mountainman

And the explicit reason that they were dead is because Constantine had ordered his army to disassemble them all, utterly to their foundations. His "Christian Revolution" included the destruction of the old religious culture - the churches, the formalities and the literature associated with these.


The lynch-pin of my argument is stated. The historical evidence suggests strongly that the orthodox "ecclesiastical historians" CATEGORIZE him as a "Christian Bishop". They did this in order to play down the utter contraversial nature of the "Christian Revolution". They "harmonized" their histories to present the ultimately victorious "Christian Regime" in the most favorable light. Eusebius's "Transcendental History of the Nation of Christians" leads us to the glorious dawn of the day which celebrates the Council of Nicaea. From this point on we have a black hole in history, since the historical accounts of the council of Nicaea, other than Eusebius's contributions, were authored many decades, in some cases centuries, after the year 324/325 CE.



In the above posts I have presented references from Constantine's Letter to Arius c.333 CE which suggest strongly that Arius was vehemently anti-Christian. Also I have posted references to the work of Rowan Williams who is suggesting (although somewhat contraversially) that Arius appears to be quite reasonably be able to be represented as a follower of the philosophy of Plotinus - one important "Father" in the "Apostolic Succession" of the Academy of Plato.



There are two such "hints" - although none relate to Julian's indulgence in animal sacrifice. They are both present in this same letter written by Constantine to Arius. See above - Evidence that Arius was supported by the masses.

What Constantine discloses about Arius in terms of
the Political Support for Arius by the Graeco-Roman populace

Arius talked of one God.
Arius said

"Either let us hold that, of which
already we have been made possessors,
or let it be done, just as we ourselves desire."

This above suggests that Arius is complaining that Constantine has prohibited the use and "business as usual" of the Graeco-Roman temple network. Arius wants to get back into the temples, where priests and temple servants have tenured for centuries under all the Roman emperors from Caesar to Diocletian. Arius appears to be asking for the return of authority. And he appears to be asking on behalf of "the masses" ...

He said "We have the masses."
He was a warrior of insanity.
He was an Ares
He fashioned the finest things for the masses
He asked to celebrate services to God in Alexandria

He asked to celebrate the lawful and indispensable services to God in Alexandria

This last reference indicates that Arius simply wanted a return to the traditions which had been celebrated in Alexandria for centuries and centuries undisturbed essentially by any of the Roman Emperors, who were happy generally so long as the Egyptians and Egypto-Graeco-Romans paid their tribute, etc, etc, etc. Constantine here discloses that Arius had requested Constantine's permission to resume some form of "Business as Usual" related to the "lawful services to God in Alexandria". Arius here is not refering to Constantine's "New God".

My argument is that Arius is referring to the NeoPlatonic concept of God as expressed via Plotinus through his "Disciple" Porphyry whose writings Constantine made sure were burnt.


The article is useless for the purpose of exploring the historical truth of the epoch commencing from the rise of Constantine to the end of the 4th century since it commences in the mid fifth century.

The author handwaves over the critical epoch ...
And so the author simply skips any mention of Arius and the Boss Constantine and the propaganda merchant Eusebius and the all-important Council of Nicea and heads into the Nestorian Controversy of the mid 5th century, which incidentally he does not either explain or explicate. No mention of the Arian Controversy. Serious and critical omissions -- holes.

The author however discloses that the church was still being run by GANGSTERS in the 5th century. Here is an editorial review from Amazon ...
The Beginning of the JESUS WARS of the 4th CENTURY
are better described by Barnes ....

The problem is that we must understand that "The Christian Soldiers were the PERSECUTORS".
This may be a difficult thing for some people to come to terms with.
And yet it appears to be the historical truth of the 4th century.
The 4th century was an epoch of [imperially driven] christian persecution and intolerence.
The "Christians in Authority" were gangsters and terrorist bosses and army chiefs.
They openly fough against each other for the right to become "Bishops".
In the 4th century the Church was run by GANGSTERS.
In the 5th century the Church was run by GANGSTERS.
Nothing at all has changed ...
It is a disgrace, and it is not often admitted ...

Constantine is the first gangster.
He lavishly and savagely supports the New Testament "Canon".
He tears down the old religions and as "Pontifex Maximus" floats his own "choice".
After these events, Arius of Alexandria appears.
It is prudent to ask the question as to whether Arius represents
the focus of resistance against Constantine's "choice religion".

Resistance against the gangster hood of "Christianity"?
I can hear some people say this to themselves in disbelief.
How could there possibly have been any resistance against Christianity?
We were "told" that there was no resistance to "The Good Book".
I am simply questioning whether we have been "told" the historical truth.
To do this, I am simply arguing that Arius was a Neo-Platonic disciple and not a "Christian disciple". He had the masses in support of him. They were attempting to resist the warlord Constantine. They ultimately failed to do so.
All they could do was flee the "Christian Revolution" in the same way that the Dalai Lama fled Tibet.

our generation is fleeing since it does not yet
even believe that the Christ is alive......

Nag Hammadi Author - "Interpretation of Knowledge"

mountainman

Was Arius a "Christian" or a redundant "Neoplatonic academic priest"?
Eusebius and others assert he was a "Christian".

Was Pachomnius a "Christian" or a redundant "Neoplatonic academic priest"?
Jerome asserts he was "baptised" before he left town and was a "Christian".

Was Constantine himself a "Christian" or "Something Else"?
Scholars have debated this issue for centuries.

Was Jesus an "historical figure" or a "fictitional figure"?
Scholars are debating this issue for some time.

These are examples of categorisation.


Whenever assertions are being made then we will find categories being used to support and to negate the assertions.

I am examining the events in ancient history for the period in which all thinking people are assuming covers the period of "Christian Origins". For this reason I include evidence from the 1st through to the 4th century. During the 4th century, with the explosition of evidence for the existence of belief in the Jesus Story we can be certain that the story had hit the headlines.

Therefore I am narrowing in upon the rule of Constantine between
305 and 312 CE - as the ruler of the North West.
312 and 324 CE - as the ruler of the West and Rome.
324 and 337 CE - asthe ruler of the entire Roman Empire.

That such evidence will prove to be useful in attempting to reconstruct how people of the 5th century thought and acted.

My questions relate to the thoughts and actions of the 4th century, and ancient sources from the 4th century which are contemporaeous with the events are more highly regarded than those from centuries after. This is not to say the later sources are of no import, rather they are usually of a relatively less import, because they are not as contemporaneous.

Huon

Source :
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/philostorgius.htm
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, Ipswich, UK, 9th July 2002.

The Ecclesiastical History Of Philostorgius
CHAP. 2.--Though Philostorgius praises Eusebius Pamphilus as well on other grounds as on account of his Ecclesiastical History, yet he accuses him of erroneous opinions in matters relating to religion. The accusation which he brings against him is to the effect that Eusebius considered the Deity as unintelligible and incomprehensible, and that he was implicated in a variety of other strange opinions.

Note 2 (next page) :

2. p. 430 n. 1 See the Life of Eusebius prefixed to Bohn’s edition of his Ecclesiastical History, pp. xxv. and xxvi. The following is the estimate of his character as given by Fleury. 'Though the doctrine of Eusebius of Caesarea might be excused, it is hard to justify his conduct. He is marked from the beginning among the bishops who took Arius under their protection against Alexander of Alexandria. In his Ecclesiastical History he does not say a word of this famous dispute (the Arian controversy); and that it may not be said that he ended his History where it began, he speaks nothing plainly of it in his Life of Constantine, saying only in general terms, that there was a division in the church, principally in Egypt, without ever explaining the cause of it; and it might seem, according to him, that in the council of Nicaea no other important question was treated of than that of Easter. In relating the laws of Constantine against heretics, he makes no mention of that which condemned the writings of Arius to be burnt. Speaking of the council of Tyre, he says not a word of the process of St. Athanasius, who was the subject of it. This affected silence gives better authority to those among the ancients who have accused him of Arianism, than to those who would justify him from it. Acacius also, his disciple and successor in the see of Caesarea, became afterwards one of the chiefs of the Arians.' Fleury, Eccl. Hist. b. xii. ch. 6.

andrewcriddle

AFAIK nobody categorized Arius as a "Christian Bishop".

This is not just a pedantic point. One issue at Nicea was about handling disputes between bishops (like Alexander of Egypt) and their senior clergy (like Arius).

Andrew Criddle

mountainman

Arius attracted alot of attention at one point in history. For example in 341 CE the orthodox bishops of the Dedication Council at Antioch declared:

"We are not followers of Arius; for how could we,
who are bishops, be disciples of a priest?"

Why did they find it necessary to so declare this?

Your point that Arius was not formally categorised as a "Bishop" is well taken. However my argument falls back to the generalised claim that Arius was categorised as a "Christian".

Arius has been CATEGORIZED as a "Christian" of some form or "rank" by those who preserved the history of the epoch of Constantine's rule. This is the primal "categorisation". This categorisation of Arius as a "Christian" may be questioned with respect to the evidence which I have presented above:

1) Arius is looked upon as "The Foe of Christ" and "AntiChrist" (by Athanasius).
2) Arius is involved with the "shameful ridicule of sacred scripture" (by Eusebius.)
3) Arius is "introducing belief of unbelief", pains and wounds the church (by Constantine).
4) Arius seems to be follow the neoplatonic ideas of Plotinus (by Rowan Williams).
5) Arius was subject to censorship and "damnatio memoriae" (the Boss)

The exploration of the possibility that Arius was not a "Christian" at all - but rather simply quite representative of the Graeco-Roman milieu of the city of Alexandria (ie: "a pagan" if you want another category) cannot be ruled out, and actually makes a good deal of sense.

mountainman

G'Day Huon,

Let's try and put ourselves in the shoes of Eusebius. His Boss the "Pontifex Maximus" has instructed him to prepare a credible "history" of the "Nation of Christians extant at the time of Josephus Flavius" as well as the task of the general editorship of the quasi-canonical books of the new testament which are to be raised to the status of "Holy Writ" and which are to be "canonised" at a special event which we now know was the "Council of Nicaea?.

The purpose of these actions by the "Pontifex Maximus" were not in any alignment with the traditional role and function of the "Pontifex Maximi" - that is, the Roman Emperors which had ruled prior to Constantine whose function was to preserve the "peace of the gods".

Constantine turned the entire Graeco-Roman civilisation upside down, and shook it brutally. Out with the Greek religions. Down with the Greek temples and out with their priests. Out with the literature of the Greek academics! Burn the literature of the Greeks held in high esteem! (Apollonius of Tyana and Porphyry for example).

The Christian Military Revolution

Eusebius was between a rock and a very hard place. His function was to prepare the new religious dogma which was to replace the traditional religious dogma of the Graeco-Roman civilisation. At the Council of Nicaea he writes about the attendees having to walk into the council through a WALL OF SWORDS. We assume these swords are "friendly" at our peril.

The gangster warlord Constantine wanted to revolutionize the religious practices of the Roman empire. He had read about great warlords doing this in the past with their own empires.

Ashoka -- at some stage repented of "Imperial Gangsterhood" and turned to the Buddha, 300 years after Buddha's death.

Ardashir -- created the monotheist centralised state religion of Zoroastrianism by means of his army and the official "canonisation of a Holy Writ"

Eusebius was between a rock and a hard place. The Boss was recycling the City of Alexander to the City of Constantine quite physically and literally. The world was falling apart and a new heaven and a new earth were immanent, and the Christian soldiers were continually milling around the cities.

J-D

So what you mean by 'exploring a hypothesis' is that, having fabricated one assertion, you fabricate others to go with it. That's not historiography, that's masturbation.Fine. Then the opinion of people in the 5th and 6th centuries, that Arianism was a kind of Christianity, counts for more than your 20th-century opinion that it wasn't.

J-D

Some people described him as Christian while others described him as an enemy of Christianity. You could say the same about the Pope.

mountainman

It would appear that the sources (eg: Eusebius, Constantine, Athanasius)which are closest to the epoch (ie: 325 to 336 CE) regard him as an enemy of the state version of christianity. The more distant sources (which include your 5th century Arians) seem to be more inclined to view him as a Christian.

Who Ratzinger? The pope did not write books against the state church. The Pope did not have his books prohibited by the European Council or have them subject for destruction by fire by any fully armed authority. The Pope did not publish books which attracted the death penalty (by beheading) if one was caught in possession thereof. The Pope was not subject to any authoritative censorship, or process of "memoriae damnatio" by which the historical memory of the Pope was to be politically erased from the records.

Rather it was the Pope and the lineage of the Vatican Pope's who were in charge of the "Index Librorum Prohibitorum" - a list of books which was maintained since the time of Eusebius which were to be regarded as "heretical" and not fit to be read by the populace at large, because the authors were categorised as "vile Gnostics".

J-D

An enemy of the state version of Christianity, yes! Nobody disputes that! But being an enemy of the state version of Christianity doesn't necessarily make somebody not a Christian.No, none of those things happened to the Pope. Nevertheless, the Pope is denounced by some as non-Christian and anti-Christian, just like Arius:
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0071/0071_01.asp
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0074/0074_01.asp
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0047/0047_01.asp
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0082/0082_01.asp
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1057/1057_01.asp