Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 02-06-2012, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The finding of modern scholarship, as I read it in Williams, is that at Nicaea and following with the Arian controversy, certain words and terms appeared in the orthodox heresiological christians's dialogue that were novel. These terms were Platonic, and their earliest exposition in that specific form are only to be found in the writings of Plotinus, which were preserved by his student, Porphyry.

Arius it would seem, had studied these writings. At the time of Nicaea there had been a revival of Platonism (which had been imperially sponsored in the 3rd century).

So what were those words, that were only found in Plotinus?

Homoousian

Quote:

Homoousian (Greek: ὁμοούσιος, from the Greek: ὁμός, homós, "same" and οὐσία, ousía, "essence, being") is a technical theological term used in discussion of the Christian understanding of God as Trinity. The Nicene Creed describes Jesus as being homooúsios with God the Father — that is, they are of the "same substance" and are equally God. This term, adopted by the First Council of Nicaea, was intended to add clarity to the relationship between Christ and God the Father within the Godhead.

Quote:

Why could they only have come through Arius?

They suddenly appeared at Nicaea along with a controversy. The Arian theologians preferred the use of the term ὁμοιούσιος (homoioúsios, from ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" rather than ὁμός, homós, "same").

Have you read William's book on Arius?

mountainman · 02-06-2012, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Pete's methodology is to begin every investigation with the question “what manipulations to the established facts would be necessary to allow for THIS piece of evidence to help support my conspiracy theory (or as he calls it “the truth”)

Have you read William's book on Arius? No, I didn't think so. Do yourself a favor and read it, and then point out where I am misrepresenting anything written in it.

mountainman · 02-09-2012, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

But I think/suspect that for the Arians Jesus wasn't the Son.

Did Arius believe that Jesus existed?

Pete - the questions are not related.

They are related via freethought and rationalism.
They are both directed at what is was that Arius believed and did not believe.
The Arians were the followers of the words of Arius.

Quote:

This is not an issue that has been done to death by constant repetition.

I have presented evidence and citations above and elsewhere regarding the assessment of Arius of Alexandria by modern scholars in the sources. These assessments are indicating that Arius was familiar with Platonist philosophy published by Porphyry and containing the Eneads of Plotinus.

In the sources, Constantine even calls Arius a "Porphyrian" in his circular letter sent to "ALL BISHOPS" immediately after Nicaea.

In the sources, from the fragment of Philip of Side, the council of Nicaea is characterized between the Bishops and the PHILOSOPHERS.

Same or Similar ESSENCE? 'homoousios' or homoiousios' ?

In the sources, the Council of Nicaea is characterized about a controversy whether Jesus was to be classified as just SIMILAR to the supreme divinity, or as the SAME as the supreme divinity.

Circumstantial evidence, such as the history of Eusebius, lends credence to the belief that the supreme divinity to which Jesus was being compared by the orthodox, and the Arians, was the same supreme divinity of the Jews, as outlined in Constantine's Bible.

There is an alternative to consider.

Namely that the supreme divinity to which Arius (and the Arians) were comparing Jesus, and finding Jesus SIMILAR to (What else could you say to Constantine's face and expect to live?), was not the supreme divinity located within the canonical books of Constantine and his followers, but the supreme divinity located within the canonical books of Plato and his followers.

The Platonists liked to use the negative. How many of the five sophisms of Arius, recorded on the earliest creeds are couched as negative statements?

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.

Can anyone advise the underlying Greek for "subsistence/substance"?
How is it related to "essence" - the Greek term .... οὐσία

In this alternative consideration, Arius is representing the Platonist philosophers at Nicaea. We may presume that his detractors freely lied about his involvment with that cause, after his "damnatio memoriae".

The Mystical Controversy at the heart of Nicaea may have at first been a political (and military) controversy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AM

Let me admit from the start that I am rather impervious to
any claim that sacred history poses problems which are not
those of profane history.

mountainman · 02-09-2012, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Maybe Pete can start to argue that Plato was an invention of Plotinus

You are out of your depth in the recent scholarship on Arius. The citations have been provided. You have not responded to the citations.

mountainman · 02-25-2012, 06:52 AM

Was the inexpressible essence οὐσία referred to by Arius
the SAME essence or a SIMILAR essence to
the modern concept of nondual essence?

From Nondualism#Christianity

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

Jesus himself utters deep nondual statements, such as this, from John 17:11(kjv)— Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. . .14b . . . because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. . . 21 That they may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us[.] And this, from Luke 11:34 The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness

From Nondualism#Gnosticism

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

Gnosticism

Since its beginning, Gnosticism has been characterized by many dualisms and dualities, including the doctrine of a separate God and Manichaean (good/evil) dualism. The discovery in 1945 of the Gospel of Thomas, however, has led some scholars to believe that Jesus' original teaching may have been one accurately characterized as nondualism.[41]

An English rendering from The Gospel of Thomas that showcases a nondual vision of reconciling opposites which are also preserved, that is "make the two one":

When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same...then you will enter [the Kingdom].[42]

The Gospel of Philip also conveys nondualism:

Light and Darkness, life and death, right and left, are brothers of one another. They are inseparable. Because of this neither are the good good, nor evil evil, nor is life life, nor death death. For this reason each one will dissolve into its earliest origin. But those who are exalted above the world are indissoluble, eternal. [43]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.