Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 03-15-2013, 11:49 PM

Yeah have you read this letter? The person who wrote this was a Christian. Do I need to fill out the objection to apply this to the person of the pagan Emperor Constantine?

stephan huller · 03-15-2013, 11:54 PM

Frank William's for one doubts that the letter was actually Constantine's http://books.google.com/books?id=tKt...pistle&f=false It's completely ludicrous to even consider for a moment that this letter was written by Constantine. It reads like a Church Father letter. But even the best incorporate its nonsense into their understanding of 'Arius' because we are so desperate for any information .

andrewcriddle · 03-16-2013, 03:28 AM

a/ I think it is very difficult to make sense of the council of Nicea and the events leading up to it without a historical Arius.

b/ The historical Arius is probably almost irrelevant to events after the council of Nicea. People are called Arian by those who dislike their theology whether or not they have benn genuinely influenced by the teaching of the historical Arius. See from one of the creeds_of_antioch_341 composed by bishops suspected of "arianism".

Quote:

We have not been followers of Arius,—how could Bishops, such as we, follow a Presbyter?—

which acknowledges the historical Arius but minimizes his importance.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller · 03-16-2013, 08:18 AM

Thank you Andrew

I am not yet at the point where I can say Arius didn't exist of course. I am just asking questions. But am I correct in assuming that the only mention of Arius in Eusebius comes in a work which is generally disputed to have been written by Eusebius (either that Eusebius did not fully write the work, that it was published after his death or written altogether by someone else)?

Clivedurdle · 03-16-2013, 08:21 AM

When did the theological dispute about is the son equal to the father actually start?

Did not someone here say this was not an issue at Nicea?

If this is a later dispute - I thought the lovely bath reference is 380's - it looks like later disputes have been read back into thinking and actions of earlier players.

I have read that Constantine and several other emperors were Arian. What else distinguished this theology, also shared by the vandals and many many others. What did it mean to be Arian?

Are we looking at a far more syncretic world that was still basically Pagan to much later? Are xian claims of running stuff actually untrue? The main symbol of paganism in Rome was not destroyed until the 400's.

Maybe Arius is a later invention to create some structure to the newly written xian history.

Huon · 03-17-2013, 03:54 AM

Here is a letter from Arius to Bishop Alexander of Alexandria.
It seems that it is the only writing from Arius which was preserved.
His other writings are known by their titles, but they have been carefully destroyed.

Confession of faith from Arius and his followers
to Bishop Alexander of Alexandria.

Source : Wisconsin Lutheran College.

Quote:

(1.) The Priests and Deacons to Our Blessed Father and Bishop, Alexander; greetings in the Lord.

(2.) Our faith from our forefathers, which also we learned from you, Blessed Father, is this: We acknowledge One God, alone unbegotten, alone everlasting, alone without beginning, alone true, alone having immortality, alone wise, alone good, alone sovereign, judge, governor, and provider of all, unalterable and unchangeable, just and good, God of the Law and the Prophets and the New Testament; who begat an only-begotten Son before time and the ages, through whom he made both the ages [Heb 1:2] and all that was made; who begot Him not in appearance, but in reality; and that he made him subsist at his own will, unalterable and unchangeable, the perfect creature (ktisma) of God, but not as one of the creatures; offspring, but not as one of the other things begotten;

(3.) nor as Valentinus pronounced that the offspring of the Father was an emanation (probolē); nor as the Manicheans taught that the offspring was a one-in-essence-portion (meros homoousion) of the Father; nor as Sabellius, dividing the Monad, speaks of a Son-Father; nor as Hieracas speaks of one torch [lit] from another, or as a lamp divided into two; nor that he who existed before was later generated or created anew into a Son, as you yourself, O blessed father, have often condemned both in church services and in council meetings; but, as we say, he was created at the will of God, before time and before the ages, and came to life and being from the Father, and the glories which coexist in him are from the Father.

(4.) For when giving to him [the Son] the inheritance of all things [Heb 1:2], the Father did not deprive himself of what he has without beginning in himself; for he is the source of all things. Thus there are three subsisting realities (hypostaseis). And God, being the cause of all that happens, is absolutely alone without beginning; but the Son, begotten apart from time by the Father, and created (ktistheis) and founded before the ages, was not in existence before his generation, but was begotten apart from time before all things, and he alone came into existence (hypestē) from the Father. For he is neither eternal nor co-eternal nor co-unbegotten with the Father, nor does he have his being together with the Father, as some speak of relations, introducing two unbegotten beginnings. But God is before all things as monad and beginning of all. Therefore he is also before the Son, as we have learned also from your public preaching in the church.

(5.) Therefore he thus has his being from God; and glories, and life, and all things have been given over to him; in this way God is his beginning. For he is over him, as his God and being before him. But if the expressions from him [Rom. 11:36] and from the womb [Ps. 109:3 (LXX), 110:3 English] and I came from the Father, and I have come [John 16:28], are understood by some to mean that he is part of him [the Father], one in essence or as an emanation, then the Father is, according to them, compounded and divisible and alterable and material, and, as far as their belief goes, the incorporeal God endures a body.

(6.) I pray that you fare well in the Lord, blessed father. Arius; the priests Aethales, Achilles, Carpones, Sarmatas and Arius; the deacons Euzoios, Lucius, Julius, Menas, Helladius, and Gaius; the bishops Secundas of the Pentapolis, Theonas of Libya, and Pistus whom the Arians [later] set up [as bishop] at Alexandria.

Huon · 03-17-2013, 04:08 AM

1. God, being the cause of all that happens, is absolutely alone without beginning.
2. The Son is neither eternal nor co-eternal nor co-unbegotten with the Father, nor does he have his being together with the Father.
3. God is before all things as monad and beginning of all. Therefore he is also before the Son.

Chili · 03-17-2013, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

We have not been followers of Arius,—how could Bishops, such as we, follow a Presbyter?—

which acknowledges the historical Arius but minimizes his importance.

Andrew Criddle

I like this line wherein Presbyters are all the same to them. "Follow a presbyter" and would never capitalize that word myself.

Chili · 03-17-2013, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

1. God, being the cause of all that happens, is absolutely alone without beginning.
2. The Son is neither eternal nor co-eternal nor co-unbegotten with the Father, nor does he have his being together with the Father.
3. God is before all things as monad and beginning of all. Therefore he is also before the Son.

And I can see why if the Arians put God in front of the class at Sunday school.

Quote:

Our faith from our forefathers, which also we learned from you, Blessed Father

Total idiots they are as God has nothing to do with religion as the game we play that so now all becomes shepherd stuff to make sure they play it right.

And logic has it that the Son must make the Father known to keep the bastards out or the Jews would have had a father too. The Son must be both God and Lord God to them instead of the God of Isaac, Abraham and Jacob, (was it?), who all had their own idea of God, with none of them being God as Man and thus no Son for them in the image of God as God himself, from which follows that Muslims are the same to make them Jewish protestants.

To wit, the Son Identifies the genus of man as God to make the Father known, and therefore the Father only 'said' and had no more to say, and just let Lord God do his thing with nothing to say in this. Note here now that essence precedes existence and so the Son must make the Father known or the Father could not Be. Just formal causation is all it is.

Huon · 03-17-2013, 07:51 AM

Eusebius of Nicomedia (died 341) was the bishop who baptised Constantine the Great in 337 just before the death of Constantine.

He was a bishop of Berytus (modern-day Beirut Lebanon) in Phoenicia, then of Nicomedia in Bithynia (now Izmit Turkey, near Istanbul), where the imperial court resided, and was finally patriarch of Constantinople from 338 up to his death.

Like Arius, he was a pupil of Lucian of Antioch. He was one of Arius' most fervent supporters. It was also because of this relationship that he was the first person whom Arius contacted after the latter was excommunicated from Alexandria by Alexander.[6] Apparently, Arius and Eusebius were close enough and Eusebius powerful enough that Arius was able to put his theology down in writing. Eusebius afterwards modified his ideas somewhat, or perhaps he only yielded to the pressure of circumstances; but he was, if not the teacher, at all events the leader and organizer, of the Arian party.

Eusebius of Nicomedia should not be confused with Eusebius of Caesarea, the author of the Church History.

03-17-2013, 04:08 AM	#57
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	What did it mean to be Arian? 1. God, being the cause of all that happens, is absolutely alone without beginning. 2. The Son is neither eternal nor co-eternal nor co-unbegotten with the Father, nor does he have his being together with the Father. 3. God is before all things as monad and beginning of all. Therefore he is also before the Son.

03-17-2013, 07:51 AM	#60
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	Eusebius of Nicomedia Eusebius of Nicomedia (died 341) was the bishop who baptised Constantine the Great in 337 just before the death of Constantine. He was a bishop of Berytus (modern-day Beirut Lebanon) in Phoenicia, then of Nicomedia in Bithynia (now Izmit Turkey, near Istanbul), where the imperial court resided, and was finally patriarch of Constantinople from 338 up to his death. Like Arius, he was a pupil of Lucian of Antioch. He was one of Arius' most fervent supporters. It was also because of this relationship that he was the first person whom Arius contacted after the latter was excommunicated from Alexandria by Alexander.[6] Apparently, Arius and Eusebius were close enough and Eusebius powerful enough that Arius was able to put his theology down in writing. Eusebius afterwards modified his ideas somewhat, or perhaps he only yielded to the pressure of circumstances; but he was, if not the teacher, at all events the leader and organizer, of the Arian party. Eusebius of Nicomedia should not be confused with Eusebius of Caesarea, the author of the Church History.

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

03-15-2013, 11:49 PM	#51
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Yeah have you read this letter? The person who wrote this was a Christian. Do I need to fill out the objection to apply this to the person of the pagan Emperor Constantine?

03-15-2013, 11:54 PM	#52
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Frank William's for one doubts that the letter was actually Constantine's http://books.google.com/books?id=tKt...pistle&f=false It's completely ludicrous to even consider for a moment that this letter was written by Constantine. It reads like a Church Father letter. But even the best incorporate its nonsense into their understanding of 'Arius' because we are so desperate for any information .

03-16-2013, 08:18 AM	#54
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Thank you Andrew I am not yet at the point where I can say Arius didn't exist of course. I am just asking questions. But am I correct in assuming that the only mention of Arius in Eusebius comes in a work which is generally disputed to have been written by Eusebius (either that Eusebius did not fully write the work, that it was published after his death or written altogether by someone else)?

03-16-2013, 08:21 AM	#55
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	When did the theological dispute about is the son equal to the father actually start? Did not someone here say this was not an issue at Nicea? If this is a later dispute - I thought the lovely bath reference is 380's - it looks like later disputes have been read back into thinking and actions of earlier players. I have read that Constantine and several other emperors were Arian. What else distinguished this theology, also shared by the vandals and many many others. What did it mean to be Arian? Are we looking at a far more syncretic world that was still basically Pagan to much later? Are xian claims of running stuff actually untrue? The main symbol of paganism in Rome was not destroyed until the 400's. Maybe Arius is a later invention to create some structure to the newly written xian history.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.