mountainman

Are you serious? Being an enemy of the state version of Christianity in the epoch between 324 CE and the end of the 4th century was not a healthy occupation. Demographically it is generally admitted that Constantine lead a very small "Christian minority" which implies a very large "Pagan majority".

Are you about to argue the case that because the majority of the populace considered themselves to be part of the "Pagan majority" that this didn't necessarily make these people non Christians.

When people wear their "subconscious Christian glasses" they appear to see "Christians" everywhere they look and totally ignore the non Christians. The massive social and military and religious revolution that Constantine undertook in the eastern empire involved the Graeco-Roman populace which was non Christian. I read this as "not Christian". Are you about to argue this point also?

Enemies who attempted to resist this massive state revolution are more than likely to have associate themselves with the previously extant, indigenous Graeco-Roman religion and non Christian culture rather than Constantine's "Christian minority". This is simply common sense following the generally acknowledged dominant non christian demographic.

J-D

Yes, completely. Your arguments aren't. If they were, you would argue against what I am saying (if you think it's wrong), not head off into a series of unrelated irrelevancies.Irrelevant, because I didn't say it was a healthy occupation. I said that it didn't necessarily make somebody not a Christian.Irrelevant, because I said nothing about demographics. I said that being an enemy of the state version of Christianity does not necessarily make somebody not a Christian.No, I said what I meant: that being an enemy of the state version of Christianity does not necessarily make somebody not a Christian.I have no 'subconscious Christian glasses'. I am not and have never been a Christian, consciously or subconsciously. I do not ignore non-Christians, having always been one myself. I don't see Christians everywhere. I don't think that everybody is a Christian. None of this changes the fact that, by itself, being an enemy of the state version of Christianity does not necessarily make somebody not a Christian.No. It is not in dispute that there was a non-Christian populace in the time of Constantine. That does not change the fact that being an enemy of the state version of Christianity, by itself, does not necessarily make a given individual part of that non-Christian populace.I haven't seen your evidence for this estimate of probability, but even if it is correct, it is irrelevant to the fact that being an enemy of the state version of Christianity does not necessarily make somebody not a Christian. I said nothing about the probability that somebody was or was not a Christian, only about enemies of the state version of Christianity not necessarily being Christians.And, yet again, an irrelevancy.

If you are saying that enemies of the state version of Christianity are necessarily not Christians, then you are saying that, for example, Peter Waldo, Girolamo Savonarola, and Jan Hus were not Christians. Is that what you are saying?

mountainman

But you are citing data from almost a thousand years after the Council of Nicaea and the OP in Arius of Alexandria.

I think you are over qualifying the OP with modern conceptions of what it means to be a "christian" as distinct from a "non christian". The OP is dealing with what it means to be a "christian" as distinct from a "non christian" in the political and religious context of the early fourth century.


The political context of this question altered substantially between the early 4th century and the epoch of Peter Waldo, (c. 1140 – c. 1218), Girolamo Savonarola, (1452 - 1498) and Jan Hus (1369 -1415 ). The demographics alone suggest that -- as one would expect after almost a thousand years.

The OP is restricted to the context of the early fourth century.

You must understand that there was a time
when the State Christian Church was not.

You can pick an early month of the year of 324 CE or any time before this.
There was no existing "Christian State Church" in the early 4th century.
So at this point in time who was really "Christian" c.324 CE and "How do we know".

The OP suggests Arius of Alexandria is better contextually understood at this specific (324/325 CE) and very critical time as one of the fundamental focal points of non christian resistance of the large and dominantly non christian populace against the "Christian" oppressor Constantine.

Please try and confine your comments to the OP.

J-D

Yes, and I'm citing it completely seriously.Being a Christian now is not synonymous with being an adherent of a single unique official church. You have given no justification for supposing that it was so synonymous in the early fourth century, or indeed at any time.Are you saying that at one time it was true that enemies of the state version of Christianity were necessarily not Christians, but that later this ceased to be true? If you are saying that it ceased to be true, when and how?Der.'Christian' is a meaningful term now, but it does not now mean 'member of the Christian State Church'. So there is no reason why it cannot be used with reference to earlier times with the same meaning it has now.The suggestion that the OP provides a better contextual understanding has so far not been supported. Unless by 'better' you mean 'more pleasing to mountainman'. If all you're saying is that you have a story that you like better, then there's nothing to argue about. But in that case what you're doing is not a contribution to the study of history.

mountainman

Wake up digger. This is not a philosophy forum.

Evidence has been presented for discussion.
You are failing to address it.
I will reiterate the evidence presented above:

1) Arius is looked upon as "The Foe of Christ" and "AntiChrist" (by Athanasius).
2) Arius is involved with the "shameful ridicule of sacred scripture" (by Eusebius.)
3) Arius is "introducing belief of unbelief", pains and wounds the church (by Constantine).
4) Arius seems to be follow the neoplatonic ideas of Plotinus (by Rowan Williams).
5) Arius was subject to censorship and "damnatio memoriae" (the Boss)

Consideration of the hypothesis that Arius of Alexandria was in fact a non Christian may be given objective discussion on the basis of any of these above five elements of evidence - four of which are drawn from the epoch in which Arius of Alexandria lived.

Given the political and religious context of the time surrounding the "Councils of Antioch and Nicaea" at which time the "New and Strange State Version of Roman Christianity" was imposed on the Eastern populace by the sword of Constantine, it seems very reasonable to suspect that there would have been resistance against "The Christian Oppressor" by the Eastern Greek equivalent of the "Sacred College of Pontifices" (ie: the Graeco-Roman priesthood and academics) who Constantine had effectively disbanded and made redundant.

J-D

I am aware of that, digger, and do not understand why you think I need to be reminded of it.False. I have responded to it repeatedly. Since you are repeating your points, digger, I will repeat my responses.What points 1, 2, 3, and 5 suggest is that Arius's ideas were unacceptable to Athanasius, Eusebius, and Constantine. 'Holding to a position acceptable to Athanasius, Eusebius, and Constantine' is not part of the definition of 'being a Christian', digger, and therefore 'holding to a position unacceptable to Athanasius, Eusebius, and Constantine' is not demonstrative of not being a Christian.

As for point 4, digger, following neo-Platonic ideas is compatible with being a Christian, so even if Arius was following neo-Platonic ideas that is not a demonstration that he was not a Christian.Yes, digger, it's likely that there was resistance to Constantine from non-Christians, but that doesn't prove that all resistance to Constantine came from non-Christians, and hence does not prove that a particular opponent of Constantine's must have been non-Christian.

mountainman

But these three figures were foundational for early 4th century "State Christian Authodoxy". If these three were not "Christians", and nobody is too sure about Constantine, then who were?


'holding to a position unacceptable to Athanasius, Eusebius, and Constantine' was known to have generated imperial state decrees for exile.



Its far more than likely. I'd go so far as to say that we might be reasonably certain that there was a resistance to Constantine from non-Christians.


Resistance came in many forms. For example the non christians were apparently having the Gnostic "Acts of Pilate" being read in non christian schools throughout the empire. Are you able to see that this act was an act of resistance? Jesus is cast as healer who heals with the healing power of the Graeco-Roman Healing God Asclepius, the son of Apollo, the son of Zeus.

When an author of the 4th cenury writes "Jesus heals by the power of Asclepius" we are not compelled to conclude that the author must have been a christian because he mentions Jesus Henry. This is the point I am trying to make. Thanks Digger.

J-D

Why do you do that? You don't seem to have any problem with correct spelling generally. If you have some sort of specific learning disability, I don't want to make a fuss about it, but if you're just being deliberately provoking, I wish you'd stop.It doesn't make any difference whether they were all Christians. Christians don't all agree with each other. It's not part of the definition of 'Christian' that somebody agree with other Christians, whatever their official status in any state or other hierarchy.Possibly, but that says nothing about whether somebody was a Christian, so it's another irrelevancy.And the point I'm trying to make, DIGGER, is that we are also not compelled to conclude that the author must have been a non-Christian.

mountainman

The point you are attempting to make flies in the face of the evidence. Here is what Eusebius (do you think Eusebius is a Christian?) has to say about the text. For more information about the Acts of Pilate have a look here. In fact the author was so Pagan, the consensus among modern opinion is that the Acts described by Eusebius were destroyed.

Having forged, to be sure, Memoirs of Pilate [2731] and Our Saviour,
full of every kind of blasphemy against Christ,
with the approval of their chief they sent them round
to every part of his dominions, with edicts
that they should be exhibited openly for everyone to see
in every place, both town and country, and that
the primary teachers should give them to the children,
instead of lessons, for study and committal to memory.

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I
Church History of Eusebius/Book IX/Chapter 5 & 7
Chapter V.—The Forged Acts.

Most academics commenting upon the "Acts of Pilate" as described above by Eusebius have been compelled to conclude that the author must have been a non-Christian Digger.

J-D

No, it doesn't. You have failed to grasp the logical structure of the relationship between evidence and conclusion in this case.Yes. Just because he was himself a Christian doesn't make him an infallible witness about who was a Christian and who was not. Evidence that a Christian denounced somebody as anti-Christian does not compel the conclusion that the person denounced actually was anti-Christian.Maybe. But even if they were destroyed, that does not compel the conclusion that they, or their author, were anti-Christian.