gentleexit

Does Constantine's desire to relocate the conference to Nicea so that he can be physically present, speak against his delivering his "oration to the assembly of saints" in Antioch?

Where did "RLF" get this titbit from?

Jeffrey Gibson

[Snip]

This hardly shows that in his Pagans and Christians Lane-Fox "continually paints a picture of military duress and coersion" at Nicea.

And in fact, this bit

Quote:

On entering, recalled Eusebius "units of the bodyguard and other troops surrounded the palace with drawn swords, and through them the men of God proceeded without fear into the innermost rooms of the Emperor, in which some were companions at table, while others reclined on couches either side." It was "like a dream", he said, an anticipatory picture of the kingdom of Christ.

Actually falsifies your claim.


All absolutely irrelevant to your claim.

Curious and ironic that you speak of scholars of Nicea other than yourself not being able to be objective in reading the evidence they adduce to justify their claims

Jeffrey

mountainman

Dear gentleexit,

IDK: perhaps Jeffrey can ask "RLF" this when he next bumps into him. This appears to be a claim of military duress at Nicaea. Additionally the statement "Constantine imposed criminal sentences of exile on the bishops who refused to sign." implies Robin Jane-Fox is attempting to state the historical circumstances in a manner which is outside of the simple judisdiction of christian theologists. Lane-Fox is examining the council of Nicaea in a political, and not a theological, exercise.


Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

[QUOTE=Jeffrey Gibson;5738158]Dear Jeffrey,

Many are the source references in this very discourse of Athanasius, and elsewhere, that the words of Arius as recorded in the council of Nicaea were the same words recorded as "The Arian controversy for centuries". The five simple dogmatic sayings. These words of Arius and the Arian controversy itself are highly related. Arius was the focal point from which the controversy fanned out in all directions for centuries.

My thesis sees Arius' "anti-christian" heresy as being a non-christian disbeliever in the historical Jesus. The bulk of the Hellenistic Eastern population temporarily supported his resistance against the new warlord from the west. But the resistance failed against Constantine - he was too powerful. His continuators suppressed the real political history by theological dogma.

Best wishes,


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

[quote=Jeffrey Gibson;5738199]
[Snip]

This hardly shows that in his Pagans and Christians Lane-Fox "continually paints a picture of military duress and coersion" at Nicea.

And in fact, this bit

Quote:

On entering, recalled Eusebius "units of the bodyguard and other troops surrounded the palace with drawn swords, and through them the men of God proceeded without fear into the innermost rooms of the Emperor, in which some were companions at table, while others reclined on couches either side." It was "like a dream", he said, an anticipatory picture of the kingdom of Christ.

Actually falsifies your claim.

All absolutely irrelevant to your claim.

Curious and ironic that you speak of scholars of Nicea other than yourself not being able to be objective in reading the evidence they adduce to justify their claims.

And nice selective quotation, BTW. Here's the quote above in it's context:

So the swords -- which were not threatening -- were displayed after the council was over!

Nice of you to neglect telling us that fact . But then then it would have spoiled the "evidence" that you have so often adduced in the service of giving the impression that swords were drawn threateningly during the council and were placed under orders of Constantine, as you have previously claimed they were, at the necks of those who were being asked to sign the creed.

And then there's your

Here's the full quote:

Quote:

The great council had opened on June 1 and met in the palace's inner hall of judgement. When Constantine entered in his robes and jewels, the Christian participants stood up. He asked their permission to sit and took up his position on a small stool adorned with gold. After a panegyric in his honour, he replied briefly, using the Latin which many Western bishops could follow, and 'Under Ossius's presidency, he then sat in isolation, though he probably jolned in the discussions. No Acts of the council were preserved, perhaps because their contents were too controversial, but we do know the names of the signatories to the Creed which Constantine himself eventually approved and explained in a preliminary speech. Of the three Arians who had temporarily been suspended at Antioch, two, including Eusebius, came back into the f0ld. However, fellow Arians who had consclitcd at Antioch now moved in the opposite direction, and ultimately, the signatures were not lasting. It was Ossius who first announced the Creed and signed it: from a precious fragment of the fifth-century Christian historian Philostorgius, we learn that the Creed was then taken round to each individual by Constantine's own notaries, led by Philumenus, the "master of the offices." This very high-ranking official controlled the palace secretaries and stood very close to the Emperor: once, we know, Philumenus had already shown considerable cunning when handling the Donatist leaders in the West. This secular official, a former Donatist "contact," brought the Emperor's authority directly into the climax of the council. Although many Arians signed the Creed, their signitures, therefore, were given under pressure, and before long, they understood its wording in senses which suited their own case.

So can we see from this not only that by "under pressure", RFL means "in protest" not under duress, but that Pete's claim that in his dusccussion of Nicea in his Pagans and Christians, Lane-Fox "continually paints a picture of military duress and coersion" at Nicea has no foundation in what Lane-Fox actually writes, but is based in both a misreading and a misrepresenation of Lane-Fox.

Good show, Pete!


Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Pete,

Did you or did you not claim that in his Discourses Against the Arians Athanasius called Arius himself the anti Christ.

No use dodging this one, Pete. It's documented that you did.

So are you or are you not wrong in claiming that Athanasius did this in his Discourses Against the Arians.

If you are not wrong, then point me to the exact place in his Discourses Aganst the Arians that Athanasis calls Arius the antichrist.

Jeffrey

mountainman

Dear gentleexit,

My notes from Pagans and Christians indicate Constantine's movements are not known with precision, but that Lane-Fox thinks Constantine physically delivered the oration personally at Antioch. One issue unaddressed by any ancient historian (as far as I have been able to determine), including Lane-Fox, is Ammianus Marcellinus' assertion that Constantine was also responsible for the felling of a very large and sole remaining obelisk (of three, originally) at the temple complex of either Karnack or Heliopolis. This could have taken place around the same time when Constantine first pushed into the east.

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

IMO Nicaea was not a church picnic.

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

Anthanasius is looking for invectives to throw at Arius like bricks:



Best wishes,


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

We know. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether the source you've been using for donkey's years now as one of the main buttresses of your opinion that it wasn't (Lane Fox's Pagan's and Christians) does indeed provide support for your opinion, and whether you have misrepresented that source in order to get it to do what you have claimed it does.


Jeffrey