mountainman

The Nicene Oath is a bunch of words with a disclaimer and
twenty-two sub-clauses in the fine print. The Nicene Oath
was personally taken around to the attendees, whom were
summoned by Constantine, by Constantine's legal notaries,
led by Philumenus, the "master of offices".

The attendees had essentially two choices. Either agree
with Arius, or agree with “the boss”. What were they to do?
In any event, the signatures of all attendees were thus
given under military duress.. Eusebius tells us that
the attendees walked through (Bullneck's) "Wall of Swords".

The ruling group were the Nicene "Fathers".
These people were referred to as "the fathers of the church"
until the time of Cyril, almost a century later, at which time
Cyril changed the term "fathers of the church" to refer
to the "Pre-Nicene Authors" introduced by Eusebius.

It was an imperially sponsored top-down hegemon.



According to Constantine's intelligence,
Arius was a "Porphyrian".
Enough said.


See my comments regarding the role played in this affair
of the history of the invention of christianity by the
Alexandrian Bishop, Terrorist Boss and Hit Man, and
leading "Christologist" and christian Author, Cyril.

By the time the fifth century arrived the books of Julian
had been burnt (along with all the libraries in the empire)
and all that was left on this matter, were the words of
Cyril.


Says Arius, on the ahistoricity of 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.

Toto

We keep trying to tell you that this relates to the question of whether Jesus was pre-existant or was born at a specific time.

"Before he was born he was not" means that he had a birthdate, and that he did not exist at the beginning of the creation of the universe.

It has nothing to do with ahistoricity. Can you at least address that? Is there any other person on earth with any credentials who agrees with your reading?

J-D

Blather blather blather.Which people? Who are these people you're talking about? Names?'Were'. 'Was'. They cannot constitute a hegemon now, being dead.No, not nearly enough said.What are you saying? That the doctrines of the Arian churches of the fifth and sixth centuries, regarded as heretical by the Orthodox/Nicene church, were nevertheless an invention of that self-same Orthodox/Nicene church, and that although they were known as Arian they in fact had nothing to do with the actual views of Arius? Do you have any evidence for this extraordinary view?Yes, I know.

Are you aware of the interpretation placed on those words by everybody except you? Can you state it for the record?

mountainman

Toto, the Arian controversy raged for almost a century.
You might like to accept the mainstream interpretation.
I select otherwise. The mainstream interpretation fails
to consistently explain the controversy in a simple manner.
It fails to address these words of Arius -- preserved in
the Nicaean Oath.

More importantly, mainstream has failed to address the
issue that Constantine spoke of Arius as "that Porphyrian",
and that these words of Arius were a focal point at the
time Christianity was --- for want of a better word ---
"legalised" and made the state religion (TD Barnes).

These words have hitherto been interpretted in a theological
context and with respect to Eusebian Eccesiastical History,
the whole purpose of which was to set the stage for the
Council of Nicaea.

I am simply interpretting these words in a social and political
context --- not theological. It is clear to me that they may
be interpretted in such a context, supporting the claim
that Arius was saying Jesus was fictional in a round about
manner, seeing that Arius did not want to loose his head
in the Council, to Constantine's expert swordsmanship.



So the traditional and authoritative theological
position maintains. Perhaps this position needs to be
expanded?


I have prepared a page listing at least ten other
Theories of the History Christianity involving Fraud & Fiction.

The closest author on that list, to express content similar
to my above comments on this thread about the words of
Arius, would be Dr. R. W. Bernard's Apollonius of Tyana the
Nazarene (1964), where he writes about ...

So at least Bernard seems to follow my argument.
Or vice verse, depending on your POV.


Best wishes,



Pete Brown

Toto

MM: You can find people who claim that Christianity was based on fiction. I am asking for just one person who thinks that Arius' words can be interpreted as you do - to say that the Jesus character was "created" as opposed to Jesus being born in history, rather than pre-existent.

If you are going to argue your case, you have to first be sure of the building blocks that you use. I think this particular block is not what you think.

Jeffrey Gibson

Let's please note that what Arius was asserting was something about the nature of Logos/Son through whom he believed and asserted the kosmos was created. It has nothing to do with the human being Jesus of Nazareth (whom Arius believed lived in Palestine in the first century CE).

More importantly, when he asserted that there was a time when the Logos/Son was not, he is most definitely not speaking about the origins of the Christian religion, let alone some event in human history. His focus is on pre-cosmic history. He was asserting that there was a time before the coming into being (notably through the agency of the Logos/Son) of the world that the Logos/Son didn't exist. His claim is in response to the orthodox assertion that the Logos/Son through whom, as he himself acknowledged, the world was created existed from all eternity.

A little contact with the Greek text of Arius would make this clear.

Jeffrey Gibson

mountainman

Toto: As far as I can determine I am the first person
to attempt an explanation of the rise of Christianity
in the fourth century based on its "invention" by the
Roman Emperor Constantine. Implicit in this is the
political resistance and opposition to the implementation
of a new religion of Constantine's by Arius. After all,
Arius was called "a Porphyrian" and his writings were
burnt. It was a political act this, nothing theological
about the burning of books.

The basic building block is Constantine.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary,
my thesis is that he invented Christianity.

I have a right to interpret the words of Arius in
a non-theological context in the first instance
simply because I am looking at this from the
perspective of ancient history, and political
events and conditions are paramount.

Note the sources I am using are as follows:

Ecclesiastical Histories (extracts)

Philostorgius - on the "Council" of Nicaea
Rufinius of Aqueila - on the "Council" of Nicaea
Socrates Scholasticus - on the "Council" of Nicaea
Hermias Sozomen - on the "Council" of Nicaea, and
Theodoret of Cyrus - on the "Council" of Nicaea.
Life of Blessed Emperor Constantine: - the "Council" of Nicaea by Eusebius Pamphilus of Ceasarea

Further, and finally, it is my contention that the
words of Arius are only faithfully preserved in
one place --- namely in the "Oath of Nicaea",
and nowhere else.

We know Arius had his books burnt, that he was
expelled (a number of times) from "Councils"
and that he was ignominiously poisoned in the
lifetime of Constantine. We also know that only
"Eccesiastical Historians" survive from the rule
of Constantine --- we have no "Non-Church"
historians writings' surviving. Ammianus' books
for example on Constantine are lost, etc, etc.

Interpretation of the words of Arius as they are
preserved in this "Nicene Oath to Constantine"
in such a political context is simply being wholly
consistent with my thesis.

Arius opposed Constantine's agenda.

I agree that I appear to be the first person
to have interpretted the words of Arius in
this non-theological and historio-political
sense.

But this does not necessarily make this novel
interpretation erroneous, because it is different.

The thesis appears to be Ancient Historical Revisionism.

As Historical revisionism has both a legitimate academic use and a pejorative meaning my detractors will be arguing my thesis is about the latter, but I will be arguing is about the former legitimate use.

Here is an extract:


Best wishes


Pete Brown

J-D

Indeed. YDWYDWP.I do not find any inconsistency in the mainstream interpretation. You don't like it. That's all.No it doesn't.