J-D

Yes, I can see that that is a possible (figurative) interpretation of the words you quote from Arius. But it's not the most obvious one, is it? If Arius said 'before he was born', the most obvious interpretation is that he meant that he was born in the ordinary way. Even if there never was such a person as Jesus, that doesn't exclude the possibility that Arius believed that there was, and that he was born in the ordinary way. After all, we know very well that lots of people since that time have believed such a thing. If Arius really thought that Constantine was a big fat liar, why would he not have said so plainly?

And come to think of it, given that you're prepared to be sceptical about so much else, what makes you think that Arius ever existed, or said the things that he's supposed to have said? Do we know anything about him except through Eusebius?I have no idea. I don't even know myself that Eusebius does report it. I'm relying on secondary sources at the moment. But if you're asserting that Eusebius fabricated the story of the conversion of Armenia, what makes you think that hypothesis is more plausible than the alternative that he was recording historical fact, and when and how do you suppose that Armenia did become Christian? I mean, Armenia did become Christian, I presume you're not disputing that, and so far as I know (still relying on secondary sources) the only recorded accounts of the event date it to the reign of Tiridates the Great.

J-D

You don't think what? You don't think that knowledge of the New Testament in excess of hazy recollections from Sunday School could be an advantage in this sort of discussion? Or what?

aa5874

Pease share your thoughts with us. I eagerly await, hope to hear from you soon.

Chris Weimer

So in other words, you're ignorant of the Bible, and you like to stay that way.

Why does anyone even bother with this guy anymore? Why the fuck are you people still arguing with a broken record? It's not like he wants to learn?? :huh:

mountainman

Here is a text purported to be from the time of Hadrian
in which we are enlightened as to the relationship that
was extant between Roman Emperors and Philosophers.
It is called simply The Life of Secundus
You will note in this instance the philosopher dares say nothing.

You have asked alot of questions of me, so I think
its fair for me to ask one of you.

Why do you think Arius would not have said anything overtly
against the initiatives of a supreme imperial mafia thug and
malevolent dictator, eminent christian theologian and proselytiser,
when he was personally summoned to appear before the
despot, at his victorious military supremacy party at Nicea,
face to face, with a whole crowded house of captive citizens?


At the Couincil of Nicaea --- see above --
and not a moment before! (IMO).

Not one person after Arius was poisoned was allowed to say anything against
the rule and regime and initiatives of Constantine, until Julian 22 years after
Constantine kicks the bucket, 34 years after the socio-cultural boundary event
known as the Council of Nicea. So at this first earliest opportunity after Nicea,
what does Julian say about the new testament?

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind
the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Galilaeans
is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine,
by making full use of that part of the soul
which loves fable and is childish and foolish,
it has induced men to believe
that the monstrous tale is truth.

J-D

It's a cute story. It's so cute I can't help wondering whether it's true or not.

But even if it is true, it doesn't support your point. The philosopher in the story does indeed dare to say nothing. The Emperor tries to get him to say something, but the philosopher dares to defy him. Secundus could defy the Emperor, and so could Arius.And would it then be fair for me to leave your question unanswered, as you have left so many of my questions unanswered? Well, whether or no, I shall do as you do not and answer your question.I presume you are suggesting that Arius would have feared to defy the Emperor. If we can believe the recorded account (and you haven't explained why you do), then Arius said what Constantine did not want him to say. Thus, he did defy the Emperor. But on your theory, he did so in cryptic language instead of plainly. Why would that be?Why would the Council of Nicaea be of any relevance to Armenia?There was nothing to stop people speaking against Constantine and his rule in places beyond that rule, such as Armenia.Julian says that the doctrines of the Christian religion were fabricated, but he doesn't say they were fabricated by Constantine. Why (on your account) would that be?

aa5874

It has occured to me that I have made errors in catergorizing events in the NT. For example, the virgin birth, miracles, the resurrection and the ascension are generally categorised as 'supernatural' events, however, upon reflection, 'supernatural' events should be re-defined as fictitious events.

So, the 'virgin birth' of Jesus is only 'supernatural' when Jesus is truly the son of a ghost, if it is found to be not true, then the event is fictitious.

If I were to tell you that my son is the son of ghost, and it is accepted that ghosts do not exist, then my story is a fictious event not a supernatural event.

Now, the NT contains many events that are called 'supernatural' but in effect, never occured at all as described , therefore they are all fictitious.

The birth, life, and death of Jesus are therefore based on fictitious events.

Chris Weimer

If I told you that I was a son of a ghost, does that mean I negate my own existence? What queer little logic you have there. :huh:

J-D

If you told me that your son was the son of a ghost, you would be telling me about a fictitious supernatural event. 'Fictitious' and 'supernatural' are not contradictory descriptions. I don't know what you mean by 'based on', either. Perhaps you mean that the New Testament stories about the conception of Jesus are fictitious, which I would agree with (because they're supernatural), but that doesn't settle one way or the other the question of whether the birth itself is a fiction or something that really happened.

S.C.Carlson

I see. Maybe I'll get on Jeffrey's case, then, for fighting a battle of wits with an <edit>.

Stephen