J-D

Again, what Constantine said is evidence that Arius did not believe the same things that Constantine believed, or possibly that Arius did not believe the same things that Constantine wanted people to believe.

This, however, is not and never has been in dispute. As you must be aware, it is generally understood and agreed that Arius held beliefs incompatible with the orthodoxy promoted by Constantine. The point in dispute between you, on the one hand, and everybody who has a basic grasp of historical methodology, on the other, is about the specific nature of the disagreement between Arius's beliefs and Constantinian orthodoxy. The totality of the available evidence clearly favours the standard interpretation of what 'Arianism' was over yours.

mountainman

As Philosopher Jay elsewhere writes .....

Huon

As Philosopher Jay elsewhere writes .....

Pete, what are your purposes ?

mountainman

G'Day there Huon,

My purpose overall is to suggest that the epoch of "Early Christian Origins" may be as late as the years between 312 and 324 CE, as you have already alluded to in another thread (Bolded below). However to be specific in this thread I am examining the period which commences with the appearance of the figure of Arius of Alexandria in "history" - that is commencing c.324 CE.

It should be reasonably obvious to people following the logic of my arguments in this forum that the corrollary to the thesis that Eusebius was ordered to fabricate the New Testament Canonical books, is the sub thesis that the non canonical books of the new testament (ie: the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts") were authored AFTER the appearance of the NT Canon.

However, what may not be obvious to people reading this thread
is that I am here attempting to argue the case of the
post Nicaean appearance of the non canonical texts from first principles.

My arguments are set out above, and they address all the evidence in our possession and include the "other party" - that is -- what is the evidence by which the mainstream opinion currently "think" that (at least some of ) the non canonical texts (ie: Gonstic Gospels, etc) were authored EARLIER than Nicaea. These arguments are summaries HERE

If readers were to examine the responses to my arguments above they will see that nobody has really addressed the evidence which I have listed and presented and which substantiate the claim that the NT non canonical texts were in fact authored after Nicaea as a literary reaction to the Constantine Codex (ie: the canon).

My purpose here Huon is to independently examine the known history of the Gnostic Gospels and Acts and establish that it is only Eusebius who asserts that these existed prior to his time of prominence (ie: 312 to 324 CE) when he was writing up the "History of the Nation of Christians".

My purpose is to establish that the evidence in our possession enable us to perceive that Arius of Alexandria was in fact viewed by the orthodoxy at that epoch as a master satirist writing material against the new testament canon.

The final argument will be that the psedonymous author referred to by the church fathers (those fraudulent power hungry power mongers of the 4th and 5th century who followed Constantine) as "Leucius Charinus" is in fact none other than the author Arius of Alexandria, whose name was not to be mentioned in the presence of Constantine -- for the troubles Arius had caused to Constantine's agenda, and whose books continued to trouble the orthodox christians of the 4th and 5th century.

Whoever wrote the earliest "Gnostoc Gospels and Acts" (also referred to as the "Leucian Acts" because of the name of the author is referred to as "Leucius") is commonly called "The disciple of the devil" by the orthodox of the 4th and 5th century, or much worse.

I hope this helps you understand my purposes in this thread Huon. Please ask any questions if you seek clarification on any issues. You should note that in the above post I have outlined in depth the reasons by which the mainstream "christian commentators" erroneous believe that that at least some of the "Gnostic Gospels" were authored before Nicaea.

Huon

Photius (Photios), patriarch of Constantinople during the IXth century, describes a book called The Circuits of the Apostles, which contained the Acts of Peter, John, Andrew, Thomas, and Paul, and was purported to have been written by "Leucius Charinus".

CCEL says that the Acts of Leucius were in use among the Manichees in the time of St. Augustine (354-430).

Augustine's mother Monica was a Christian. Augustine was a Manichean during the years 373-383. He remained an "auditor" only. The "electi" were bound to strict continence, and Augustine was increasingly conscious of the chasm between his ideal and his practice. "Make me chaste, but not yet," was his prayer during this period of his life (Conf. VIII. vii.). It is certain that he contracted an irregular union, and in 372 he became the father of a son, Adeodatus (= given by God) but he remained faithful to his mistress. (Oops !)

The dualistic Manicheans had nothing to do with Arius and Arianism (and reciprocally).

Where are the proofs, other than your opinion, Pete, that Arius was the author of "Leucius Charinus" ?

J-D

It doesn't. It establishes that Arius was viewed by the orthodox as an ideological enemy to be abused and slandered.

mountainman

This Huon is best described as a conjecture based on a critical and skeptical analysis of all the available evidence from the epoch in question. In an article entitled Comparing Leucius Charinus and Arius of Alexandria -- Were they One Person I have attempted to source every skerrick of evidence available concerning these "two" figures.

From the available sources we examine the questions:

(1) what do we really know about Arius of Alexandria, and
(2) what do we really know about the author who is called Leucius Charinus.

We postulate that these two authors could in fact be the one and the same person. The life, the memory, the books and the very name of Arius of Alexandria were significantly subject to Constantinian damnation in the fourth century. At this time, the name of Leucius Charinus commences to appear in an more unambiguous historical sense.

In a sort of summary sense the conjecture follows the following logic.

1) We know Arius wrote books against the orthodox.
2) We know these books suffered prohibition (big time).
3) We know that the name and memory of Arius attracted imperial "memoriae damnatio"

11) It is generally accepted that "Leucius" is a pseudonym.
12) We do not have ONE NAME for the author of any NT "Gnostic Gospels".
13) Eusebius the Heresiologist tells us that he is going to name the names of the heretics, but no names appear in his "history"
13a) We might conjecture that if Arius had been named by Eusebius his name may have been later expunged from the records (ie: "memoriae damnatio")
14) In Vita Constantini Eusebius states:

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

[Eusebius, “Life of Constantine”, Ch. LXI,
How Controversies originated at Alexandria
through Matters relating to Arius.]

From the above, and in conjection with pther evidence presented in this thread we may conclude that Arius was associated with the ridicule of "the sacred matters of inspired teaching" --- and this was contraversial.


Summary

On the one hand we have Arius -- an extremely high profile "Heretic" and none of his books. On the other hand we have "Leucius" -- an extremely high profile pseudonymous "Heretic" and many of his books. The name of Arius suffers "memoriae damnatio" in the early to mid 4th century, and the name --- "the ONLY NAME" --- of an author of the Gnostic Gospels and Acts emergent in the mid to late 4th century.

Who wrote the canonical literature? Four 1st century Boneheads, Pseudo Paul and others?
Who wrote the non canonical literfature? Unknown unnamed we-dont-know-anyone people?
Mainstream BC&H is not offering any solutions to this mystery or dilema.

I am attempting one. Analysis of this radical simplification of the way we view history provides a great deal to be considered. This may be a conjecture, or an hypothesis, but I am putting it forward because I am not aware of any ancient historical evidence which contradicts it. (Reasons in above post).

mountainman

Arius was the foe of Christ according to Athanasius. The battle for Christ was fought 300 years after His Wholly fictional death. Constantine won. Arius lost.

“And ever since [the Council of Nicaea]
has Arius' error been reckoned for a heresy more than ordinary,
being known as Christ's foe, and harbinger of Antichrist.”

[The Orthodox "Father" Athanasius, Athanasius' Four "Discourses"

J-D

Like I said, defamatory abuse. Not a reliable guide to Arius's actual opinions.

J-D

Because the evidence is not sufficient to base a conclusion on. In the words of Sherlock Holmes: 'It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.'