Jeffrey Gibson

This is not something Pete suggests was the case. It is something he asserts as historical fact.

Yes, this -- along with the corollary that the Christian religion as expressed theologically in the Nicene Creed and cultically in the Mass, the sacraments, the Christian liturgical calendar, etc., as well as all of the Christian literature, including the NT, the apostolic fathers, and the "heretical works", ordinarily thought to have been composed between the firts and the fourth centuries CE, was something ordered into existence wholesale by Constantine, -- is exactly what Pete believes that Arius was proclaiming when Arius said and taught in his Thaleia and elsewhere that "there was a once when the Logos was not".

FYI, Pete does nor read Greek or any other ancient language. He is limited in his grasp of moder languages to English. And he rarely if ever reads anything about Arius (or any other matter he pontificates about) that is not online.

He has done little to no study of the documents of the Arian controversy. And he is wholly unacquainted with the best scholarly literature that deals with it and with the theology of Arius.

He may be able to produce some titles of books and articles about Arius, but he won't be able to tell you what these books actually say. (Ask him to quote something from Gwatkin or Grillmyer or Williams or K. Newman or Wiles, etc. that's not on Google books or mentioned in a URL to a JSTOR article!).

He also is demonstrably incapable of judging whether the online "sources" he "researches" are of any worth. His criterion for saying that they are is that they say -- or can be misread to say -- what he already believes.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Sorry! I posted this before I saw Toto's note.

Jeffrey

Toto

That topic seems to have been continued in this thread for those who wish to go over those arguments again. . .

bacht

The usual criticism of fundies is that they don't really understand science, the scientific method, or even logic. That makes debate almost impossible by academic standards.

Plus they argue backwards: they start with the truth of scripture, and search for means to make this truth seem logically or scientifically valid. This makes the scientific method secondary to the preset conclusion.