Duvduv

Sounds like some good Church polemics and apologetics. Too bad there is nothing in existence confirming that there was actually a council of "bishops" that was held in 325 in Nicaea altogether. Considering what a bad guy he was (was the pre-Marcion or post-Marcion bogeyman?), why were the pro-Arius "bishops" considered members of the official party when allegedly invited to Nicaea in the first place?!

mountainman

There is the remains of an impact crater. Massive amounts of Greek architecture were destroyed. A new and strange centralised monotheistic religious cult was assembled around the supreme military victor, the Lord God Caesar Constantine. An exceedingly new and strange controversy erupted at the very same time and persisted for centuries, related to what this new and strange religious cult would not accept.

What was not acceptable to the regime was the support by the people, of the any of the five sophisms of Arius of Alexandria, as may be demonstrated by the earliest Nicaean creeds.

Comparison between Creed of 325 and Creed of 381 CE


Precisely what do these above five sophisms, presumably authored/coined by Arius, mean?

We along with the Biblical Historians are conditioned to read them in a theological context.

My idea which Jeffrey is criticising is that they may also be read in a political context. One which coincides with the widespread, lavish publication of the Jesus Story by Constantine.



We will not understand "pro-Arius" and "contra-Arius" until we understand these five sophisms of Arius (surviving as evidence - see above), which were the memes specifically adopted and preserved by his followers, and specifically destroyed and suppressed by the imperial detractors.


The invitations to Nicaea also included invitations to Constantine's 20th year Long Service Party which was held after the religious circus tent was put away, and harmony descended on the party and all its participants who, according to Eusebius, had already walked through a wall of swords.




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Duvduv

Meaning that the official description of Nicea with a council of both participating "orthodox" AND "heretical" bishops is just a *nice* mythology. Especially considering that the so-called canonical texts (epistles, Acts, gospels) that they allegedly believed in did not even address the notions presented in the anathema statements of 381 at all.