but many ignore the political situation and deal only with perceptions and theological schools of thought. In other words, the differences existing between Alexandrian and Antiochian interpretation and Christology. We will focus our attention in two areas. The first will be to address the political landscape around which the Council of Ephesus was formed. The second will focus on the theological issues which Nestorius addressed in an attempt to answer his critics on the charge of heresy. The larger political picture dictated much activity which preceded and followed the condemnation of Nestorius and his teachings.

Political issues described in this article are directly relevant to the assessment of the role of Cyril.

Best wishes,

Pete

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-31-2008, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:
Leaving aside the fact that the Logos/Son that Arius and Arians spoke of is that of Jn 1:1-18, not "the" or any (reputed) "Hellenistic" (i.e.. pagan) one, I wonder if you'd be kind enough to lay out your actual evidence that anyone in Hellenism (or even earlier) who spoke of/wrote about the Logos ever used the designation "son" of this figure/concept or spoke of/wrote about/thought of the Logos in terms of its being a "Son" and/or as having a Father, or ever called the Logos/Son μονογενὴς Θεός or ἰσχυρὸς θεὸς or θεοῦ δύναμις as did Arius and the Arians (on this, see Chapters 1, and 3 -- "The Arian Christ" and "the Obedient Logos" -- in Gregg and Groh's Early Arianism -- A view of Salvation)

Well Jeffrey, how many times do I have to make reference to the citations in the sources for the relationship between the son of Zeus called Apollo, and the son of Apollo called Asclepius? Arius was an ascetic Hellenistic philosopher/priest who IMO was not christian as asserted.

Are you actually saying that your "making reference to the citations in the sources" (but apparently never giving the citations themselves) that speak of Apollo being the son of Zeus and of Ascelpius being the son of Apollo is really the same thing as producing evidence from ancient sources that shows that any pagan in the Hellenistic period (or even earlier) who spoke of/wrote about The Logos did indeed use the designation "son" of The Logos or did indeed speak of/write about/think of The Logos in terms of its being a "Son" and/or as having a Father, or did indeed call the Logos/Son μονογενὴς Θεός or ἰσχυρὸς θεὸς or θεοῦ δύναμις as Arius and the Arians did?

Jeffrey

mountainman · 12-31-2008, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Well Jeffrey, how many times do I have to make reference to the citations in the sources for the relationship between the son of Zeus called Apollo, and the son of Apollo called Asclepius? Arius was an ascetic Hellenistic philosopher/priest who IMO was not christian as asserted.

Are you actually saying that your "making reference to the citations in the sources" (but apparently never giving the citations themselves) that speak of Apollo being the son of Zeus and of Ascelpius being the son of Apollo is really the same thing as producing evidence from ancient sources that shows that any pagan in the Hellenistic period (or even earlier) who spoke of/wrote about The Logos did indeed use the designation "son" of The Logos or did indeed speak of/write about/think of The Logos in terms of its being a "Son" and/or as having a Father, or did indeed call the Logos/Son μονογενὴς Θεός or ἰσχυρὸς θεὸς or θεοῦ δύναμις as Arius and the Arians did?

Dear Jeffrey,

My position is that Arius was the figurehead of political resistance to the implementation of the new official state religion (and its holy writ, the new testament canon). He like the Dalai Lama had to flee his homeland. The eastern greek temple cults watched as their ancient and revered temples were either destroyed or closed. Before that time I am exploring the possibility that the NT canon was either unknown, or did not exist. He is a summary diagram:

I do understand that this appears to be a rather radical approach to the solution of christian origins in the field of ancient (political) history, but I am not here to waste time. In whole or in part I am either right or wrong and I happy to allow the evidence to speak for itself. The NT as fiction explains many controversies in the fourth and fifth centuries: the Arian, the Nestorian, the Origenist, and those associated with the nature of emperor Julian's invectives. It explains why the Alexandrian christians burnt the library down, and it explains the "Hidden Writings of the new testament" (ie: the Apochrypha) as a polemical reaction to the canon by dissenting non-christians. When you add up all these issues, the one simple and integrated solution (by way of fiction) appears to favor Occam. The alternative solution may not appear attractive to traditionalists, but then neither is the C14 or the archaeology.

Best wishes,

Pete

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-31-2008, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Are you actually saying that your "making reference to the citations in the sources" (but apparently never giving the citations themselves) that speak of Apollo being the son of Zeus and of Ascelpius being the son of Apollo is really the same thing as producing evidence from ancient sources that shows that any pagan in the Hellenistic period (or even earlier) who spoke of/wrote about The Logos did indeed use the designation "son" of The Logos or did indeed speak of/write about/think of The Logos in terms of its being a "Son" and/or as having a Father, or did indeed call the Logos/Son μονογενὴς Θεός or ἰσχυρὸς θεὸς or θεοῦ δύναμις as Arius and the Arians did?

Dear Jeffrey,

My position is that Arius was the figurehead of political resistance to the implementation of the new official state religion (and its holy writ, the new testament canon). He like the Dalai Lama had to flee his homeland. The eastern greek temple cults watched as their ancient and revered temples were either destroyed or closed. Before that time I am exploring the possibility that the NT canon was either unknown, or did not exist. He is a summary diagram:

[snip]

And yet another dodge of my question as well as a tacit admission on Pete's part that he has absolutely no evidence that that any pagan in the Hellenistic period (or even earlier) who spoke of/wrote about The Logos ever used the designation "son" of The Logos or spoke of/wrote about/thought of The Logos in terms of its being a "Son" and/or as having a Father, or did indeed call the Logos/Son μονογενὴς Θεός or ἰσχυρὸς θεὸς or θεοῦ δύναμις as Arius and the Arians did.

Happy New Year, Pete.

I dearly hope you won't persist in these dodges in the year ahead.

Jeffrey

mountainman · 01-01-2009, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

My position is that Arius was the figurehead of political resistance to the implementation of the new official state religion (and its holy writ, the new testament canon). He like the Dalai Lama had to flee his homeland. The eastern greek temple cults watched as their ancient and revered temples were either destroyed or closed. Before that time I am exploring the possibility that the NT canon was either unknown, or did not exist. He is a summary diagram:

[snip]

And yet another dodge of my question as well as a tacit admission on Pete's part that he has absolutely no evidence that that any pagan in the Hellenistic period (or even earlier) who spoke of/wrote about The Logos ever used the designation "son" of The Logos or spoke of/wrote about/thought of The Logos in terms of its being a "Son" and/or as having a Father, or did indeed call the Logos/Son μονογενὴς Θεός or ἰσχυρὸς θεὸς or θεοῦ δύναμις as Arius and the Arians did.

Dear Jeffrey,

The translator Alphonse Mingana provides the following references by Theodore of Mopsuestia to Arius of Alexandria. Arius is not described in glowing colors ...

Quote:

Reference (1)
In this way all the heretics who are outside the Church and who have ascribed the name of Christ with untruth to themselves, because they have no faith, have erred and strayed from the truth. In order not to mention to your hearing all the heresies, it will be sufficient to refer to Arius and Eunomius and all those who subscribe to their opinion, and note how they were affected with the disease of the Jews; and because of their lack of faith they did not understand nor did they accept that the Son is of Divine nature.
Reference (2)
Of all those who had received the knowledge of Christ, Arius was the first to dare and to say impiously that the Son was a creature and was made from nothing: a novel theory alien to public opinion and to the laws of nature, as any one who is created is not a Son, and any one who is a Son is not a creature, because it is impossible that a creature should be called a true Son or a true Son to be called a creature.

Reference (3)
The partisans of Arius and Eunomius, however, say that He assumed a body but not a soul, and that the nature of the Godhead took the place of the soul. They lowered the Divine nature of the Only Begotten to the extent that from the greatness of its nature it moved and performed the acts of the soul and imprisoned itself in the body and did everything for its sustenance.

Reference (4)
The reason why our blessed Fathers did not hand down to us in a complete form all things that were said later concerning the Holy Spirit is clear and evident, and it is that at that time had risen the unholy Arius who was the first to blaspheme against the Son of God, and assert wickedly that the Only Begotten Son of God, and God the Word, was created and made from nothing. Because of this our blessed Fathers rightly assembled and held a wonderful Council. The time was propitious for their gathering because the God-loving and the blessed Constantine urged them to it in order to destroy the wickedness of the heretics and to confirm the faith of the Church. This is the reason why they made use in their doctrine concerning the Son of clear statements and copious words for the destruction of the heresy of Arius and the confirmation of the true faith of the Church of God. They did not do the same in the case of the Holy Spirit because at that time no question had yet been raised concerning Him by the heretics.

Reference (5)
This being the case it is only men of ill will who make show of insolence and call the Holy Spirit a servant or a creature, while some others amongst them although refraining from these words yet refuse to call Him God. It is with a sense of duty, therefore, that the Doctors of the Church, who assembled from all parts of the world and who were the heirs of the first blessed Fathers, proclaimed before all men the wish of their Fathers and in accurate deliberations made manifest the truth of their faith and interpreted also their mind. They wrote to us words which warn the children of faith and destroy the error of the heretics. As their Fathers did in the profession of faith concerning the Son for the refutation of the ungodliness of Arius, so they did in their words concerning the Holy Spirit for the confutation of those who blasphemed against Him.

I do not acknowledge that the letters attributed to Arius by the orthodox are genuine, and claim that the words of Arius as preserved in the creed are the only extant genuine exemplars of Arius of Alexandria. The political victors, from the time of Constantine prohibited the preservation of the writings of Arius, and so the writings of Arius had to be hidden. He had a great deal of support, since if the eastern empire was not wholly and entirely "pagan" (ie: non-christian) it certainly was predominently so. The "hidden writings" of Arius became sought out and isolated by the orthodox. I think what we now call the new testament apochypha may have been written -- in the large -- by Arius of Alexandria, although I have no direct proof of this.

Quote:

Happy New Year, Pete.

I dearly hope you won't persist in these dodges in the year ahead.

Happy New Year to you and yours too, Jeffrey. Find some evidence that the NT canon was extant before I think it was fabricated by Constantine and I will retire from the pitch, content in being refuted, to grow (very good) cabbages.

Best wishes

Pete

mountainman · 01-05-2009, 08:57 PM

Additional data in this saga:

Athanasius refers to Arius and Arianism as the Antichrist is one of many references to how people viewed Arius of Alexandria.

Quote:

The translation which follows is that of
Cardinal Newman, published in 1844

Four Discourses Against the Arians.
Discourse I.

Chapter I.--Introduction.
Reason for writing; certain persons indifferent about Arianism;
Arians not Christians, because sectaries always take the name of their founder.

In the heading is an explicit assertion Arian were not "christians" (othodoxy)
and that therefore Arius is not "christian" ..... the detail is full of invectives
Arius is the author of a new powerful heresy, and the maker of irreligious songs ...

Quote:

And, what is a remarkable evidence of this,
those of the Greeks who even at this time come into the Church,
on giving up the superstition of idols, take the name,
not of their catechists, but of the Saviour,
and begin to be called Christians instead of Greeks:
while those of them who go off to the heretics,
and again all who from the Church change to this heresy,
abandon Christ's name, and henceforth are called Arians,
as no longer holding Christ's faith,
but having inherited Arius's madness.

4. How then can they be Christians,
who for Christians are Ario-maniacs [1833] ?
or how are they of the Catholic Church,
who have shaken off the Apostolical faith,
and become authors of fresh evils?
who, after abandoning the oracles of divine Scripture,
call Arius's Thali? a new wisdom?
and with reason too, for they are announcing a new heresy.
And hence a man may marvel, that, whereas many have written
many treatises and abundant homilies upon the Old Testament and the New,
yet in none of them is a Thalia found;
nay nor among the more respectable of the Gentiles,
but among those only who sing such strains over their cups,
amid cheers and jokes, when men are merry, that the rest may laugh;
till this marvellous Arius, taking no grave pattern,
and ignorant even of what is respectable,
while he stole largely from other heresies,
would be original in the ludicrous,
with none but Sotades for his rival.

The Songs of Arius were quite popular it appears.
IMO it was resistance to the new testament canon.
Arius was the biggest heretic and newest in existence.
How long had the NT Canon been in existence?

Best wishes,

Pete

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.