Jeffrey Gibson

As we all know, a foundational piece of evidence that Pete constantly appeals to in order to make his case that Christianity was something made up by Constantine is that Arius was persecuted for making the claim that the figure of Jesus of Nazareth was a recent invention. At the heart of this claim is Pete's assumption that the "he" that Arius refers to in the summary of this belief --his famus dictum that 'Once He was not' -- is Jesus of Nazareth and that the "once" mentioned there is the time immediately before the Constantinian era.

But if the "he" has another referent -- namely, the pre-mundane and impersonal non incarnated Logos spoken of in John 1:1, and not an historical figure, even if only an alleged one -- and if the "once" Arius speaks of refers to a time before the creation of the world -- then Pete's case has no grounds whatsoever, and is vacuous, since Arius would not then be speaking, as Pete claims, of Jesus of Nazareth, or of the immediate past, but of a divine figure (the equivalent of the OT Sophia) that came into existence long before Arius' time (indeed before the creation of the world).

So I would like to ask Pete finally to demonstrate not by assertion or deduction, but through adducing primary source material and grammatical evidence that the "he" of Arius' "once he was not" does indeed and indisputably refer to Jesus of Nazareth and that what Arius was asserting when he spoke of the "once" before which "he" "was not" is the era of Roman history immediately before Constantine.

If he cannot -- or if there's any indication that he rapes the evidence he appeals to in order to make his case or misunderstands/misreads the Greek of Arius' statement and of those who spoke of what Arius believed, or reverses the burden of proof -- then we will have good reason to judge that his "Arius evidence" is worthless.

Are you up for it, Pete?

Jeffrey

mountainman

The hypothesis relates not to one 'famus dictum' but to the five sophisms which are appended to the earliest Nicaean Creeds.
These sophisms may be briefly referred to in a letter supposedly from Constantine to Arius c.333 CE.






My word Jeffrey, but only on the basis that we investigate not just this one 'famus dictum' but instead the following five sophisms of Arius:





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

stephan huller

he took the bait ...

spin

:eating_popcorn:

Jeffrey Gibson

OK. Let's!

Even on the assumption that this is a good translation of the appendix (does non articular ποτε mean "time", let alone "a recent time" or "a once"?), show me then -- since this is the ground of your assumption that Arius was speaking of Jesus and of a "once" that was relatively recent vis a vis the Constantinian era -- that the referent of the (implied) "he" in all of these statements too is indeed and indisputably Jesus of Nazareth and not the entity (the Logos) spoken of in John's Gospel as having been "with God" before the creation of the world.

Let's start with the linguistic evidence within these declarations that you think supports your case. What is it?

For your convenience, here is the Greek text of the appendix.

Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας, ὅτι ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο, ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι, [ἢ κτιστόν,] τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, [τούτους] ἀναθεματίζει ἡ καθολικὴ [καὶ ἀποστολικὴ] ἐκκλησία.

Besides showing me on the basis of the Greek that the referent of the subject of οὐκ ἦν and of ἐγένετο and of φάσκοντας εἶναι these declarations has (and was thought by those who wrote these declarations) to be Jesus and cannot be the Logos of Jn 1:1, give me your best arguments that such phrases as ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν is what Greek speakers would actually write when they wanted to say that historical/literary figure X is a fiction and only recently "made up"

Jeffrey

mountainman

I am happy to consider that the referent is the pre-mundane and impersonal non incarnated Logos.

However my position is that it is not the logos of John that Arius may have been referring to here, but the logos of Plotinus.

Logos



It's been some time since we discussed Arius, and my research has been extended. For example, Rowan Williams in ARIUS: Heresy and Tradition, citing Charles Kannengeisser, summarises Arius's entire perceived agenda as follows:


My argument is therefore, if Arius was not referring to the Son of God, or Jesus, in these five sophisms, then he is referring to the logos of Plotinus.

In an essay available here I discuss the identity of Arius and other earlier figures in the Platonic lineage.

I do not consider the hypothesis that Arian was a Christian theologian proved. This is what the victors of Nicaea wish us to believe. My hypothesis is that he was a Platonic theologian; Arius names his spiritual father as "Ammonius".


Athanasius the father of orthodoxy, and others, regarded Arius as the Antichrist.

Athanasius also compares Arius thrice to Sotades, an ancient Greek satirist.

Constantine pronounced memoriae damnatio on him.







εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Duvduv

Isn't it interesting that he would be referring to Arius as the anti Christ out of nowhere and yet the Arians still existed rather unmolested with even at least one son of Constantine adhering to Arianism until they died out over time even among the Visigoths? Were there shootouts at the asdorted Councils between 325 and 381?

tanya

Since Eusebius' son, Jerome, had noted that Lucian of Antioch, not only had served as mentor to Arius, but also had revised the LXX, in accord with the Hebrew text, available in the late third century, the "Lucianic recension", why not ask the question whether or not the text of Deuteronomy identifies YHWH, as the son of El--in other words, why not view John 1:1 as summarizing Deuteronomy, in a single sentence, to explain the origin of YHWH, not Jesus?

Perhaps political pressure prevented John from expressing the opinion that Judaism had grown obsolete, and needed to change with the times.

Jesus, as son of YHWH, represents harmony with "scripture", and John 1:1 thus serves as a single line version of the multi page text of the old tradition.

Arius, following his mentor's guide, is simply insisting on rigorous understanding of the original text, an attitude which puts him at odds with the existing power brokers, who seek to reject the old, and replace those dusty, weighty tomes with their own, vibrant, shiny, fresh papyrus. Arius, a stick in the mud, insisting on old traditions, was a hindrance to Catholic plans for revision, so they got rid of him, the old-fashioned way.

Duvduv

MM, If the Arians, including some famous Christian names including Eusebius and Visigoths, were Platonists rather than Christians, why then is their christology always the topic of discussion in history? Where are the hints otherwise? Certainly this begins to call into question what if any early non-orthodox Christian sects actually existed especially if it can be argued that so-called gnostic texts were simply lampooning Christianity.

Jeffrey Gibson

Leaving aside the matter that this is a non sequitur (and an instance of bifurcation with respect to the idea that someone who followed Plotinus could not also be Christian), I note that you have yet to show what needs to be shown, if he was indeed referring to Plotinus' Logos, that Arius was not referring to the "Son of God" and that for Arius (and notably, his followers) "Son of God" and Logos of Jn 1:1 are not one and the same idea.

In other words, you are just getting yourself deeper into the shit.

You also fail miserably to note that even if the Logos Arius refers to is the Logos of Plotinus, Arius's claims would make no sense if he did not believe in an historical Jesus -- since the issue he discusses (and over which all of our sources about Arius, both pro and con, agree he was taken to task for) is whether or not the Logos that "pitched his tent" in Jesus was created or not begotten.

Once again Pete, you show that you do not know what you are talking about.

What reason do I have to believe that anything you say there is true? You are hardly an authority on the period, ideas, and figures you discuss and you show there not only that you have no mastery of the evidence and that you rape what evidence you do produce in order to make it fit a pre-ordained conclusion.

In any case, the issue of the identity of Arius is irrelevant to the issue at hand -- which is how you know, and what evidence you have for showing, that the referent of the "he" in Arius's "sophisms" is the historical Jesus and that the referent of the "once" mentioned in one of them is the time in Roman history immediately before Constantine.

Just as Stephen predicted, in all that you now write, you've once again dodged it and instead laid out a trail of red herrings.

It's also what Arius's supporters believed.

So what? So was Augustine and Justin.

May I have the text, please, in which Athanasius says this? You've misrepresented what Athansius actually said, haven't you? (a fact that does not inspire confidence in your ability to read, understand, or faithfully represent the ancient sources you appeal to in order to kame your case).

And If Athanasius did indeed say this, isn't he admitting that that Arius claimed to be a Christian? Isn't the term ἀντίχριστος one that in Christian usage refers exclusively to someone who claims to be Christian but teaches false Christian doctrine, not non Christian doctrine?

Please provide me with your evidence that it was otherwise. Where do we ever find the orthodox labeling a non Chistian ἀντίχριστος?

So what? What on earth has this to do with whar the referent of "he" is in Arius' "sophisms"?



And then accepted him as Christian.

Funny how you ignore the fact that RW notes that Arius was a Christian.

Jeffrey