mountainman

Mormonism has an Arian controversy, therefore I see it simply as
a clone of the Eusebian account, written by someone who had already
absorbed the Eusebian 'Ecclesiastical History'.

Each such doctrine must have passed through the nexus of the
Council of Nicaea, and prior to that event, must in some form
implicitly seek doctrine and chronology from the preNicene account
of Eusebius of Caesarea.

Arius, and not anyone before Arius, IMO is the first occurrence of an
author of antiquity being recorded as mentioning christianity, and all
other references to christianity in the authors of antiquity prior to the
appearance of Arius, in the fourth century, are Eusebian.

IMO Eusebius thus wrote the anti-christian polemic attributed to Porphyry,
and to Hierocles, so that two things could be accomplished.

1) He would write a treatise in response to Hierocles, Porphyry et al.
(All should note that the amount quoted is very small in both cases)

2) Porphyry's writings were edicted for destruction by Constantine.
(In the same letter, Constantine calls Arius a "Porphyrian", and edicts
for the destruction of the writings of Arius, and to behead anyone caught
secreting these writings).

Arius was the first to speak about christianity in the leadup period
to the Council of Nicaea, because it was essentially invented with
effect from 312 CE, massively developed during the period 312-324,
and implemented 325 at Nicaea, with the first bound bible created 330.

Christianity was an imperially inspired religious order thrust on the empire
by its supreme imperial mafia thug dictator, in much the same fashion as
Zoroastrian monotheism was thrust upon the Parthian empire by the 'King
of Kings' Ardashir, to create the theocracy of Iran, 225 CE.

Both dictators embarked upon a program of the mass destruction of their
previously dominant civilisation. Ardashir the Parthain, Constantine the
Graeco-Egyptian-Roman. In the case of Ardashir, he destroyed all the
records of the Parthian civilisation. In the case of Constantine, he did
not accomplish the destruction in his rule. However he certainly commenced
the practice, and the regime he instituted certain almsot completed the
practice, had not many manuscripts been sent to the Sassanian and
Arabian scholars.

mountainman

Traditionally, these phrases of Arius, according to "ecclesiastical doctrine"
published by Eusebius and available to all parties with effect from the
Council of Nicaea, have been interpreted as theological comments.

The Eusebian fiction postulate mandates that we treat these phrases
of Arius, not in any theological sense whatsoever. Rather these
phrases are to be viewed and interpretted as historical comments.

It is essentially a type of paradigm shift, where as an historian
it is logically possible to consistently examine the implications of
a Eusebian fiction postulate; one of which is the natural emergence
of a controversy over the (Eusebian) pseudo-history.

Historians, such as those who compiled Vol XII - "The Imperial Crisis
and Recovery, 193-324CE" of the Cambridge Ancient History, make
mention of the "Arian Herecy" only at p.697. This source reports that
Constantine sought all parties of the conflict to adopt a creed.

Today this preserved to us as the Nicaean Creed, properly (IMO) defined in
legal terms, as an oath, to which signatories were secured or otherwise.

Hitherto, all interpretations of the Arian controversy have been within
the domain of theology. It is one of the purposes of the exercise of
examining the consistency of the Eusebian fiction postulate, to treat
the Arian controversy as a reaction against Constantine's new and
strange Roman religious order, the first time any pagan had ever heard
about "christianity".

All historical treatments of antiquity and late antiquity reserve a new
chapter commencing from the Council of Nicaea, and an introductory
series of chapters leading up to this singular event. The Cambridge
is no exception. Neither is Eusebius, whom of course all treatments
have hitherto followed.

The Eusebian pseudo-historical account over 10 books is concluded:

6 But Constantine, the mightiest victor, adorned with every virtue of piety, together with his son Crispus, a most God-beloved prince, and in all respects like his father, recovered the East which belonged to them; and they formed one united Roman empire as of old, bringing under their peaceful sway the whole world from the rising of the sun to the opposite quarter, both north and south, even to the extremities of the declining day.

7 All fear therefore of those who had formerly afflicted them was taken away from men, and they celebrated splendid and festive days. Everything was filled with light, and those who before were downcast beheld each other with smiling faces and beaming eyes. With dances and hymns, in city and country, they glorified first of all God the universal King, because they had been thus taught, and then the pious emperor with his God-beloved children.

8 There was oblivion of past evils and forgetfulness of every deed of impiety; there was enjoyment of present benefits and expectation of those yet to come. Edicts full of clemency and laws containing tokens of benevolence and true piety were issued in every place by the victorious emperor.

9 Thus after all tyranny had been purged away, the empire which belonged to them was preserved firm and without a rival for Constantine and his sons alone. And having obliterated the godlessness of their predecessors, recognizing the benefits conferred upon them by God, they exhibited their love of virtue and their love of God, and their piety and gratitude to the Deity, by the deeds which they performed in the sight of all men.

The End, with God's Help, of the Tenth Book of the Church History of Eusebius Pamphili.

More of the Arian controversy is mentioned by Eusebius in his wonderful
work related to "Life of the THRICE-BLESSED emperor Constantine", from
the date c.337 CE. As an historian I am entitled to treat a particular
source in such a fashion, I believe, so long as I do so with the utmost
consistency, which is what I have attempted to do.

The implications that Eusebius delivered a pseudo-history c.324 CE
is that the phrases of Arius are historical. That "there was a time
when he was not", does not refer to the epoch BCE, but the epoch
before Constantine. That "he was made from nothing existing" was
a phrase of an exceedingly wise man, and clever in disputation,
possibly neopythagorean (Arius).

Unlike the emperor Julian 38 years later, who called the whole
fabrication "a fiction of men composed by wickedness", Arius stood
virtually alone face to face with "the fear of god" at Nicaea, and
probably decided to select his dogmatic assertions carefully.

* there was a time when he was not
* before he was born he was not
* he was made out of nothing existing
* he is from another subsistence or substance
* he is subject to alteration or change

These are the comments upon the historicity of Jesus,
at the time the fabrication of the Galilaens was first
implemented across Constantine's dominions 325 CE.

Clivedurdle

Why then is there a huge history, long after Eusebius - ie Ambrose - of a theological debate about is Jesus co eternal or a created son?

mountainman

To place your question in perspective it is necessary to understand
that the environment in which such theological debates took place
was one in which a brand new Roman state religious order had only
just been implemented.

Its doctrine was first published and spread around the Roman empire
by Constantine c.330 CE, with his "Constantine Bibles". Until that time,
it is reasonable to expect that the theological doctrine associated
with christianity was at least "new and strange" to "most".

Immediately after Eusebius exists stage right, "the highways were
covered with galloping bishops". The arrangment perpetuated from
Nicaea, and the subsequent rule of Constantine 325-337 is essentially
managed by Constantius. Pagan persecution on a large scale. This
is the historical environment (see Ammianus) of "doctrinal discussions".

Now, so long as you will at least acknowledge this basic factor,
I am willing to elaborate further on your question regarding the
extended theological debates, through to the end of the fourth
century and well into the fifth.