fatpie42

http://www.victorzammit.com/archives/May2006.html

It seems to me that Mithraism wouldn't have been any more threatening than any other pagan belief. It also seems to me that the Council of Nicea was intended to decide what beliefs should be taken as orthodox and which as heresy, but was far from the origin such beliefs.

Nevertheless, as with a lot of nonsense on the internet, this has a ring of truth to it; so I thought I'd see what you guys thought. The thing that most interests me is: How much influence did Constantine actually have on early Christian beliefs anyway?

Toto

Arthur Findlay was a psychic researcher, not a historian.

aa5874

But Arthur Findlay being a psychic reseacher is totally irrelevant to his determination of events at the Nicene Council.

Only how he came to such a conclusion or what source he used is really important.

It is not necessary to be a bishop of Rome or a scholar to read and assess information about events of antiquity. And after all, histoians disagree with one another.

Von Bek

It should be mentioned that the Arians believed Jesus was a divine being and worthy of worship. Arius considered Jesus to be the Logos and the creator of the world, he just did not consider the Son to be co-eternal with the Father.

Von Bek

Regarding Constantine, he appears to have been a shrewd politician who made use of a religion that had become widespread in the empire and had developed a bureaucratic structure. He does not seem to strike me as someone who was overly concerned with theology. He and his son appear to have been sympathetic to Arianism.

andrewcriddle

One of the problems with Bishop Eusebius and the Council of Nicea is that there were 2 Bishops Eusebius at that council. Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia. Unfortunately ancient reports of the proceedings of the council do not always make it clear which Eusebius said what.

However both Eusebius of Nicomedia (explicitly) and Eusebius of Caesarea (more ambivalently) were sympathetic to Arius. The final creed of the council of Nicea was not one that either of them really wanted.

Andrew Criddle

Toto

That's the rub. Psychics and theosophists and others who believe in supernatural inspiration tend to accept the spirits as "sources."

mountainman

I strongly disagree with this assessment of Arius.
The following statements were made in two letters
written by Constantine to and/or about Arius.
What does Constantine himself tell us about Arius?
Specifically Arius' views on Jesus and the church?

SOURCE (5): (c.333 CE, Syria?)

He had little piety toward Christ
He detracted from Jesus who is indetractable
He detracted from the uncorrupted intelligence of Jesus
He detracted from the belief in immortality of Jesus
He demoted Jesus
He dared to circumscribe Jesus
He questioned the presence of Jesus
He questioned the activity of Jesus
He questioned the all-pervading law of Jesus
He thought that there was a place outside of Jesus
He thought that there something else outside of Jesus
He denied the infiniteness of Jesus
He accepted Jesus as a figment
He called Jesus foreign
He did not conclude that God is present in Christ
He had no faith in Christ
He did not follow the law that God's law is Christ

He sang evil songs of unbelief

He detracted from the uncorrupted intelligence of the Church
He reproached the church
He grieved the church
He wounded he church
He pained the church


He wrote that he did not wish God to appear to be the subject of suffering of outrage
He wrote that (on the above account) he suggested and fabricated wondrous things indeed in respect to faith.


He brought state orthodoxy into the light;
He hurled his wretched self into darkness.
He ended his labors with this



SOURCE 4: (c.333 CE, Syria?)

He was just like Porphyry (a non-christian Neopythagorean academic)
He was like Porphyry in that he was an enemy of the fear of God
He was like Porphyry in that he wrote wicked writings against the religion of Christians,
He was like Porphyry in that he wrote unlawful writings against the religion of Christians,
He was like Porphyry in that he was a reproach to all generations after
He was like Porphyry in that he fully and insatiably used base fame
He was like Porphyry in that on this account his writings were righteously destroyed
He was to be called a Porphyrian
He had supporters who were also to be called Porphyrians

He was renamed
He was renamed so that he may be named by another name
He was renamed to the name of those whose evil ways he imitated
He was renamed so that he may be named by the name of those whose evil ways he imitated

His writings wherever they be found were to be delivered to be burnt with fire
His wicked and evil doctrine was to be destroyed
His doctrines were to be blotted out
His very memory was to be blotted out
He was permitted by no means that there remain to him any remembrance in the world.
He was the subject of "damnation"

His books were being secreted or hidden
His books were not to be secreted or hidden but were to be delivered to the fire
His books were to be delivered by citizens to the fire on punishment of death
His books in one's possession impled capital punishment by beheading without delay.


SOURCE (4): 0333 CE - Emperor Constantine's "Circular"
SOURCE (5): 0333 CE - Constantine's "Dear Arius Letter

As a student of ancient history who is skeptical of the literary origins of christian history I would like to point out that the only evidence by which we think that Arius of Alexandria was any sort of "christian" has been furnished by the victors of the Arian controversy - the christian orthodoxy.

The case may be that Arius of Alexandria was not in fact one of your Eusebian defined "orthodox christian" but rather a Hellenistic priest, logician, academic and the figurehead of the Hellenistic resistance against the forced implementation of christianity by Constantine on the eastern empire c.324 CE. He is described by Constantine as a "Porphyrian".

The contents of the Codex Theodosianus for the period of the fourth century is not generally well known. These are the laws enacted by Constantine and then Constantius at that specific epoch in which the state religion of christianity was established and ushered in via the military councils of Antioch and Nicaea.

If you are looking for a quick and brutal summary of the extent
that the christian emperors and their minions persecuted the
Hellenistic civilisation during the 4th century see Vlasis Rassias, Demolish Them! Published in Greek, Athens 1994

Roger Pearse

You asked about the following stuff, found online.

We can tell a piece of amateur hogwash is about to appear, from that statement alone! Which professional historians are so vaguely appealed to, I wonder?

Not really. It was already assembling at Ancyra when Hosius of Cordova persuaded Constantine to host it and pay the bills, so that western bishops could attend. The venue was switched to Nicaea so that the emperor could attend.

I don't know -- evidence?

Very loaded speech.

Unitarianism is a modern development. Both sides at Nicaea were Trinitarian. Arius himself called the Son "fully God" in a letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia in 321 AD.

The question was whether the Second Person of the Trinity was of the same substance (homoousios) as the First Person, or of like substance. The latter position was the Arian position. Arius himself probably did not realise the implications of this, but these appeared over the next couple of decades, as Arianism became ascendant and extreme Arians appeared.

Probably.

Every word of this is fiction. No ancient source records any of this.

The ante-Nicene fathers are online, in English. A look at these would destroy this idea instantly.

For other reasons I compiled a list of quotations about Jesus from all the Fathers of the second century. It's here. You will note the lack of the "Jesus is not God" position in all that.

The characteristic error of the last 50 years is to claim that Jesus was not really God. But the characteristic error of the early church was to claim that he was not really a man -- docetism. Different times, different mistakes.

The author of this did not know this; never a good sign, when people are utterly confident of something they merely hope is true. I'd like to see a professional historian who would be willing to endorse any of this tripe.

Hearsay...

Good instincts. It wasn't. References to it are pretty thin in 4th century texts. Justin Martyr was concerned about it in the second century, tho.

Right again. Councils don't generally invent doctrines; if they do, trouble ensues.

Well, now you know.

I compiled links to all the primary data on the Council of Nicaea, again as part of something else. It's here. Read what the ancients said themselves, and remember that if it isn't in there, someone made it up.

Not a lot. The early Christian period is sort of over by Nicaea anyway. T. D. Barnes in his Constantine and Eusebius says that the church policy of Constantine was crippled by his refusal to interfere in church politics. (His successor, Constantius II, took a very different line, as did most emperors that followed). His patronage of Nicaea should have given the Nicene formula a lot of momentum, but in fact the reverse happens in succeeding years. Constantine exiles Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and one other after the council; but all are recalled, and Eusebius indeed baptises Constantine on his death-bed.

The influence of Constantine on what was to become Christendom was huge, on the other hand. His role created the whole idea of Christian empire, and the idea of a Christian state. His legalisation of Christianity made it certain that it would become dominant, his seizure of temple funds and the legal privileges that he gave the clergy made sure that rolling back this agenda would never happen because of the number of vested interests involved. His calling of an ecumenical council led to many, many more.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

But it is rather relevant when he is given as an "authority" for claims about what professional historians believe, surely?

Indeed so. But Findlay clearly simply relied on hearsay.

All the best,

Roger Pearse