mountainman

No earlier "Christian" said that "Jesus was made out of nothing existing" - ie: ex nilo.
Logically we may suspect that a person who thought Jesus was created out of nothing may not have in fact been a christian. Such a thinker could just as easily have been a pagan thinker. There were plenty of pagan thinkers at that time c.325 CE (Nicaea) to go around. Many commentators suggest that the bulk of the Eastern empire was pagan. That is, in excess of 90% Pagan. Therefore I consider it to be reasonably logical to argue the case that Arius was such a one. Evidence suggests that Arius did have some measure of support of the Eastern populace. That is, the dominantly "pagan populace".

Start with the non christian Hellenistic Philo in the 1st century.

Add the Roman Emperor Philip the Arab who became christian to celebrate the milennial games.

Add the founder of Neoplatonism, the Alexandrian dock worker, Ammonias Saccas, whom Eusebius asserts to have been a "Christian".

Toto

Are you sure?

This is not logical. It is grasping at straws.

No, this is not logical. This is just confused.

He was Jewish, not pagan.

So?

mountainman

Yes, these sophisms of Arius are novel in the Patristic literature, a fact pointed out by practically everyone who has studied the figure of Arius of Alexandria and/or the Arian controversy. These sophisms are however quite consistent with the philosophy of Plotinus as set out in the Enneads preserved by Porphyry, one of the twelve disciples of Plotinus.

There is nothing illogical in exploring the possibility that Arius of Alexandria was in fact the focus of the "Pagan resistance" at Nicaea. But then again, since you believe the account of Eusebius, you dont think there was any resistance to "The Boss's Eastern Takeover" at all do you? A one sided history -- and that is presently what we have about Constantine's rule -- is only half the history.

According to Momigliano Philo cannot be classified either a Greek or a Jew.
In any event Philo can be categorised as a non Christian commentator on "The Logos".

p26
"Philo is another historian who cannot be classified either a Greek or a Jew."

p.27
"New discoveries are not likely to disprove the obvious conclusion that
neither II Maccabees, nor Philo, nor Josephus were ever reabsorbed into
the Jewish tradition. They remained operative only in Christian learning.
II Maccabees, in spirit if not in form, is behind the Christian Acta Martyrum.
Philo's conception of history is related to that of Lactantius' De Mortibus Persecutorum.
More generally, Philo is the predecessor of the Christian Platonists. Finally,
Josephus is one of the writers without whom Eusebius would not have been able
to invent Ecclesiastical History."

The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography
Arnaldo Momigliano
Sather Classical Lectures (1961-62)
Volume Fifty-Four
University of California Press, 1990

The Christians of the later centuries (ie: the 4th) commandeered "The Logos" for the State Religion of the Boss.
They could afford to do this since Constantine made sure that the pagans would not need their version any longer.
There was to be one centralised state version of "The Logos" and the "Holy Writ" and Constantine monopolised it.

On the other hand IMO Arius defended the "non-victorious" version published by Porphyry, authored by Plotinus.
Someone had to be the focus of the pagan resistance against the very pure state Christian Good News.
For this role of opposition Arius was politically exiled by Constantine, who published the "victorious version" of "The Christian Logos.

I do not see the objective basis of your opposition to the admitted novel idea that Arius was a pagan controversialist.
There are only a handful of fragments generally acknowledged to be from the pen of Arius of Alexandria.
His writings were burnt, he was a wanted man - a "gallows rogue" - and his name and memory suffered imperial "damnatio memoriae" .
The Arian controversy was a very big and very long controversy, and the bulk of the populace was pagan.
Surely you might concede that a Pagan controversialist might be more appropriate following Nicaea?
And if you dont, are you capable of conceding that, from the Pagans perspective, Constantine was breaking traditions in a very controversial manner.

Huon

"peasant" and "pagan" have the same etymology. It is most probable that the bulk of the country people was pagan around 300 CE. BUT they had no influence on the religious quarrels, which were limited to the big towns of the Empire, and especially to the bishops, and some priests and deacons. From time to time, a bishop looked for the support of some partisans, against another group of the same town. And the towns represented less than 10 % of the population.

Toto

Christians of all sorts continually took over and absorbed Greek philosophy. That did not make them pagan priests or believers in the old gods.

Epiphanius IIRC records that Christian mobs went around destroying idols and statues of the old gods to demonstrate that they were powerless. It appears that the old religions were fading away (as in the Twilight of the Gods).

We see much more evidence of inter-Christian disputes than we do of pagan resistance.

Besides, I don't see you "exploring the possibility" that Arius was a pagan priest. I just see you continually floating the idea like a trial balloon that floats off into the upper atmosphere and disintegrates without adding any understanding to the discussion.

Philo Judaeus not a Jew? :huh:

..
Why do you keep stringing unrelated ideas together as if there were a connection?

The Arian controversy was an intra-Christian dispute. Pagans didn't care one way or the other, just like today most people can't quite understand what all of the controversy was about - it was all about an iota.

No.

Constantine was a despotic emperor in a long line of despots. That wasn't especially "controversial."

darstec

What part do you think the hermitages/monasteries played? Should they be considered rural or urban? After all they were a community separate from the rest of the urban areas. Certainly philosophic and theological arguments took place there.

They also seem to be where we find the most valuable manuscripts today (or at least valuable to us because of their antiquity).

mountainman

The key word here is "non christian". The bulk of the populace in the cities and in the country were non christian at the time of Constantine's arrival in the Eastern empire. The history was written by the "Christian victors"and the history of the "Non Christian Resistance" was literally censored -- for example the literature of Emperor Julian.

mountainman

Non christians of all sorts also continually absorbed the Greek philosophy. People like Sopater, the Head of the Academy of Plato in Constantinople, and look what happened to him.

The bulk of the populace, being non christian, were forced by the sword to surrender their worship and beliefs in the old gods.

Their most ancient temples and shrines were subject to destruction by Constantine's army, and the bulk of the non christian populace was prohibited from entering or using the temples in the accustomed manner. The prohibition was vigorously enforced by Constantine's army. The situation describing the years between Constantine's military supremacy c.324 CE and the "Council of Nicaea"325 CE may be described by Barnes:


The reason for this observation is because the ëvidence being examined is the literary histories prepared by the victorious 5th century christian regime, under the tax exempt sponsorship of the "Christian Emperors" who held a secure stranglehold over a Roman Empire which had been forced to convert to the imperially supported state religion, or perish.


Arius was a highly trained academic who appears to have had a tremendous grasp of the philosophy of the Neoplatonic Plotinus, and who's five sophisms concerning Jesus were made famous by their repetition over the centuries of the Arian controversy.

Earlier I cited Rowan William's notes about the garb worn by Arius according to the description of Epiphanius:

The description of Arius thus matches that of the "therapeutae" who were a class of people who were non christian. We are told that Arius had the care of seventy women ascetics - this was not a ""Christian practice" - one only needs to read Tertullian to find out how the early Christians treated the prospect of women "priests" and "baptisers"--- it was unheard of in the "man's world of early canonical orthodox christianity"

You can question the assessment of Momigliano, who was a Jew.
In general terms, it is entirely safe to say that Philo was a non christian.
I dont see why this should trouble anyone here.


So the Christians assert to us! And do you believe them?
Of course you must! But I do not.

How do you know that the "Pagans did not care one way or another"?
How would you feel if a military commander trashed the US state buildings and prohibited the business of the state?
How would you feel if you were forced to convert to "Scientology"or some other absolutely mindless religion on the whim of a miliary commander?
I dont think you would be too pleased, and I dont think you would not care about the outcome.

The difference between then and now is that then "Christianity" was being introduced to the populace in a top-down imperially controlled manner and those people who would not conform to the imperial agenda were exiled or worse, executed. Today, we do not have the cold sharp steel of the sword held to our throats.



The Gnostic used word .... Homoousian


Yes of course all the Roman Emperors were supreme imperial mafia thugs, but Constantine over and above this normality introduced a number of extremely contraversial precedent actions.

Contraversial Precedent (1) - Destruction of Religious Architecture

Constantine was the first emperor to turn the Roman army on the religious architecture of the empire. All other Roman emperors before Constantine contributed to the upkeep, maintenance and construction programs associated with the non christian temples. Constantine's destruction of the temples and shrines and the prohibition of temple "business-as-usual" was highly contraversial and utterly novel for a Roman Emperor.

Contraversial Precedent (2) - Use of Motifs on Imperial Coinage

Examine the coinage of all the Roman emperors before Constantine. They all without too many exceptions sponsored the Graeco-Roman god Asclepius of a relative on their coins. See ""Asclepius: The God of Medicine"" - By Gerald D. Hart: (p.177) -- Indicates that the forty six of the Roman emperor for the period of almost three centuries depicted on their minted coins the figure of Asclepius or Salus. This represents a fairly extensive and persistent tradition. Here is the data as presented:




Contraversial Precedent (3) - Wholesale ROBBERY and PILLAGING of the temples

While all the earlier Roman Emperors contributed to the wealth of the temple networks by means of patronage, Constantine ordered his army not onloy to destroy the temples and to prohibit the non christian priests and populace
frpm entering the temples, he also ordered the army to pillage and steal from the temples gold and silver and treasures and brass and art works and other archaeological items in order to adorn his new city - the "City of The Boss".

Contraversial Precedent (4) - Enforcing a centralised "State Religion"

All earlier emperors permitted the collegiate operation of the Graeco-Roman milieu of religions in the empire. Although they had the role of "Pontifex Maximus"they did not abuse that role with malevolent and dictatorial decrees and action as did Constantine. All prior emperors lived with and generally cooperated with the extant diversity of religious belief. In contrast Constantine destroyed all religious opposition and sponsored the support of a "Holy Religious Writ" which was to assume absolute authority over all religions and philosophies after the manner of the Persian Ardashir c.222 CE who created the monotheistic religion of Zoroastrianism by means of a military revolution and the forced ratification or "canonisation" of a "Holy Writ".


All these precedent actions by Constantine were savage changes to the traditional ways of life in the empire, especially from the religious perspective, and were characterised as massive and extremely contraversial changes to tradition by "pagan" authors in subsequent generations.

We who read the history of these times from the 21st century, being raised in a predominantly "Christian minded tradition" have been conditioned to wear "Christian Glasses". Why should "we" be interested in the non christian version of the history of this Constantinian epoch? Who cares about the non christian tribulations and the truth of the times and the actual "Origins of the State Religion"? As I commented before, there is nothing illogical in exploring the possibility that Arius of Alexandria was in fact the focus of the "Pagan resistance" at Nicaea. In fact, if we are actually capable or removing our "Christian conditioning Glasses" it becomes rather obvious that half the truth has not been told, and the other half of the truth has been literally CENSORED by the Imperial Christian Regime of the 4th and early 5th centuries.

Arius of Alexandria taught a novel teaching about Constantine's Jesus:

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

This has always been seen as commentary concering the theology of Jesus.
However it may be argued that these sophisms reflect on the very historicity of Jesus.
Did the historical Jesus actually exist in the mind of Arius?
I dont think so. Perhaps to Arius, Jesus was made out of nothing existing
Perhaps Jesus was Constantine's imperially sponsored fabrication.

J-D

Yes, I am suggesting that Constantine insulted Arius by calling him a Porphyrian. I see no reason to think that Constantine would have given a fair account of Porphyry, just as I see no reason to think that Constantine would have given a fair account of Arius.As a matter of fact, Wikipedia tells me that Augustine described Porphyry as a former Christian, but that aside, the answer to your first question is that I am not about to suggest that Plotinus was a Christian. I did not suggest either that Plotinus was a Christian or that Porphyry was a Christian, and I didn't say anything that would lead to that conclusion.No, it doesn't. Pagans have no reason to accommodate anything within biblical creationism.I have no idea and can't see how it's supposed to be relevant.We have already established that what you mean by 'explore' is 'make stuff up as you go along'. I do not regard that as a valid methodology.I have no idea and don't see how it's supposed to be relevant.

J-D

Speak for yourself. I was conditioned from an early age to wear 'non-Christian glasses'.