mountainman

I will return to your questions but in the meantime you have not answered my question. I do agree with you that George Washington was an historical figure, but that was not my question. You might agree that there might be people who are not sure if George Washington was an historical figure. My question is - Suppose you have an author, whom we shall call Author X, who makes the following statements about GW:

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

Suppose that we do not know who this person author X is, are we able to ascertain how this author thinks of George Washington. Does this this author X see GW as historical or Does this this author X see GW fictional? Are we able to say unambiguously whether or not by these words author X thought GW was either historical or fictional?

And if the former what does it mean if author X writes that George Washington was made out of nothing existing,
and what does it mean if author X writes that George Washington is/was from another subsistence/substance?

It must be noted that we are not just dealing with one person (ie: Arius), since for many generations those who struggled in the Arian controversy - whatsoever it was - all echoed these words of Arius, or slight variations on these themes, and so were classified as "Arians" by the orthodoxy.

To summarise this argument, we can substitute any name here for Jesus or George Washington.
Do the five sophisms of Arius make more sense if we use historical characters or fictional characters?

Which makes more sense?

Historical Character

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


Fictional Character

There was time when the Fictional Character was not.
Before the Fictional Character was born the Fictional Character was not.
the Fictional Character was made out of nothing existing.
the Fictional Character is/was from another subsistence/substance.
George Washington is subject to alteration or change.

Toto

Neither. Arius was not concerned with a fictional creation who would not have existed before or after he was created, or a mere human. Arius was describing a divine person, Jesus Christ, and his statements proposed that Jesus was of a different divine substance from God. It is very hard for modern people to wrap their minds around this controversy, but it was of major importance in the 4th century.

Even if you think that Arius' statements apply to a fictional person, there is no indication that Arius thought that Constantine had invented the character of Jesus.

mountainman

You are avoiding answering the question.

This explanation of "how Arius thought of the historical jesus" is quite diameterically opposed to what Constantine tells us Arius thought about the divine person, Jesus Christ, in an extant letter:

Sourced from Constantine's Letter to Arius c.333 CE
With great indignation Constantine tells us about Arius ...

He introduced a belief of unbelief.
He introduced a belief of unbelief that is completely new.
He accepted Jesus as a figment <<<============
He called Jesus foreign
He did not adapt, he did not adapt (it was said twice) to God [Editor: the "new" orthodox God]
He was twice wretched

He reproached the church
He grieved the church
He wounded he church
He pained the church
He demoted Jesus
He dared to circumscribe Jesus
He undermined the (orthodox) truth
He undermined the (othodox) truth by various discourses
He detracted from Jesus who is indetractable
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 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 had little piety toward Christ
He detracted from the uncorrupted intelligence of Jesus
He detracted from the belief in immortality of Jesus
He detracted from the uncorrupted intelligence of the Church
He was barred publicly from God’s church

He accepted Jesus as a figment <<<============ ???
etc etc

None of these descriptions provided by Constantine
of what Arius thought about Jesus matches the claim
that Arius thought Jesus was "divine".

It is far more likely that Arius was a satirist.
He did not hold a very high opinion of "christ".



Modern people have no problem wrapping their minds around that the possibility that figure of Jesus might in fact historically resolve to a fiction or a dressed up myth. The traditional assertion by authority that Jesus must be accepted as a historical figure is no longer supported by hangings, executions, mass killings and the authority of the christian state.

Sooner or later it will dawn on people that the people of the fourth century saw the implementation of this thing called the authority of the christian state (and its new testament canon) and that they too --- like many of us moderns -- had no problem wrapping their minds around that the possibility that figure of Jesus might in fact historically resolve to a fiction or a dressed up myth.

The Arian controversy coincides with the implementation of the christian state and it is therefore mandatory to examine it in terms of political issues which are capable of being separated from emotional driven religious issues. At the preface to his book "Arius: heresy and tradition" By Rowan Williams the author clearly states the following:

"It is not exclusively an historical study. As the introduction will make plain,
there has seldom been a 'purely' historical treatment of the Arian controversy."

This resolves to a political assessment of the Arian controversy, with the issue and subject of "religion" for the moment in the outer wings. As you can see, Williams clearly states this has yet to be conducted.

When it is conducted, in my opinion, it will find that the Arian controversy relates to the a political controversy over the forced implementation of the christian state over the top of the Graeco-Roman culture with effect from the year 324 CE in the east. The empire was split by the raising of the NT canon to supremacy as a "Holy Writ". This was accomplished with the highest technology of the epoch - the codex - and is a blueprint of what happened 100 years previously in Sassanid Persia under Ardashir at which time he created the monotheistic state religion of Zoroastrianism.

In the Roman empire, on one hand the orthodox christians backed the new testament canon (with some small concessions and the closure of the canon) -- THE VISIBLE BOOKS of the NT CANON and on the other hand the Arians (the Graeco-Roman cultural traditions which had remained ostensibly unchanged for centuries) resisted this as much as they were able, and instead subscribed to various OTHER BOOKS which became THE HIDDEN BOOKS and which we now know are classified as books of the new testament apocryphal corpus.

mountainman

A number of ancient authors, such as Athanasius
three times in his Four Discourses Against the Arians,
compares the writing of Arius to that of Sotades - a greek political satirist.

(a) But neither can a Christian bear to hear this, nor can he consider the man who dared to say it sane in his understanding. For with them for Christ is Arius, as with the Manichees Manichus; and for Moses and the other saints they have made the discovery of one Sotades.

(b) Arius, taking no grave pattern, and ignorant even of what is respectable, while he stole largely from other heresies, would be original in the ludicrous, with none but Sotades for his rival.

(c) And so too, this counterfeit and Sotadean Arius, feigns to speak of God, introducing Scripture language, but is on all sides recognised as godless Arius, denying the Son, and reckoning Him among the creatures.

Sotades:

mountainman

‘The heaven,’ as the Prophet says, ‘was astonished,
and the earth shuddered ’ at the transgression of the Law.

But the sun, with greater horror,
impatient of the bodily contumelies,
which the common Lord of all voluntarily endured for us,
turned away, and recalling his rays
made that day sunless.

These are contraversial words from Arius. Heavily satirical. It is very hard for modern people to wrap their christian minds around this controversy, but it was of major importance to christians in the 4th century

Toto

Why do you think that is satirical, as opposed to a poetic description of Matthew, where there was an earthquake and darkness at noon?

I don't see any satire there. Can you find one other person who agrees that this is satire, whatever their credentials? What is the object of the satire?

mountainman

The author satirises the passion of Jesus by having the sun recall his rays from that day out of horror and impatience. I am not aware that people have been out looking for satire in the words of Arius of Alexandria since they expect him to be a christian bishop.

The object of the satire was to demote Jesus and attract Constantine's wrath.

With great indignation Constantine tells us about Arius ...

He accepted Jesus as a figment <<<============
He called Jesus foreign
He demoted Jesus
He dared to circumscribe Jesus
He undermined the (othodox) truth by various discourses
He detracted from Jesus who is indetractable
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 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 had little piety toward Christ
He detracted from the uncorrupted intelligence of Jesus
He detracted from the belief in immortality of Jesus
He detracted from the uncorrupted intelligence of the Church