|
Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
12-27-2008, 10:39 PM
|
#11 | |
|
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Quote:
The debates at the time were over theological ideas that are so foreign to us that we have trouble wrapping our brains around them - was the Son pre-existent? Or of a substance the same or similar to a father? It is only after the Enlightenment that the idea that Jesus was either a human, or possibly did not exist, even made sense to people. This is going to be the last thread on Arius. Make you case. Is there anyone who knows anything about Arius who agrees with your interpretation? Does you interpretation add anything to our understanding of history? |
|
|
|
12-27-2008, 10:41 PM
|
#12 | |
|
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
12-28-2008, 08:36 AM
|
#13 | |||
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
|
Quote:
Quote:
The issue isn't whether this position -- valid or not -- could have been shared by Arius and Julian. It's whether it was shared, let alone ever entertained.. I note that you have not produces a scintilla of evidence to show that it was, your appeals to what you claim Julian's statement about the "fictions of the Galileans" and Arius' declarations about the Logos/Son are all about notwithstanding, since your claims in this regard are based on wholesale eisegetical misreadings of Julian and Arius, and are therefore most certainly not evidence. Jeffrey |
|||
|
|
|
12-28-2008, 09:47 AM
|
#14 | |||||||||
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
|
Quote:
Here's the text of the opening paragraph of CG: Quote:
1. that you have changed your position on what these words of Julian mean from (a) their being an assertion of the fictitious nature of all NT claims about Jesus being historical and Christianity existing from before Constantine to (b) their being a claim that NT itself (or at least the NT as Eusebius envisaged it) did not exist prior to Constantine and that all the writings within it were forged by Eusebius; 2. that you have not produced one whit of evidence that the referent of Julian's σκευωρία is the canon, let alone the canon of (i.e., reputedly produced by) the man Euesbius (note the [genitive] plural ἀνθρώπων). Since you have changed your position and shown yourself wholly uninformed about the meanings and implications of the vocabulary, syntax, and grammar of this text, why should anyone accept your claims? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
:huh: Quote:
May be?? The issue is whether they are critical. And critical to what? For establishing Julian's position on the HJ (or is it the existence of the canon before Constantine?) Given your constant appeal to what Julian reputedly says in the opening paragraph of CG as evidence sufficient in itself for knowing what Julian's position regarding the HJ (or is it the canon?) was, your saying that we need to know what else Julian said in order to be know what his beliefs regarding the HJ (or is it the pre-Constantinian existence of the canon?) were is as disingenuous as it is self serving. Do you think that the opening paragraph of the CG is sufficient to show us "that the emperor Julian was [fully] convinced the fabrication of the christians ... was fiction" or not? [What kind of dodge will this question be met with, I wonder]. Quote:
Can you please demonstrate that this is the "orthodox" [:huh:] position (which is also yours, BTW, unless you want to say that the opening paragraph of the CG is not good evidence for knowing what Julian's position was regarding the HJ [or is it the canon?]), let alone that this position has been arrived at by other than honest and unbiased means or an honest and well informed assessment of the evidence? Quote:
Jeffrey |
|||||||||
|
|
|
12-28-2008, 10:29 AM
|
#15 | ||
|
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
Valentinius presented a Jesus or Christ that cannot be found anywhere in the NT. There is no resemblance whatsoever between the character called Christ by Valentinius and that called Christ in the NT. And there is Cerinthus, Carpocrates and the Ebionites that claimed Jesus was just human. Against Heresies XXVI Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
12-28-2008, 01:46 PM
|
#16 | |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
|
Quote:
Jeffrey |
|
|
|
|
12-28-2008, 05:17 PM
|
#17 | ||
|
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
Do you know what "just like other men" means? |
||
|
|
|
12-28-2008, 05:20 PM
|
#18 | ||
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
|
Quote:
But seriously, is the Carpocratian view of Jesus discussed in Heresies 25? And if so, is Jesus' generation through Joseph the only thing that is noted there that Carpocrates believed about Jesus? Jeffrey |
||
|
|
|
12-28-2008, 05:29 PM
|
#19 | ||
|
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
12-28-2008, 05:48 PM
|
#20 | |||||||||
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Hoo Boy! You weren't kidding when you said you had nor read much, if anything, of the primary evidence from both the opponents of Arius and his supporters! I wonder if you could have made this claim with a straight face if you had first read the following from Alexander: Quote:
Quote:
or from the Arians themselves: Quote:
|
|||||||||
|
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
