Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 02-08-2008, 04:21 AM

Constantine's "Dear Arius" Letter of c.333 CE

Christian Military supremacist
_vs_
Non-Christian Ascetic Priest

A political analysis of a letter composed about 333 CE by Constantine, addressed to Arius and the Arians. Constantine would very much like to publically execute Arius, but he does not know exactly where Arius is - perhaps Syria. Arius is revealed as someone who had previously been conspicuous by his silence and unobtrusive character. He is described in the manner of an ascetic priest. Constantine is stung by the anti-christian polemic in the writings of Arius; Arius is the focus of belief in unbelief of Constantine's new political and religious initiatives. Constantine reveals that Arius "reproaches, grieves, wounds and pains the Church". A very nasty letter by a very nasty despot. Eventually Constantine manages to poison Arius, but before that time when Arius was no longer, he had composed a number of texts against the Pontifex Maximus' preferred and sponsored cult. These heretical writings were sought out by the authodox.

Arius's Unbelief

Arius is associated with "a belief of unbelief": "He introduced a belief of unbelief – new and never yet at any time seen since men have been born." What do we know Arius to have said at Nicaea? Just these things alone and dogmatically. Just these five assertions - he was quiet and dogmatic.

"There was time when He was not.
Before He was born He was not.
He was made out of nothing existing.
He is/was from another subsistence/substance.
He is subject to alteration or change."

Other Highlights in the Letter

Constantine is mad at Arius
Constantine's "Christ", "Lord", and "injuries"
Arius' writings are "pernicious".
Constantine's treachery and clever knavery
Arius as "Ares" - God of War.
Constantine controls the populace by the sword
"THUS" Arius believes. Constantine is confronted by ancient opinion.
Arius' Request to preserve tradition
Constantine's threatens Arius' friends and associates
"Let me in to the Temples", says Arius
Arius is outwardly silent
Arius' resistance to the christian agenda
Arius' barred publicly from God’s church
Constantine's PR Job: Authenticity of the Ancient Sibyl
Public Relations, Propaganda and the Erythraean sibyl
Arius as a fly in the imperial annointment
Constantine does not like Arius.
Arius is called a "gallows rogue" by Constantine, in anticipation of his capture.
Arius is accused of "undermining the truth.
Arius writes [WHAT?] (quite well!) in metered verse ...
Arius has a bitter anti-christian tongue.
Constantine gloats over capturing Arius.
Constantine cannot contain his glee at the thought of his capture.
Arius "reproaches, grieves, wounds and pains the Church".
Arius says to Constantine's god ... "Away!".
Constantine dares Arius to "adapt" to Christianity
Arius's Logic about the body of Christ (Docetic = Fiction)
Constantine equates Punishment and the Presence of God
Arius is an ascetic priest
Arius, a lively ascetic priest, knew the end had come
Constantine trashes Arius.
Constantine again threatens Arius' associates: ten-fold taxation
Arius' "abominable investigations".
The Boss and Extortion: Convert to Christianity or Else.
Arius - the "Iron-Hearted" - is taunted
Constantine does not protect Arius

One very nasty letter by one very nasty military supremacist
and malevolent despot all riled up over the stinging words
of an ascetic priest.

What was Arius saying?
The story has two sides.

I think Arius was saying "bullshit!".
He understood the Bible was bullshit.
The NT was a fabricated fiction.

Constantine had by methods of
"treachery and clever knavery"
fraudulently misrepresented the
ancient history of the empire by
publishing the new testament,
and supporting the monstrous
tale as an authentic fable.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

mountainman · 02-14-2008, 08:32 PM

Thanks Sheshbazzar.
From another thread ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Thanks Mountainman, for posting this link to Constantine's "Dear Arius" nasty letter.

Your side notes were particularly helpful in navigating through all of that dense, convoluted and bombastic prose, I admit that in the past I have paid very little attention to such kinds of writings, despising all latter "christian" writings as being about par with used toilet paper.

I can clearly see now that I had been quite unaware of how devious and effective the Imperial power was at remodeling the nascent Jewish messianic hopes into a tool of control, oppression, and of a fanatical and tyrannical domination.
I found these statements to be quite enlightening as to the character and methods of Constantine;

Quote:

Originally Posted by Constantine

(38.) Do you understand that I, the man of God, already know all things?

Here, the claim of "divine power" is usurped by Constantine and his murderous henchmen, "God's" self-appointed thugs, thieves, and murders.

plain old governmental unjust control and terror tactics,
nothing "divine" about it. Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin, had their prototype here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Constantine

(42) Come to me, come, I say,
to a man of God;
believe that by my interrogations
I shall search your heart’s secrets;

Yeah, riiiight, in other words; "After I have "interrogated" you long enough,
I'll have your heart ripped out so I can cut it into small pieces."

And Christians celebrate this vile character for what he pulled off?
:devil:

Thanks for taking the time to have a look at the political
comments which are capable of being drawn behind the
text of the letter extant, written by Constantine.

The mainstream opinion has always deferred (naturally)
to the histories presented and recorded by Constantine's
"Ecclesiatical Historians", and as such - by taking all these
texts at face value - have missed all references to the very
real political climate in the Roman empire at the time the
Bible was first published and bound together as a codex.

This malevolent despot had absolute power over the
technology of written literature. We know this fact.
This letter of Constantine discloses his despotism,
and discloses that Arius of Alexandria is best regarded
as a non-christian ascetic priest, who had remained
insularly quiet and dogmatically brief during Nicaea.

Need I repeat the words of Arius?
These got him banished, but not beheaded.
Since that time, Constantine understood Arius
as a very real threat, a bitter anti-church (and thus
anti-christian) polemicist - perhaps parodist.

Constantine probably wishes he had ordered Arius
executed at Nicaea, rather than banished, since this
letter discloses, some 6 years later, Arius is on the
run from Constantine's executioners.

If anyone has objections to the opinion that Constantine
is best described as a supreme imperial mafia thug,
malevolent despot, military supremacist, etc, etc,
please take a quich review of this letter to Arius, and
the Arians.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

mountainman · 02-14-2008, 08:35 PM

NOTE: that

Arius' unbelief reproaches, grieves,
wounds and pains the Church"

is a quoted assertion of Constantine. It is a quote from Constantine's letter here about the problems he was experiencing with this pesky Arius ascetic priest person. What exactly was Arius' "unbelief" to be associated with?

Think about it. It should not be too difficult to see. It was the sudden appearance of the "Historical Jesus" in the eastern empire, with effect from Constantine's supremacy, and closure of the ancient temples traditions.

Casper · 02-15-2008, 11:35 AM

Hi Pete,

I believe you've outlined before but could you confirm something? Are you assuming that arius' reinstatement and (untilemly death) was a clandestine and elaborate assassination? It is certainly stretching the possibility of coincidence to assume the whole scenario just happened by chance.

I'm thinking of some things I'd like to hear about from you:

Who else would be a conspirator? Or, who else would have taken the opportunity to poison him, knowing (or hoping?) that Constantine would look the other way? Could Arius have more than one set of enemies which are unrelated? Circumstance often makes strange bedfellows.

And also, what was Arius poisoned with? Any guesses? It sounds pretty violent from the decriptions, and doesn't seem like any type of chance malady would result in a healthy(?) individual suddenly stopping in the men's room to literally "crap his innards out".

mountainman · 02-15-2008, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casper

Hi Pete,

I believe you've outlined before but could you confirm something? Are you assuming that arius' reinstatement and (untilemly death) was a clandestine and elaborate assassination? It is certainly stretching the possibility of coincidence to assume the whole scenario just happened by chance.

Hi Casper,

Of course most things have two sides. The WIKI article
quoted below outlines these ...

Quote:

After the Council of Nicaea and his death
It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Arian controversy. (Discuss)

That the apparent public unanimity of the council (Secundus and Theonas of Lower Egypt being the only dissenters) masked a considerable amount of divergent opinion is indisputable. Doubts over the use of a term which had been previously denounced as Sabellian weighed on the minds of many. Eusebius of Caesarea has been charged by many later writers as having embraced Arianism. But his attitude suggests that his objections to the decision, which he allowed his love of peace to overrule, owed more to the dread of possible consequences than to the decision in itself. And his allusion to the proceedings at Nicaea in the letter just mentioned shows that his apprehensions were not unreasonable. For he remarks how the final consensus emerged after considerable discussion that the term homoousion was not intended to indicate that the Son formed an actual portion of the Father, which would have led to Sabellianism, the fear of which fed much of the dissension to the creed. On the other hand, Athanasius was convinced that unless the essence of the Son was definitely understood to be the same as that of the Father, it would inevitably follow that the Son would at best be no more than an aeon.

The homoousian party's victory at Nicaea was short-lived, however. The controversy recommenced as soon as the decrees were promulgated. When Alexander died at Alexandria in 327, Athanasius succeeded him despite not meeting the age requirement for a bishop. Eusebius of Nicomedia, after writing a diplomatic letter to Constantine, was soon reinstated to his see and the good graces of the emperor. Arius, who had taken refuge in Palestine, was also soon permitted to return, after reformulating his Christology in an effort to mute the ideas his opponents found most objectionable. Before long, this turn of events led to a complete reversal of the position of the contending parties. Eustathius of Antioch, a staunch supporter of Athanasius, was deposed after involving himself in a controversy with Eusebius of Caesarea. Marcellus of Ancyra, another partisan of Athanasius, was charged with Sabellianism in attempting to defend Nicene Christology and was deposed in 336. In the meantime, Eusebius of Nicomedia turned against pugnacious Athanasius. Following Arius' restoration to the Constantine's favor, the emperor admonished Athanasius to readmit Arius to communion. Athanasius refused and was exiled to Trier.

Arius was summoned before Constantine and judged suitably compliant, whereupon the emperor directed Alexander of Constantinople to receive Arius back into communion despite his objections. However, the day before he was to be readmitted to communion, Arius is reported to have died suddenly. Socrates Scholasticus, a detractor, describes Arius' death as follows:

It was then Saturday, and . . . going out of the imperial palace, attended by a crowd of Eusebian [Eusebius of Nicomedia is meant] partisans like guards, he [Arius] paraded proudly through the midst of the city, attracting the notice of all the people. As he approached the place called Constantine's Forum, where the column of porphyry is erected, a terror arising from the remorse of conscience seized Arius, and with the terror a violent relaxation of the bowels: he therefore enquired whether there was a convenient place near, and being directed to the back of Constantine's Forum, he hastened thither. Soon after a faintness came over him, and together with the evacuations his bowels protruded, followed by a copious hemorrhage, and the descent of the smaller intestines: moreover portions of his spleen and liver were brought off in the effusion of blood, so that he almost immediately died. The scene of this catastrophe still is shown at Constantinople, as I have said, behind the shambles in the colonnade: and by persons going by pointing the finger at the place, there is a perpetual remembrance preserved of this extraordinary kind of death.

Many Nicene Christians asserted Arius' death was miraculous--a consequence of his heretical views. Several scholarly studies suggest that Arius was poisoned by his opponents.[17] In any event, the death of Arius, followed a year later by that of Constantine, did not end the controversy.

[FN17] Edward Gibbons "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", Chapter 21, (1776-88), Jonathan Kirsch, "God Against the Gods: The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism", 2004, and Charles Freeman, "The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason", 2002.

Gibbon's opinion is worth checking.

Quote:

I'm thinking of some things I'd like to hear about from you:

Who else would be a conspirator? Or, who else would have taken the opportunity to poison him, knowing (or hoping?) that Constantine would look the other way? Could Arius have more than one set of enemies which are unrelated? Circumstance often makes strange bedfellows.

The entire pro-Constantinian populace may have "conspired"
to seek out the whereabouts of the ascetic priest Arius.

(As an aside, many scholars comment that Constantine
in fact did not have a great deal of support in the east,
or rather, his anti-pagan legislation was resisted.)

One Mafia Boss contract was enough IMO.
The Boss had contacts in high places.
The Boss' statue dominated entry to
"The City of the Boss".

Read "The Godfather".

Quote:

And also, what was Arius poisoned with? Any guesses? It sounds pretty violent from the decriptions, and doesn't seem like any type of chance malady would result in a healthy(?) individual suddenly stopping in the men's room to literally "crap his innards out".

Sir Isaac Newton wrote alot about the manner in which
Athanasius "bandied around" the description of Arius' death.
Newton was extremely widely read in this issue. He makes
many detractory remarks against the authodoxy of Athanasius,
who is opposed ---- in the surviving "ecclesiastical histories"
of the epoch --- as the good man against the bad man Arius.

COnstantine received alot of advice from people in the
time he commanded the army c.305 CE in Briton. SOme
of that advice related to how to kill people swiftly and
effectively using poisons. Espionage is older than humanity.

Whatever killed Arius, a decade of death threats from the
mafia Boss, emperor, despot, military supremacist BULLNECK,
against the mean and nasty and bad-mouthed ascetic,
is a tribute to Arius' resourcefullness.

It is a miracle he lasted so long.
The letter of bullneck explicitly
reveals an intention of execution.

Arius' was another "justified"
4th century Christian execution.

Best wishes

Pete Brown

02-08-2008, 04:21 AM	#1
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	How did Arius' UNBELIEF "reproach, grieve, wound and pain the Church"? Constantine's "Dear Arius" Letter of c.333 CE Christian Military supremacist _vs_ Non-Christian Ascetic Priest A political analysis of a letter composed about 333 CE by Constantine, addressed to Arius and the Arians. Constantine would very much like to publically execute Arius, but he does not know exactly where Arius is - perhaps Syria. Arius is revealed as someone who had previously been conspicuous by his silence and unobtrusive character. He is described in the manner of an ascetic priest. Constantine is stung by the anti-christian polemic in the writings of Arius; Arius is the focus of belief in unbelief of Constantine's new political and religious initiatives. Constantine reveals that Arius "reproaches, grieves, wounds and pains the Church". A very nasty letter by a very nasty despot. Eventually Constantine manages to poison Arius, but before that time when Arius was no longer, he had composed a number of texts against the Pontifex Maximus' preferred and sponsored cult. These heretical writings were sought out by the authodox. Arius's Unbelief Arius is associated with "a belief of unbelief": "He introduced a belief of unbelief – new and never yet at any time seen since men have been born." What do we know Arius to have said at Nicaea? Just these things alone and dogmatically. Just these five assertions - he was quiet and dogmatic. "There was time when He was not. Before He was born He was not. He was made out of nothing existing. He is/was from another subsistence/substance. He is subject to alteration or change." Other Highlights in the Letter Constantine is mad at Arius Constantine's "Christ", "Lord", and "injuries" Arius' writings are "pernicious". Constantine's treachery and clever knavery Arius as "Ares" - God of War. Constantine controls the populace by the sword "THUS" Arius believes. Constantine is confronted by ancient opinion. Arius' Request to preserve tradition Constantine's threatens Arius' friends and associates "Let me in to the Temples", says Arius Arius is outwardly silent Arius' resistance to the christian agenda Arius' barred publicly from God’s church Constantine's PR Job: Authenticity of the Ancient Sibyl Public Relations, Propaganda and the Erythraean sibyl Arius as a fly in the imperial annointment Constantine does not like Arius. Arius is called a "gallows rogue" by Constantine, in anticipation of his capture. Arius is accused of "undermining the truth. Arius writes [WHAT?] (quite well!) in metered verse ... Arius has a bitter anti-christian tongue. Constantine gloats over capturing Arius. Constantine cannot contain his glee at the thought of his capture. Arius "reproaches, grieves, wounds and pains the Church". Arius says to Constantine's god ... "Away!". Constantine dares Arius to "adapt" to Christianity Arius's Logic about the body of Christ (Docetic = Fiction) Constantine equates Punishment and the Presence of God Arius is an ascetic priest Arius, a lively ascetic priest, knew the end had come Constantine trashes Arius. Constantine again threatens Arius' associates: ten-fold taxation Arius' "abominable investigations". The Boss and Extortion: Convert to Christianity or Else. Arius - the "Iron-Hearted" - is taunted Constantine does not protect Arius One very nasty letter by one very nasty military supremacist and malevolent despot all riled up over the stinging words of an ascetic priest. What was Arius saying? The story has two sides. I think Arius was saying "bullshit!". He understood the Bible was bullshit. The NT was a fabricated fiction. Constantine had by methods of "treachery and clever knavery" fraudulently misrepresented the ancient history of the empire by publishing the new testament, and supporting the monstrous tale as an authentic fable. Best wishes, Pete Brown

02-14-2008, 08:35 PM	#3
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	NOTE: that Arius' unbelief reproaches, grieves, wounds and pains the Church" is a quoted assertion of Constantine. It is a quote from Constantine's letter here about the problems he was experiencing with this pesky Arius ascetic priest person. What exactly was Arius' "unbelief" to be associated with? Think about it. It should not be too difficult to see. It was the sudden appearance of the "Historical Jesus" in the eastern empire, with effect from Constantine's supremacy, and closure of the ancient temples traditions.

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

02-15-2008, 11:35 AM	#4
Casper Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 430	Hi Pete, I believe you've outlined before but could you confirm something? Are you assuming that arius' reinstatement and (untilemly death) was a clandestine and elaborate assassination? It is certainly stretching the possibility of coincidence to assume the whole scenario just happened by chance. I'm thinking of some things I'd like to hear about from you: Who else would be a conspirator? Or, who else would have taken the opportunity to poison him, knowing (or hoping?) that Constantine would look the other way? Could Arius have more than one set of enemies which are unrelated? Circumstance often makes strange bedfellows. And also, what was Arius poisoned with? Any guesses? It sounds pretty violent from the decriptions, and doesn't seem like any type of chance malady would result in a healthy(?) individual suddenly stopping in the men's room to literally "crap his innards out".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.