Casper

link no worky for me. I'm very interested myself, for non BC&H reasons.

Toto

The newtonproject website seems to be down.

www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/

but you can find it in the google cache

Casper

Thanks Toto, I forget that is there :redface:

andrewcriddle

Newton's article is interesting. It is an early example of the "hermeneutic of suspicion" emphasizing how heavily we are dependant upon Athanasius' account of events, and that Athanasius cannot be regarded as an objective or unbiased witness.

Some of his suggestions would probably be accepted by many modern scholars, eg that the allegations of bullying against Athanasius (leading to his deposition by the council of Tyre ) had a real basis in fact.

One major problem is that Newton suggests that Arsenius (whom Athanasius was accused of killing) actually was dead by the time of the council of Tyre and that Athanasius was lying to claim otherwise.

Newton wrote before the recovery of Athanasius' Festal Letters. Letter 19 347 CE says in a list of new bishops this seems to establish that Arsenius did survive his quarrel with Athanasius and live to become reconciled with him.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman

Dear Andrew,

The term having become reconciled to the church is clearly polemic for those who would try and perceive some form of universal christian church at the very height of the Arian controversy. During this epoch we are assured that the highways were covered with galloping bishops, that christian persecution and christian intolerance was rife; an epoch where book-burning, temple destruction, and torture of the upper classes abounded; an era where land tax had tripled in living memory yet the christians in the imperial court and elsewhere were tax exempt. Do you understand these conditions? The date given 347 CE is one year away from the C14 date for the Nag Hammadi codices. Why were these books bound together with all these stories? Not wholly christian, not wholly pagan, clearly gnostic. I recall that many academics favor the idea that the NHC were buried in order to preserve them: that they may well have been some form of "forbidden books" which people like Athanasius and his lackies were searching monasteries for on a systematic basis during this period. Heretical writings - against the canon. The Constantinian canon. The christian canon. I repeat my findings on TAOPATTA - it is both an allegory of the pearl of great price and at the same time a biting and cutting satire on the ineptitude of Peter and the christian apostles.


Constantine wanted Arius to become reconciled to the church. Do you what he meant by that? Where are you Arius? Meet me in the city of Constantine and we can do some talking. Can you hear me Arius? Obviously Athasius was favored by the boss and sent out on search and destroy missions for all sorts of heretical writings which for some strange reason appear well documented to have flourished all over the eastern empire during this specific period, just after the Boss' lavish publication, just after the Boss had totally sown up the whole empire for extortion from the top.

If you want to understand the ultimate reconciliation with the church of the fourth century, then you have to start in the very first place with the ultimate understanding of just who was the Bishop of Bishops? Dont we? It was Constantine for the period from at least 325 through to the time he went to the underworld 337 CE. A precedent was established at that time to believe in the fiction of Constantine, and his continuators did just that, until 1966 at which time the Librorum Prohibitorum was finally abolished.


I dont believe for one minute that Athanasius' account has much integrity whatsoever. It is a fabrication to cover up the real problem which was what Arius of Alexandria had adoped as a mantra. The words of Arius were in one sense some form of mantra, since they appear to have been repeated for so many generations - much to the displeasure of the imperial and supremely victorious regime of christians -- an emperor cult flowing outward from the court(s) of the Roman Emperor.

What were these simple words at the basis of the Arian conroversy?
He was made out of nothing existing.
Constantine's historical jesus was fiction.
Cyril calls this a conspiracy of the greeks.
Go figure.


Best wishes,



Pete

J-D

'Made out of nothing existing' (that is, by God) was what Jews believed about the universe long before, just as Jews, Christians, and adherents of various other religions believe it now. It doesn't mean they think the universe is fictitious.

mountainman

There is an extant "Dear Arius Letter" written by Constantine which provides reason to believe that Arius represented, during the period from 324 to 333 CE, a very real political resistance against the initiatives of Constantine. Arius of Alexandria IMO was no christian. Arius is best described as a non christian ascetic priest whom Constantine discloses

"reproaches, grieves, wounds and pains the Church".

Constantine's "Dear Arius" Letter

'Made out of nothing existing' (that is, by Constantine) was what in my humble opinion the Arians (historically) believed about the new testament canonical literature. And yes, IMO it does raise the very real possibility that this historical jesus, as presented in the Constantinian canon, is a fictitious character.

On the other hand, my claim is that the new testament apochryphal literature was written 324 - 400 as polemical satire by the academic greeks, many of whom were in refuge in Syria (See letter above) and/or the upper nile (thus the Coptic material). Select at random any of the standard new testament apochryphal literature, particularly any of the apochryphal acts of the apostles (and here I also include the Nag Hammadi NHC 6.1 TAOPATTA) and I will argue and hopefully successfully demonstrate that we are looking at a satire. Here is a starting list into The NON CANONIC as PAGAN POLEMIC. Have you personally read through any of these texts?



Best wishes,


Pete

J-D

Whether or not this is true, it has no bearing on what I just said.Yes, Pete, we know what you think. That's not the point.Yes, Pete, we know what you think. That's not the point.But you have given no grounds for your opinion. The sentence you quoted before, to which I responded, was: 'He was made out of nothing existing.' The pronoun 'he' can't refer to a set of books. Also, it is not possible for a set of books to be created out of nothing, and I see no reason to think that the Arians thought it was.This sentence is meaningless without an antecedent for the pronoun.But again you have not backed up this claim.No. So why don't you choose one of them for your attempted demonstration?

mountainman

Hello J-D?

Have you lost a sense of reality somewhere along the track? Sets of books have been created out of nothing since papryus scrolls and clay tablets were around right up until this very micro-second. There is absolutely nothing unusual about that. The question relates to the authenticity of the data and information presented. Are we dealing with a history, or a monstrous fable? Is this a case of Heroditus, or a case of Hans Eusebius Anderson?

Please do so.

I think you may have missed a few threads of the loom.
Do a search for "Acts of Philip" in IIDB.


Best wishes,


Pete

J-D

Papyrus scrolls are not created out of nothing, they are created out of papyrus, which is not nothing. Clay tablets are not created out of nothing, they are created out of clay, which is not nothing. No books are created out of nothing.Why? What would be the point?I will when I get the chance, but I am not sure when that will be. What prevents you from just giving me the relevant information?