Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Huon · 11-13-2008, 06:04 AM

from Catho Encyclopedia :

Quote:

With his writings and followers he (Arius) underwent the anathemas subscribed by more than 300 bishops. He was banished into Illyricum. Two prelates shared his fate, Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais. His books were burnt. The Arians, joined by their old Meletian friends, created troubles in Alexandria. Eusebius (of Caesarea) persuaded Constantine to recall the exile by indulgent letters in 328; and the emperor not only permitted his return to Alexandria in 331, but ordered Athanasius to reconcile him with the Church. On the saint's refusal more disturbance ensued. The packed and partisan Synod of Tyre deposed Athanasius on a series of futile charges in 335. Catholics were now persecuted; Arius had an interview with Constantine and submitted a creed which the emperor judged to be orthodox. By imperial rescript Arius required Alexander of Constantinople to give him Communion; but the stroke of Providence defeated an attempt which Catholics looked upon as sacrilege. The heresiarch died suddenly, and was buried by his own people.

The point of view of the Catholic Encyclopedia goes against the views of mountainman about Constantine, Eusebius, and Arius.

mountainman · 11-13-2008, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I posit the hypothesis that Arius and Pete (aka mountainman) are, in fact, one and the same person.

Can this be disproved?

I posit that both are them are, in fact, Jeffrey Gibson. <evil grin>

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Dear Roger (and Jeffrey),

The evil grin is appropriate since because of all the books which Leucius authored the christians of certainly the fifth, and quite possibly the fourth century, gave this author the explicit name of the disciple of the devil. Quite obviously he must have authored something quite spectacular to deserve such fame. What is spectacular about the Acts of Thomas for example? Why do the apostles cast lots for the nation? Why is Thomas a slave to Jesus? Why does he refuse to go to India? Why does he defer to the rigorous truth and ascetic practices of the Indian Hindus? Why is Thomas sold as a slave in the market? Why does Jesus get an official bill-of-sale? Constantine (ie: the canon) is being trolled.

The signature of satire of an ascetic greek academic of Alexandria remains to be identified.

Best wishes,

Pete

Clivedurdle · 11-13-2008, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

from Catho Encyclopedia :

Quote:

With his writings and followers he (Arius) underwent the anathemas subscribed by more than 300 bishops. He was banished into Illyricum. Two prelates shared his fate, Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais. His books were burnt. The Arians, joined by their old Meletian friends, created troubles in Alexandria. Eusebius (of Caesarea) persuaded Constantine to recall the exile by indulgent letters in 328; and the emperor not only permitted his return to Alexandria in 331, but ordered Athanasius to reconcile him with the Church. On the saint's refusal more disturbance ensued. The packed and partisan Synod of Tyre deposed Athanasius on a series of futile charges in 335. Catholics were now persecuted; Arius had an interview with Constantine and submitted a creed which the emperor judged to be orthodox. By imperial rescript Arius required Alexander of Constantinople to give him Communion; but the stroke of Providence defeated an attempt which Catholics looked upon as sacrilege. The heresiarch died suddenly, and was buried by his own people.

The point of view of the Catholic Encyclopedia goes against the views of mountainman about Constantine, Eusebius, and Arius.

This is what I am getting at - that in fact Constantine's xianity was in fact arianism, he got on with Arius and even grumbled on his death bed that xianity better be right!

My allusion to baths is about the continuing rows whether a son can be equal to the father.

I see Constantine as a typical pragmatist who used xianity for his political ends and couldn't care less about doctrinal disputes, but favoured Arius's rational perspective that sons are not equal to fathers.

But the 300's were probably critical for the whole future of the planet! And I have understood Eusebius and Arius to be friends as well.

Quote:

Catholics were now persecuted

Constantine was after a unifying religion unifying paganism and judaism but he got landed with a load of taliban catholics trying to persuade everyone that black is white and sons are co-equal with fathers and going around destroying temples.

Huon · 11-13-2008, 09:02 AM

Clive, we have some more infos which could be useful. Eusebius of Caesarea had a successor, named Acacius.

About this Acacius, we have some information.
Looking at CCEL :

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf...i.iii.i.i.html

Quote:

Acacius, the pupil and successor of Eusebius in the bishopric of Cæsarea, wrote a life of the latter (Socr. H. E. II. 4) which is unfortunately lost. He was a man of ability (Sozomen H. E. III. 2, IV. 23) and had exceptional opportunities for producing a full and accurate account of Eusebius’ life; the disappearance of his work is therefore deeply to be regretted.

Looking at wiki :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acacius_of_Caesarea

Quote:

Acacius of Caesarea (died 366) was a Christian bishop, the pupil and successor in the Palestinian see of Caesarea of Eusebius AD 340, whose life he wrote. (Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica, 2.4.) He is remembered chiefly for his bitter opposition to St. Cyril of Jerusalem and for the part he was afterwards enabled to play in the more acute stages of the Arian controversy. In the famous twenty-first oration of St. Gregory Nazianzen the author speaks of him as being "the tongue of the Arians". (Orationes, xxi, 21)

Can you imagine the life of Eusebius "accurately" described by an Arian bishop, and preserved by their Catholic opponents ?

Ben C Smith · 11-13-2008, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I posit that both are them are, in fact, Jeffrey Gibson.

You are too, IIRC.

Ben.

J-D · 11-13-2008, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Thank you Pete, I appreciate both your effort, and diligence in assembling this impressive catalogue.

I ask this question in ignorance, not to be sarcastic, nor to suggest that your post was in some way irrelevant. It is my oblivion that is irrelevant.

I don't understand how the fundamental question of the "origins of the christian religion" are clarified by an understanding that Arius of Alexandria did, or did not, author various texts, of whatever subject.

Dear avi,

I will attempt to explain this by a realistic analogy. Supposing we place all the documentary evidence concerning christianity on a very large table and sift it into two categories called the canonical and the non-canonical and place the canonical writings alongside the histories and other abominations of Eusebius at one end of the table, and gather all the other stuff, called the non canonical writings or the new testamental apochryphal writings at he other end of the table.

If we can explain

It depends what you mean by 'explain'. If you think that anything that anybody dreams up and puts forward as an explanation is sufficient on the basis of no more than assertion, then I disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

all this literature, who wrote it and when and why,

I note that you have included 'why' as a necessary part of the explanation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

then we have explained christian origins in toto.

No. Christianity is not identical with a set of documents. Explaining the origin of the documents is not necessarily identical with explaining the origin of the religion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

My explanation is that:

(1) The canonical side of the table was fabricated by Constantine and Eusebius 312 to 324 CE, and that,

(2) The non-canonical side of the table was authored largely by Arius of Alexandria (lets say at least the "Leutian Acts" and the NHC 6.1 and the Gospel of Nicodemus for a start) between the years 324 and 336 CE in polemical opposition to (1).

And that's it.

Then, apart from my other objections, you have failed to meet even your own standards, since none of that says why.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The entire new testament corpus of literature (history + canon + non-canon + ) written between 312 and 336 CE containing the entirety of christian origins. Constantine and Eusebius authored the canon, Arius of Alexandria was the focus of political opposition against Constantinianism, authored (much of) the apochrypha.

But the name of Arius was buried. His songs were buried. The pen name was given to the author of the Leutian Acts by the authodox so as to bury the name of Arius from sight. What were the songs of Arius? We dont know. Nothing survives with the name of Arius on it (that we can be sure of ---- especially letters asserted to be his by Eusebius et al). The new testament apochryphal literature was written by a great greek academic author who knew how to tell a story about the canon characters while at the same time making fun of them. We have yet to find any agreement that it represents satire.

The apochryphal literature was sought out by the authodox. But why was it so sought out? Have a look at at carefully? What reason could there be to seek out the Acts of Pilate for example?

All sorts. Pure curiosity. A desire to find new information. A desire to suppress information incompatible with the official line. See, I've just given three clear statements of possibility. You can't manage even one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

EUSEBIUS: Ummm... Excuse me boss.

CONNIE: Speak scribe.

EUSEBIUS: Arius has written another Act, boss.

CONNIE: "I'll kill that stinking little ascetic grub of a priest!"
WTF is he doing this to me for? What's wrong with the canon?
Put it on the list with the rest.
Standard procedure.
What's it called scribe?

EUSEBIUS: The Acts of Pilate, boss.

CONNIE: WTF!!!!! The Roman Governor!
This is sacrilegious. Does he mention the healing snake god?
I hate that creepy snake god and all his temples.
How many left in the empire?
Not many left standing now is there scribe?
When will they learn they are dealing with me?

EUSEBIUS: He mentions Jesus heals by Asclepius, boss.

CONNIE: The bastard f***king little satirist.
I'll find him soon. I have my best troops scouring Syria.
And when I find him he will be sorry to have done this.

Hope someone gets the drift.

Best wishes,

Pete

Sure, I get the drift. I got the drift long ago. You love your little fantasies. Good luck to you. But, as I have pointed out to you on a number of earlier occasions, you're not fooling anybody.

J-D · 11-13-2008, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I posit that both are them are, in fact, Jeffrey Gibson. <evil grin>

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Dear Roger (and Jeffrey),

The evil grin is appropriate since because of all the books which Leucius authored the christians of certainly the fifth, and quite possibly the fourth century, gave this author the explicit name of the disciple of the devil. Quite obviously he must have authored something quite spectacular to deserve such fame. What is spectacular about the Acts of Thomas for example? Why do the apostles cast lots for the nation? Why is Thomas a slave to Jesus? Why does he refuse to go to India? Why does he defer to the rigorous truth and ascetic practices of the Indian Hindus? Why is Thomas sold as a slave in the market? Why does Jesus get an official bill-of-sale? Constantine (ie: the canon) is being trolled.

The signature of satire of an ascetic greek academic of Alexandria remains to be identified.

Best wishes,

Pete

Differing, and sometimes incompatible, versions of the same story are a recurring phenomenon in history as in literature. They don't equate to satire.

mountainman · 11-14-2008, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

because of all the books which Leucius authored the christians of certainly the fifth, and quite possibly the fourth century, gave this author the explicit name of the disciple of the devil. Quite obviously he must have authored something quite spectacular to deserve such fame. What is spectacular about the Acts of Thomas for example? Why do the apostles cast lots for the nation? Why is Thomas a slave to Jesus? Why does he refuse to go to India? Why does he defer to the rigorous truth and ascetic practices of the Indian Hindus? Why is Thomas sold as a slave in the market? Why does Jesus get an official bill-of-sale? Constantine (ie: the canon) is being trolled. The signature of satire of an ascetic greek academic of Alexandria remains to be identified.

Differing, and sometimes incompatible, versions of the same story are a recurring phenomenon in history as in literature. They don't equate to satire.

Glenn Davis on the Acts of John:

Quote:

The author of the Acts of John, said to be Leucius, a real or fictitious companion of the apostle John, narrates his miracles, sermons, and death. The sermons display unmistakable Docetic tendencies, especially in the description of Jesus and the immateriality of his body:

.... Sometimes when I meant to touch him [Jesus], I met with a material and solid body; but at other times when I felt him, his substance was immaterial and incorporeal, as if it did not exist at all ... And I often wished, as I walked with him, to see his footprint, whether it appeared on the ground (for I saw him as it were raised up from the earth), and I never saw it. (§ 93)

The author also relates that Jesus was constantly changing shape, appearing sometimes as a small boy, sometimes as a beautiful man; sometimes bald-headed with a long beard, sometimes as a youth with a pubescent beard (§ 87-89). The book includes a long hymn (§ 94-96), which no doubt was once used as a liturgical song (with response) in some Johannine communities. Before he goes to die, Jesus gathers his apostles in a circle, and, while holding one another's hands as they circle in a dance around him, he sings a hymn to the Father. The terminology of the hymn is closely related to that of the Johannine Gospel, especially its prologue. At the same time, the author gives the whole a Docetic cast. Besides presenting theologically-oriented teaching, the author knows how to spin strange and entertaining stories. There is for example, the lengthy account of the devout Drusiana and her ardent lover Callimachus in a sepulchre (§ 63-86), which was no doubt intended to provide Christians with an alternative to the widely-read libidinous story of the Ephesian widow and the guard at her late husband's tomb. For a lighter touch the author entertains his readers with the droll incident of the bedbugs (§ 60-61).

Did the Bedbugs make footprints? And how does one differentiate between a Docetic heretic and a heretic who believed that this Jesus was a fiction character? Does anyone have any ideas?

Best wishes,

Pete

J-D · 11-14-2008, 03:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Differing, and sometimes incompatible, versions of the same story are a recurring phenomenon in history as in literature. They don't equate to satire.

Glenn Davis on the Acts of John:

Quote:

The author of the Acts of John, said to be Leucius, a real or fictitious companion of the apostle John, narrates his miracles, sermons, and death. The sermons display unmistakable Docetic tendencies, especially in the description of Jesus and the immateriality of his body:

.... Sometimes when I meant to touch him [Jesus], I met with a material and solid body; but at other times when I felt him, his substance was immaterial and incorporeal, as if it did not exist at all ... And I often wished, as I walked with him, to see his footprint, whether it appeared on the ground (for I saw him as it were raised up from the earth), and I never saw it. (§ 93)

The author also relates that Jesus was constantly changing shape, appearing sometimes as a small boy, sometimes as a beautiful man; sometimes bald-headed with a long beard, sometimes as a youth with a pubescent beard (§ 87-89). The book includes a long hymn (§ 94-96), which no doubt was once used as a liturgical song (with response) in some Johannine communities. Before he goes to die, Jesus gathers his apostles in a circle, and, while holding one another's hands as they circle in a dance around him, he sings a hymn to the Father. The terminology of the hymn is closely related to that of the Johannine Gospel, especially its prologue. At the same time, the author gives the whole a Docetic cast. Besides presenting theologically-oriented teaching, the author knows how to spin strange and entertaining stories. There is for example, the lengthy account of the devout Drusiana and her ardent lover Callimachus in a sepulchre (§ 63-86), which was no doubt intended to provide Christians with an alternative to the widely-read libidinous story of the Ephesian widow and the guard at her late husband's tomb. For a lighter touch the author entertains his readers with the droll incident of the bedbugs (§ 60-61).

Did the Bedbugs make footprints?

Best wishes,

Pete

Don't play Socrates.

Huon · 11-14-2008, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

And how does one differentiate between a Docetic heretic and a heretic who believed that this Jesus was a fiction character? Does anyone have any ideas?

Best wishes,

Pete

Someone who believes that Jesus is a fiction character is not a heretic, technically speaking. He is outside christianity.

Docetic heretics were docetic christians, and they existed almost at the beginning of the Christian religion, and their beliefs (heretic from a catholic point of view) lasted during roughly one thousand years.

The idea that Jesus is (was) a fiction character is not older than the XVIIIth century, at least as an openly formulated idea.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.