mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

Statements and opinions about the philosophy and religion of those who followed the opinion of Arius have been reported as if they were "christian". The reporters were victorious state-regime christians who sought to impress their christian emperors. The minute the official Roman state church was formed there commenced the political intrigues of those who sought to become, and those who sought to preserve, their tax-exempt and official status as "bishops".

Later reports tell us that what was said and done at Nicaea was not final, and that many of the attendees had only pretended to support Constantine (RLFox continually paints a picture of military duress and coersion). Some later reports are even more explicit, and state that "Arians are not Christians",
such as the Discourses of Athanasius aganst the Arians. Athanasius goes so far as to call Arius the Antichrist. Surely we might understand that in the mind of Athanasius, an antichrist was not a christian. The picture is not the black and white you paint.


What is more interesting is that the words of the anathema are the words of Arius of Alexandria, and the same words recast in various guises for centuries were to become the tip of the iceburg of the Arian controversy.

IMO, yes. Nicaea inaugurated the official monotheistic state Roman religion which Constantine was relying upon to unify his empire, perhaps in the face of the threat of the Sassanian Persian monotheism, and centralised political state, which had been extremely vigorous against the Romans between the time of its own inauguration (Ardashir c.224 CE) and the time of Nicaea.

Before it, we have only the "history of the christians and the christian churches" (none of which have ever been located by archaeologists) as declared by Eusebius. The extent of the corroborating evidence does not permit us to conjecture the "christian movement" was anything but very small and very underground - if indeed it existed at all.

The "creed" or "oath" at Nicaea is the foundational historical milestone in orthodoxy, by which the new testament canon was raised to the status of "the official holy writ" of the monotheistic religion. At that time the canon contained the Shepherd of Hermas. The political intrigues commenced from that point on, because some people sought to become bishops simply on the basis that the role provided tax-exemption status.

The chief of all anti-christian heresies was that of Arius, who appears to be the focus of the natural and expected political resistance against the inauguration of the new monotheistic state religion with its explicit "holy writ" (the NT canon). The label associated with the anathematization of Arius and his followers is also the first official political statement of conformity. Consequently it may be argued that it was simply Constantine's legislation (ie: of the banishment and anathematization of Arius) which was the precedent which was first used to distinguish true Christians from their errant brethren.

Best wishes,


Pete

Toto

But this is like the dispute among Christians to this day over who is a "true" Christian. The evangelicals have tried to appropriate the term for themselves and claim that Mormons, Catholics, liberal Christians, and other heretics are not real Christians. But all of those groups think that they are Christian (pace Chili - no need to jump in here, please.) There is no particular reason to think that Arius did not consider himself a Christian except for your desire to force the facts to fit your theory.

Jeffrey Gibson

May we have the actualy words of R. Lane-Fox to this effect, please? Barring that, may we have the page number (s) of Pagan and Christians in which this picture is continually painted?

Citation please. What is the book and line number in Discourses in which we may find Atthansius calling Arius what you say he calls him. Where exactly in the Discourses does Athansius make this charge?

The question is not what we might do, but what the text tells us we must do, especially in the light of earlier Christian statements -- i.e. in 1 Jn and in Polycarp -- that the antichrist were Christians -- "heretical" ones (from their point of view, yes", but from within the fold of believers non the less.

And don't call me Shirely.


Jeffrey

mountainman

Dear Toto,

The political reality of Constantine's desire to establish christianity as the official state religion of the Roman empire is described by high clerics of that official state religion. Arguably, the profile of christianity was so low at that time that many of the pagans would not have been aware of it, let alone would have read the NT canon. We know the pagans dominated the empire at that time and particularly in the eastern empire.

The "christian histories" do not mention any resistance to christianity by the academic greeks in defence of their Heraclitaean Logos, Pythagoras, Plato, Apollonius, Apollo, Ascelpius, etc, etc, etc. What resistance that is offered are christian refutations of Hierocles, of Julian, of Arius, etc, etc, etc. The story of the pagans has been underplayed purposefully IMO.

There is every reason in the wide wide political world to suspect that Arius was indeed not a christian (as declared by the christians) but instead a pagan, a non-christian Hellenic academic priest and ascetic. We should expect there to be a story of the pagan resistance to the implementation of a new state religion which would replace all the others. There is every reason to expect a resistance to a hostile takeover of the eastern empire by Constantine. There is every reason to expect a resistance to the display of open hostility against the temples and the practices of the old Roman state religion when these were effectively closed by Constantine while he at the same time offered the alternative as "christianity".


I see this as a valid exploration of the historical possibility that Arius was not a christian, but was presented in history by the christian continuators of Eusebius as a christian in order to underplay the resistance of the greek academics to become christian converts.

This exploration is outside the bounds of christian theology, but within the bounds of ancient political history. The evidence does not need to be forced. Find all the references to Arius and Arians in the fourth century by the "orthodox" and it may be argued that Arius was viewed by the orthodox, not just as anti-orthodox, but as entirely anti-christian -- in a political sense , *not* a theological sense. The problem with this exploration is that there are some here who have been subject to the authoritarian positions of christian theological orthodoxy for so long that they cannot objectively concede of any political issues outside of this same authoritative theological orthodoxy.

Best wishes,


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

Damn. And I just got my irony meter fixed.

I wonder if there's anyone else here besides myself who thinks that its more than a little ironic that someone who

1. has admitted that he hasn't read the standard works on by by Grillmeier, Gwatkin, Greg & Groh, Harnack R. Williams, E. Ferguson, T.A. Kopecek, J. T. Lienhard, M. Simonett, A.M.H. Jones, J.N.D. Kelly, R. Hanson, Barnes & D. H. Williams, and A Louth on Constnatine, Nicea, and the Arian controversy, or A.D. Lee's "Constantine and Traditional Religion" in The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine, let alone what is said by the following enemies and supporters of Arius regarding what Arius and Arianism and the Arian controversy was all about

* Alexander, bishop of Alexandria
* Hosius, bishop of Cordoba
* Eustathius, bishop of Antioch
* Cyrus, bishop of Beroe
* Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria
* Paul, bishop of Constantinople
* Julius, bishop of Rome
* Asclepas, bishop of Gaza.
* Lucius, bishop of Adrianople
* Maximus, bishop of Jerusalem
* Paulinus, bishop of Treves
* Dionysius, bishop of Alba
* Eusebius, bishop of Vercelli
* Angelius, (Novatian) bishop of Constantinople.[97]
* Gregory of Nazianzus
* Gregory of Elvira
* Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari
* Hilary, bishop of Poitiers
* Servatius, bishop of Tongeren.

and

2. thinks children's books and theosophical web pages are good sources for reconstructing the beliefs of the Constantinian age

has the nerve to declare not only what it is that those I've listed above Arius are or are not able to concede and what they are allegedly bound by, but what it is that constitutes "objectivity".

Jeffrey

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

By adding more or less more bishops to your list do we arrive at a greater or lesser political objectivity? The one dimensional history of these bishops was preserved by Eusebian continuators. You and the cast of thousands of academics driven by the authority of the historical jesus have failed to realise that we have no evidence that Arius of Alexandria was in fact a christian. This fact has been presumed for centuries without evidence. The possibility that Arius of Alexandria was not a christian has not yet been explored because of the dominating postulate that he was in fact a christian. The utter turmoil - social, political and religious - of the Arian controversy may in fact be more easily explained in context if we treat Arius as the last of the Hellenic resistance against the new state religion -- with which the Hellenic priesthood were competing for authority.

Suddenly in 325 CE the planet becomes "christian", and not with a bang but a wimper, the academic Hellenistic empire slides away beneath the waves of jesus freaks, without protest, without resistance, without a last and final word in response. I dont think so.
No author on your list has examined this simple historical possibility that Arius, described by Athanasius - a contemporary - as the anti-christ was not a christian but a pagan author of popular blasphemies against the most holy new state god jesus. The document presented as being representitive of Arius (and another) espousing an orthodox (Nicaean) theology is clearly an orthodox christian forgery, to make Arius appear as tame as you please. Nothing survives but his words, which were shouted for centuries. Stuff was hidden. There were hidden writings. Apochrypha related to the state canon of the new testament.

The Nag Hammadi codices exhibit a strange mix of genre which has yet to find consensus. It cannot be said to be wholly christian, certainly parts are wholly pagan (Hermes to Asclepius, etc), there is Plato, there is an exemplar of some form of christian literary fabrication, and as a set (the NHC) it evades classification. So too IMO had we best commence an exploration of Arius of Alexandria in a new light. What would Pythagoras have responded to a christian apologist? What would Plato have responded to a christian apologist? What would Apollonius of Tyana have responded to a christian apologist? What did Porphyry purportedly respond to a christian apologist? (Were the apostles inventors?). What would emperor Julian have responded to a christian apologist? What would Hierocles have responded to a christian apologist? What would Plotinus have responded to a christian apologist? What would Iambichus have responded to a christian apologist? What would Ammianus Marcellinus have responded to a christian apologist? These people were not christians. Was Arius of Alexandria in historical fact a christian? How can we be sure? Because the christian bishops said so? Pull the other leg Jeffrey.

Best wishes,


Pete

Toto

We will note that Pete claims that Arius was a pagan Hellenic good guy fighting evil Christian orthodoxy, but that he still has no evidence at all of this claim, and that he has been asked not to post any more on this topic until he does have evidence.

If the topic is not dropped, the thread will be closed or split.

mountainman

Dear Toto,

I have presented new evidence in Athanasius' Discourses against the Arians, in which the opening title of the first discourse states "Arians not Christians, because sectaries always take the name of their founder."

Here is the text:

It would appear that Athanasius is attempting to put as much distance as he can between the beliefs of Arius and the Arians, and "the christians". He plainly states that anyone who calls these people christians are in great and grievous error. Athanasius shoul know about this, surely? This is just the opening paragraphs. Have a read through the rest of the invectives against Arius and the Arians. My position is that these invectives against Arius and the Arians --- including the statement that the Arian heresey was the "harbinger of Antichrist" --- provide evidence to my argument that Arius (and his followers) were not in any way "christians", but were innocent bystanders - the last of the collegiate Hellenic priesthoods of the ancient (pagan) temples -- pagans, who resisted the state monotheism on the basis that it meant the end of their own livelihood and the ancient temple civilisation of the Greeks as they knew it.

Athanasius also reveals in this text -- in invectives against Arius -- of the nature and form of the writings of Arius, which were seen as totally blasphemous against the church. There is ample evidence here in Athanasius alone for the exploration of the possibility that Arius should not be presumed "christian". Thanks for your patience.


Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

After spending many pages on Constantine's Oration at Antioch Lane-Fox summarises it before moving on to the council of Nicaea as follows:

Nicaea starts at p.655 (see below) however Lane-Fox has devoted other sections to discussion of the Persecution of the Old Religions, and the role of the earlier council of Antioch as a place to publically torture opponents:

The following concerns the Council of Nicaea:

p.655: "Among his other innovations, it was Constantine who first mastered
the art of holding, and corrupting, an international conference."

On entering, recalled Eusebius
"units of the bodyguard and other troops
surrounded the palace with drawn swords,
and through them the men of God proceeded
without fear into the innermost rooms of the Emperor,
in which some were companions at table,
while others reclined on couches either side."
It was "like a dream", he said,
an anticipatory picture
of the kingdom of Christ.

RLF states:

* Osius first announced the creed and signed it. .... The creed was taken around to each individual by Constantine's notaries, led by Philumenus, the "master of offices" --- "the signatures (of the Arians) were thus given under pressure.

RLF also states Constantine imposed criminal sentences of exile on the bishops who refused to sign.

Best wishes,


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

Is the "title" (it's actually Neuman's synopsis of the contexts of the book, isn't it?) part of the original Greek text of this Athanasian Discourse Against the Arians? Do you know?

But last night your position was that if we looked in the Discourses, what we'd find was Athanasius' calling Arius himself the Antichrist in his Discourses, not, as actually the case, his noting that the "Arian heresy" was the harbinger of the Antichrist.

Quote:

"Athanasius goes so far [within his Discourses Against the Arians] as to call Arius the Antichrist." (see here)

Interesting equivocation.

You've made no arguments. You've only made assertions. And you've certainly provided nothing that would make anyone think that they are anything more than a misreading and a misrepresentation of evidence.

And BTW, and, e.g., where is your evidence -- i.e. the citation and notation of page numbers from Robin Lane-Fox's Pagans and Christians that I asked you to provide -- that shows that Lane-Fox does indeed " continually paints a picture of military duress and coersion" at Nicea as you claimed he did?


Actually since you've never establlished, let alone provided evidence that shows, that there were "collegiate Hellenistc (not "Hellenic") priests" at the time of Nicea, let alone collegiate priests who resisted any monothesim that Constantine supposedly instigated in Arius' time. So you have no argument to provide evidence for. And what "evidence" that you have provided -- i.e., assertions based in misreadings and misinterpratations of texts and a demosntrable and self admitted lack of famialirity with the primary sources from this era as well as the basic secondary literature about it -- is no "evidence" at all.

Unless you can show -- as you certainly have not done up until now -- that every bishop in both the Eastern Church -- including Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia and all signers to the creed of Nicea -- and in the Western one actually saw Arius views as totally blasphemous against the Church, the only thing that's revelaed in this text is that Athanasius saw (or at least proclaimed) that the writings of Arius were totally blasphemous against the church (assuming that that's A's language).

Actually, the only thing that this provides any evidence for is the conclusion that Arius was not seen by Athanasius as being a Christian according Athanasius definition of what being a Christian entails -- namely, being a homousian. It can hardly be pushed into the service of saying anything more, especially as there is plenty of evidence that shows that both at and after Nicea and among Christian clergy in the east and in the west, Athanasius' definition was not the only one that Christians accepted.

Your house is built on sand, Pete.

Jeffrey