Clivedurdle

But "Arianism" is a debate about the status of Jesus. How can a son be equal to a father? Was Jesus co-existent and eternal or also created?

Are you saying this whole debate was constructed out of nothing? How? What were people reacting against if they did not have views prior to this?

I also quoted the bath house incident here somewhere! Terry Jones uses it!

I have referenced Barbarians elsewhere and it is easily obtained on Amazon.

mountainman

The debate was constructed by Constantine. In the period 312-324 CE
he had constructed the fabrication of the Galilaeans out of nothing, and
sent it in advance of his person, into the eastern part of the Roman Empire
where it was probably thrown on the rubbish heaps of Oxyrhynchus.

Then in 324 he finally defeated Lucinius and became the supreme imperial
mafia thug of the whole (east-west) Roman empire. At that time, after
returning to the lands of the eastern empire after an absence of 20 years,
he may have looked a few people up. He could have also, at that time,
pulled the ancient Obelisk of Karnak, in Egypt, standing as a marker of the
ancient antiquity in the empire since before 1500 BCE, off its foundation.

The next step in the debate was to prepare a place to meet the landholders,
the people of the traditional power in the eastern empire, the patrician
level rulers, administrators, land holders and others who were involved
in the running of the then-eastern empire. Constantine selected Nicaea.

The next step was to summon all these people, whom he had just conquered
to a little meeting, to witness the debate. Constantine was a mocker. So
he issues personal invitations to all the abovementioned, and summoned
them to appear before him, for this debate with Arius, at Nicaea.

We are expressly advised by a number of the (ecclesiatical) historians
that the Council of Nicaea was called by Constantine on account of the
words of Arius. So it was going to be a public debate.

This is what Rufinius tells us:

A presbyter of Alexandria named Arius, a man religious in appearance and aspect rather than in virtue, but shamefully desirous of glory, praise, and novelties, began to propose certain impious doctrines regarding the faith of Christ, things which had never before been talked about.

He tried to sever and divide the Son from the eternal and ineffable substance or nature of God the Father, something which upset very many in the church. Bishop Alexander, by nature gentle and reserved, desired to recall Arius from his impious enterprise and teaching by unceasing admonitions, but did not succeed, because by then the contagion of his pestilential doctrine had infected so many not only in Alexandria, but also in the other cities and provinces to which it had spread.

He therefore, thinking it would be disastrous to ignore the situation, brought it to the notice of very many of his fellow priests. The dispute became widely known. Word of it reached the ears of the religious sovereign, since he was making every effort to look after our affairs.

He then, in accordance with the mind of the priests, summoned a council of bishops to the city of Nicaea, and ordered Arius to present himself there to the 318 bishops in attendance and to be judged on the teachings and questions he had brought forward.

---- Extracted from The Council of Nicaea - Rufinus of Aquileia

It's possible that they were reacting against the appearance
of a new and strange religious text, written in Rome (as is the usual
theory for many of the gospels) but in the period 312-324 CE, and
sent in advance of Constantine's military insurgences into the east.

I believe it is possible that people were simply reacting, for the very
first time, against the appearance of the fabrication of the Galilaeans,
that is, the new testament (possibly loosely tethered to the OT), and
perhaps some of the acconmpanying Eusebian ecclesiastical histories.

I'll keep my eyes out for Jones' Barbarians, thanks.



Pete Brown