Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 02-05-2012, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

But I think/suspect that for the Arians Jesus wasn't the Son.

Be careful. You are shooting yourself in the foot. This is verging towards the question Did Arius believe that Jesus existed?, one of the questions which are inappropriate to entertain in this forum.

Toto · 02-05-2012, 07:52 PM

Pete - the questions are not related. This is not an issue that has been done to death by constant repetition.

mountainman · 02-05-2012, 08:42 PM

It seems from the evidence presented that the argument of the Nicaean and post-Nicaean Arians was the driving force in the introduction of Platonic terminology to the public face of the orthodox monotheistic christians.

The extent to which Arius himself was educated as a Platonic theologian has been reviewed by Rowan Williams, who finds with other cited scholars, that Arius appears to be aligned to Plotinus. These scholars have scoured all the citations posted, and implicate the undeniable influence of 3rd/4th CE century Platonism.

Whatever mystical controversy remains to be drawn from the heart of Nicaea appears to me to be directly related to the POLITICAL controversy over Arius of Alexander himself. We hardly know anything about him! His books, his life and his memory suffered political censorship.

stephan huller · 02-05-2012, 09:09 PM

Quote:

It seems from the evidence presented that the argument of the Nicaean and post-Nicaean Arians was the driving force in the introduction of Platonic terminology to the public face of the orthodox monotheistic christians.

This is the most idiotic claim I have ever seen in my life. No, 'the evidence' does not suggest this fucking conclusion. Your idiotic conspiracy gives you license to ignore Justin, Athenagoras, Clement, Origen, Dionysius etc. and so as a result of burying all the evidence before Arius, you are allowed to put forward this misinformation.

It's like saying that if you discount the 10,000 women he slept with "it seems from the evidence presented that" Wilt Chamberlain is a virgin.

This is fucking crazy.

mountainman · 02-06-2012, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

It seems from the evidence presented that the argument of the Nicaean and post-Nicaean Arians was the driving force in the introduction of Platonic terminology to the public face of the orthodox monotheistic christians.

This is the most idiotic claim I have ever seen in my life. No, 'the evidence' does not suggest this fucking conclusion. Your idiotic conspiracy gives you license to ignore Justin, Athenagoras, Clement, Origen, Dionysius etc. and so as a result of burying all the evidence before Arius, you are allowed to put forward this misinformation.

Is Rowan William's scholarship on Arius idiotic, or sound?

Here are my notes from Rowan William's book ARIUS: Heresy & Tradition (or via: amazon.co.uk). In the chapter entitled INTELLECT and BEYOND Williams spends ten pages between 199-209 searching for any precedents in the beliefs expressed by Arius.

His conclusions are that Justin, Athenagoras, Clement, Origen, Dionysius etc are unable to provide the appropriate precedents to understand the position of Arius, and that the best precedent is to be found in Plotinus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rowan Williams

NOTES:

ARIUS: Heresy & Tradition
Rowan Williams
Revised Edition (2002)

Arius before Arianism

p.31

"Although he is described as a skilled dialectician [23],
we cannot with certainty reconstruct a philosophical education"

[23] Socrates HE I.5, PG 67, 41A, Sozomen HE I.15, 33.2-3

p.32

Epiphanius' portrait [27]:

"He was very tall in stature [28], with downcast countenance [29],
counterfeited like a guileful serpent, and well able to deceive
any unsuspecting heart through its cleverly designed appearance.
For he was always garbed in a short cloak (hemiphorion) and sleeveless
tunic (kolobion); he spoke gently, and people found him persuasive
and flattering."

The sleeveless tunic is reminiscent of the "exomis" worn by both the
philosophers and asdcetics: Philo [30] mentions that the contemplative
Therapeutae of his day were dressed thus. Arius' costume would have
identified him easily as a teacher of the way of salvation - a guru,
we might almost say... Epiphanius also notes [31] that he had the care
of seventy women living a life of ascetic seclusion, presumably attached
to his church.

[27] Haer 69.3, 154.12-16
[28] Or possibly "advanced in years".
[29] Or possibly "with a stooping figure"
[30] Vita Cont. 38
[31] Haer 69.3.154.17ff

INTELLECT and BEYOND

199-209

Is spent searching for any precedents in the beliefs expressed by Arius.

p.209

".... It should be fairly clear by now that these views were unusual
in the church of his day, if not completely without precedent of some
sort in Origen. Kannengeisser suggests [63] that we should look directly
at the fifth Ennead [of Plotinus] for the background to Arius's ideas,
and for the heresiarch's 'break with Origen and his peculiarity with
respect to all the masters of Middle-Platonism with whom he has been
compared. [64]

For Kannengiesser .... only the radical disjunction between first and
second principles for which Plotinus argues can fully account for Arius'
novel teaching in this area.

"Arius' entire effort consisted precisely in acclimatizing
Plotinic logic within biblical creationism." [66]

[63-66] Charles Kannengeisser

ANALOGY and PARTICIPATION

p.227

Arius is tempting a bold and delicate task, simultaneously
stressing the total disjunction between monad and dyad, in
strongly Neoplatonist and Neopythagorean style, and asserting
real knowledge of the monad as a gracious will.

He is walking exactly the same tightrope as the Cappodocians
later in the century. [75]"

Conclusion

p.230

"In so far as we can catch a glimpse of Arius; metaphysics
and cosmology, it is of a markedly different kind from the
philosophical assumptions of Eusebius of Caesarea or, for
that matter, Athanasius himself in his apologetic works.

....[...]...

"In his insistence on the utter independence and separateness
of the source of all, he unquestionably stands closer to
Plotinus and his successors.

"... It is tempting to think that Anatolius of Laodicaea is
the 'missing link' connecting Arius with the Neoplatonic world."

p.231

"If the analysis in the foregoing pages is accurate,
what finally sets him [Arius] apart as a theologian
is the attempt to incorporate such a metaphysic within
an account of God's creating and revealing work
drawn largely from Scripture and retaining
a strong personalist element in its view of God.

Post-Plotinian cosmology and logic are what make Arius a 'heresiarch'"

(3.4) Anatolius of Laodicea the Christian, (c.210 - 283 CE)
(3.4) Anatolius of Laodicea the Neoplatonist and teacher of Iamblichus, (c.210 - 283 CE)

"The suggestion that Anatolius, Iamblichus' teacher, is to identified
with the Christian Bishop Anatolius of Laodicaea ... is a conjecture
regarded very skeptically indeed by several well qualified judges.

p.262 Rowan Williams, "Arius: Heresy & Tradition" (Revised Ed 2002

Toto · 02-06-2012, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

It seems from the evidence presented that the argument of the Nicaean and post-Nicaean Arians was the driving force in the introduction of Platonic terminology to the public face of the orthodox monotheistic christians.

The extent to which Arius himself was educated as a Platonic theologian has been reviewed by Rowan Williams, who finds with other cited scholars, that Arius appears to be aligned to Plotinus. These scholars have scoured all the citations posted, and implicate the undeniable influence of 3rd/4th CE century Platonism.....

Is there some confusion of Platonic and Plotonic? Arius was not the first to study Plato.

mountainman · 02-06-2012, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

It seems from the evidence presented that the argument of the Nicaean and post-Nicaean Arians was the driving force in the introduction of Platonic terminology to the public face of the orthodox monotheistic christians.

The extent to which Arius himself was educated as a Platonic theologian has been reviewed by Rowan Williams, who finds with other cited scholars, that Arius appears to be aligned to Plotinus. These scholars have scoured all the citations posted, and implicate the undeniable influence of 3rd/4th CE century Platonism.....

Is there some confusion of Platonic and Plotonic?

There should be no confusion between Platonic (following Plato) and Plotinic (following Plotinus) who himself was a Platonist, the follower of the "Father of (Neo)-Platonism Ammonius Saccas of Alexandria. Plotinus received imperial patronage and support from the Roman Emperor Gallenius in the 3rd century.

Quote:

Arius was not the first to study Plato.

That is not the claim of Rowan Williams or the scholarship he cites to the detriment of stephan hullers summations on modern academic scholarship on Arius.

The finding of modern scholarship, as I read it in Williams, is that at Nicaea and following with the Arian controversy, certain words and terms appeared in the orthodox heresiological christians's dialogue that were novel. These terms were Platonic, and their earliest exposition in that specific form are only to be found in the writings of Plotinus, which were preserved by his student, Porphyry.

Arius it would seem, had studied these writings. At the time of Nicaea there had been a revival of Platonism (which had been imperially sponsored in the 3rd century).

stephan huller · 02-06-2012, 05:10 PM

Maybe Pete can start to argue that Plato was an invention of Plotinus

Toto · 02-06-2012, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...

Quote:

Arius was not the first to study Plato.

That is not the claim of Rowan Williams or the scholarship he cites to the detriment of stephan hullers summations on modern academic scholarship on Arius.

The quotes you provide do not support this claim. Williams talks about Plotinus. He does not say that Arius was the first Christian to study Plato or to use Platonic concepts.

Quote:

The finding of modern scholarship, as I read it in Williams, is that at Nicaea and following with the Arian controversy, certain words and terms appeared in the orthodox heresiological christians's dialogue that were novel. These terms were Platonic, and their earliest exposition in that specific form are only to be found in the writings of Plotinus, which were preserved by his student, Porphyry.

Arius it would seem, had studied these writings. At the time of Nicaea there had been a revival of Platonism (which had been imperially sponsored in the 3rd century).

So what were those words, that were only found in Plotinus? Why could they only have come through Arius? What would that mean in any case?

stephan huller · 02-06-2012, 05:29 PM

Pete's methodology is to begin every investigation with the question “what manipulations to the established facts would be necessary to allow for THIS piece of evidence to help support my conspiracy theory (or as he calls it “the truth”)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-05-2012, 07:52 PM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Pete - the questions are not related. This is not an issue that has been done to death by constant repetition.

02-05-2012, 08:42 PM	#3
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	It seems from the evidence presented that the argument of the Nicaean and post-Nicaean Arians was the driving force in the introduction of Platonic terminology to the public face of the orthodox monotheistic christians. The extent to which Arius himself was educated as a Platonic theologian has been reviewed by Rowan Williams, who finds with other cited scholars, that Arius appears to be aligned to Plotinus. These scholars have scoured all the citations posted, and implicate the undeniable influence of 3rd/4th CE century Platonism. Whatever mystical controversy remains to be drawn from the heart of Nicaea appears to me to be directly related to the POLITICAL controversy over Arius of Alexander himself. We hardly know anything about him! His books, his life and his memory suffered political censorship.

02-06-2012, 05:10 PM	#8
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Maybe Pete can start to argue that Plato was an invention of Plotinus

02-06-2012, 05:29 PM	#10
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Pete's methodology is to begin every investigation with the question “what manipulations to the established facts would be necessary to allow for THIS piece of evidence to help support my conspiracy theory (or as he calls it “the truth”)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.