Jeffrey Gibson

But previously you told us what it "means", declaring, not questioning, that

"Ammianus Marcellinus offers us another alternative as a follows"

and then concluding "So we see that there is an equivalence of some form between this "daemon" and what we might term "one's own guardian angel".

How on earth do you maintain that these statements -- which are put forward as declarations of "fact" - were originally (and were intended to be seen as) questions?

Then I suggest you stop making claims about what this text says, let alone drawing conclusions from it about what it supports.

And while were dealing with claims you make about the meaning of texts you cant read, let me remind you that you've still not told me how you know, as you claim you do, that supporters of Arius (let alone his enemies) believed that Arius was claiming that Constantine had invented Christianity when he said ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν?

Jeffrey

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

Examine the original statement item (2) to which I responded:
This statement provides a description of these "Hellenistic" daemons. I then provided another second statement taken from Ammianus. I do not understand why are you objecting to this.


There was a time when he (Harry Jesus Potter) was not is only one of the five brief phrases which kick-started the Arian controversy. In isolation this statement tells us that Arius believed that there was a time, or an epoch, or an age, in which the HJP had no existence. Arius was banished and ultimately poisoned because of his dirty mouth. Constantine reveals that Arius "reproaches, grieves, wounds and pains the Church". Arius is the focus of belief in unbelief of Constantine's new religious initiative - "christianity".

Best wishes,


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

What I am objecting to is your claim that what you were doing when you made your "second" statement" was raising am "exploratory question" about whether the AM quote your adduced illustrated and elucidated item #2. You were doing no such thing.

You have yet to show, as I asked you to do, that the supporters of Arius (let alone his enemies like Athanasius) thought that "there was a time immediately before Constantine when Jesus/Christianity was not" = "Constantine invented Christianity" was what Arius was saying when he said ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν.

And you certainly have not shown --ever -- with actual evidence taken from the writings of Arius's supporters or his enemies, let alone through an analysis of the grammar and syntax of the expression, land of the contexts in which the expression ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦ is discussed, explained, or vilified -- that the "he" implied in ἦν refers to the historical Jesus or Christianity, rather than the Logos/Son spoken of in Jn 1:1-18 which Arius, his supporters, and his enemies all agreed on the basis of Jn. 1:14, became enfleshed in the historical Jesus.

What you have shown is that you are absolutely incapable of doing this.

Jeffrey

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

We are all aware that there is no direct evidence to suggest that "Constantine invented Christianity". We have no such confessions. We have a bunch of statements by Arius by which we might hypothesise this, and we have no unambiguous archaeological evidence by which this hypothesis might be immediately refuted. After Nicaea there is the social, political, religious and historical nature of the turbulent Arian controversy to be considered as evidence, before we get to Julian's invectives against the very pure religion of his uncle. At the end-game in the fifth century the church censors all of its inauthenticity problems by refutatation and the fire (eg: Cyril of Alexandria, and the library thereof).

Best wishes,

Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

Hypothesize on what basis? On an analysis of the grammar and syntax and context of Arius' ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν which you've admitted you can't read. On the basis that the supporters of Arius (let alone his enemies like Athanasius) thought that "there was a time immediately before Constantine when Jesus/Christianity was not" = "Constantine invented Christianity" was what Arius was saying when he said ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν? On the basis of how you've yet to produce anything from the primary sources in which the expression ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦ is discussed, explained, or vilified, that your claim that the "he" implied in ἦν refers to the historical Jesus or Christianity, rather than the Logos/Son spoken of in Jn 1:1-18 which Arius, his supporters, and his enemies all agreed on the basis of Jn. 1:14, became enfleshed in the historical Jesus?

An actual consideration of which you -- as you have yourself admitted -- have never really engaged in but have instead studiously refused to do by never taking the time -- again as you yorself have admitted -- to read closely or in any depth the primary evidence on Arius and the Arian controversy from Athanasius, Alexander, Hosius, Eustathius, Cyrus, Paul, bishop of Constantinople, Julius, Asclepas, Lucius, Maximus, Paulinus, and Hilary, let alone the studies of this controversy that have been made by Grillmeier, Gwatkin, Greg & Groh, Harnack R. Williams A.M.H. Jones, J.N.D. Kelly, R. Hanson, Barnes & D. H. Williams, E. Ferguson, T.A. Kopecek, J. T. Lienhard, M. Simonett, and A Louth.

Save for Grillmeier's and Kelly's work -- of which I informed you -- it's pretty safe to say you don't even know what these are!

Jeffrey

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

It would also be pretty safe to say none of these authors entertain the notion that Arius and the Arian controversy are about a reaction and resistance (by the Hellenistic academics of the east particularly) to a number of aspects of the new monotheistic Roman state religion of Nicaea, with the foremost issue being that the fabrication of the NT canon was a Constantinian fiction. Temple services were legally prohibited from 324/325 CE and temples were destroyed by Constantine's regime which was later to be characterised as "christianity". Do any of your authors present Arius as an ascetic priest of Asclepius, and neopythagorean logician, and voluminous author of the NT apochrypha?


Best wishes,


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

But you don't know, do you.

Moreover, why should they?

Jeffrey

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

Is the Pope Catholic? Have you asked him yourself?

Best wishes,


Pete