mountainman

SOURCE:

At this page I have listed the anathemas recorded by the council, but have inverted the sense, in order to establish what the words of public opinion would have then been. Here are the first four. The first is of course simply a consistent and faithful marker to establish that the expressly articulated disbelief of Arius was alive and well at least a decade after his death


And some context from yourself to establish is could not have been as simple as that, seeing that we know Arius luckily survived with apparent popular support, perhaps in Syria, and writing texts which were greatly disturbing the christian emperor COnstantine, to the extent of Constantine writing to Arius over this matter c.333 CE.


The preserved words of Hilary are "He" as follows:

01: The Son is sprung from things non-existent,
or from another substance and not from God,
and that there was a time or age
when He was not.


However, he is describing a heresy to be anathemticed.
The heretic --- the public opinion --- would be as follows:

There was a time or age when Jesus was not.

Do you have a problem with this substitution? After all, all the "He" references are directly bolted to your man Jesus.


Best wishes,



Pete Brown

mountainman

Philostorgius - on the "Council" of Nicaea
Rufinius of Aqueila - on the "Council" of Nicaea
Socrates Scholasticus - on the "Council" of Nicaea
Hermias Sozomen - on the "Council" of Nicaea,
Theodoret of Cyrus - on the "Council" of Nicaea, and
Marutha of Maiperqat - on the "Council" of Nicaea.
Eusebius Pamphilus of Ceasarea: - the "Council" of Nicaea - Vita Constantini.


For the moment I think i am using Rufinus. A proper study of the variations between each of the above historians would be interesting, but I have not yet dont this. The translation is for this set :

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

rest with The Church History of Rufinus of Aquileia by Rufinus, Philip R., S.J. Amidon (Translator), September 1997, Oxford Univ Press; ISBN: 0195110315. Reviewed in Journal of Early Christian Studies 7.1 (1999) by C.H.Gowans.

My reliance on this or that translation of the classic literature seems to be constantly challenged by the Jeffery translation of that same bit. I think that I am reasonable in expecting that these are issues that you need to take up with the original translator AND/OR at least present an argument as to why the Jeffrey translation is different, and warranted, in this instance, or in this set of instances, to be followed and preferred over what the publishers are declaring the original translator transcribed.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

spamandham

I'm not following. How would Docetism imply a belief in a nonhistorical Jesus? The Docetics still believed Jesus appeared to be human.

From our perspective, Docetism is an apologetic response to what would otherwise be assumed historical by the Docetic. "Gee, how can God die? That doesn't make any sense. I guess Jesus must have only appeared to be here in the flesh. Yah, that's it! That's the ticket!"

mountainman

Sorry if I am unclear. I am not claiming that Docetism implies a belief in a nonhistorical Jesus, only that it may include a certain class of people who actually subscribe to the belief in a non historical Jesus.



What we know of this matter is largely preserved in the christian historians. I have yet to see if there is anything "docetic" in the Nag Hammadi literature. Does anyone know? The reason that I ask this is because we can be reasonably sure that the NHC represent a direct transmission of the text from the mid-fourth century, as distinct via the path of the preservation of the text via the authodox.



Best wishes,


Pete Brown

aa5874

Well, the Docetists believed Jesus appeared to be a figure of history, but he really was not. He was an apparition.

This implies Jesus was NOT human or a figure of history, maybe a ghost looking like a human or some kind of supernatunatural transfiguration. Are you following?

Jeffrey Gibson

Are you sure about this? You've consulted the Latin of Hillary and the Greek of the quotations of the historians you refer to (but haven't read)? You've confirmed that the pronoun "he" is used in the declarations and that the antecedent of the pronoun, if it is indeed there, is "Jesus"?

And where is your answer to my question about the meaning of "age"?

Jeffrey

andrewcriddle

I think the Arian claim was actually that Christ did not exist from all eternity but only from the beginning of creation.

The Second Sirmium confession (AKA the Blasphemy of Sirmium) http://ecole.evansville.edu/arians/7arcon.htm an Arian sympathizing creed, is quite happy to speak of but 'before the ages' was not seen as implying the existence of the Son from all eternity.

Andrew Criddle

spamandham

...in other words, they believed he was a historical figure rather than a myth/legend/fictional character.

spamandham

...in De Synodis, it talks about the Arians claiming Jesus did not exist prior to Mary, which I take to mean 'prior to his birth'. I have no special expertise on Arianism, I'm merely discussing what De Synodis says in regard to it.

aa5874

Now, I am not following you. You mean Docetist believe Jesus was a real ghost, a real phantom or a real supernatural transfiguration? I do not know of anyone who believes in or follows a God who they think is fiction.