stephan huller

Rabbinic Judaism says the same thing about the messiah. It says that the Torah was among the first things created by God. It has any number of beliefs that outsiders might view as fantastic. Yet to claim from this that religious Jews believe their traditions are myths is laughable. Learn to think better and to stop projecting your beliefs on to the things you pretend to study. Arius believed in the things passed on to him by the Alexandrian tradition of St. Mark. He did not view them as myths or fictions. He would have argued no less than Origen or Dionysius that they were real historical events witnessed by real historical people. The question of the identity of Jesus or his nature would have no bearing on their unshakable belief in the sanctity and historical accuracy of their tradition.

mountainman

I think you should reconsider your hasty assessment on this specific issue in Athanasius "Against the Arians". Athanasius is here citing Arius of Alexandria's heresey against Jesus, which represents the classic example of why Athanasius considers Arius to be the "AntiChrist".

It seems reasonably clear that Arius of Alexandria did not care one little bit for the majesty of the historical Jesus, and reduced his passion to arrive second, behind the passion of Helios, who really ruled the Graeco-Roman world, as he does in today's scientific assessments of the terrestrial ecosystems.

It also makes it clear why Eusebius writes that:

“… the sacred matters of inspired teaching
were exposed to the most shameful ridicule
in the very theaters of the unbelievers.”

[Eusebius, “Life of Constantine”, Ch. LXI,
How Controversies originated at Alexandria
through Matters relating to Arius.]

This opinion that Athanasius is citing Arius, and that here Arius copied a letter of Marcus concerning the "Passion of Julius Caesar" is not mine. It occurs elsewhere, for example see this SAMPLE SOURCE ARTICLE


also see the thread entitled Did the sun turn away from Jesus and recalling his rays make that day sunless?

PS: Emperor Julian apparently describes Athanasius as follows:

"Not even a man, but a common little fellow"

----- [Ep. 51]

mountainman

Because I think it provides the best explanation for all the evidence.


It was a scattered milieu of cults and religions. There was no cohesion between these many religions and cults, unless it was the collegiate assemblies which used to serve the "Pontifex Maximus". Constantine wanted a unified central State religious cult, with everyone following the same book. The technology of the codex had just arrived, and Constantine capitalized on it.


Yes he could have followed the rest of his predecessor Roman Emperors but he didn't. Instead he actively participated in a "new and strange" revolution. The evidence tells us he ran with the "Fifty Constantine Codices". Where did he get the New Testament from if not Eusebius?

Chili

Maybe so, but real humans in history are illusions and the son of God is real.

The answer here is that our humanity is a condition of being that pertains to a being (Aristotle's Cathegories) while the son of God is equal to son of man and thus Man when fully mature = after ascension. Still mythical here and no historical Jesus needed but just his form as a thing of the past.

Chili

Moses was an imposter which you can already tell by his transfiguration.

Transient

Actually it was the transfiguration that was the imposter whilst Moses was the already that was still to come before the Moses that once was. :huh:

stephan huller

Where does this come from? Who could possibly agree with this? Why should anyone accept this? Why would anyone think this? This is crazy. This is not a supportable position.

You cited a section of Athanasius's attack against Arius pretending that it represented a citation of Arius's original work which was supposed to prove that Arius believed in the Gospel of Caesar or some other such nonsense that constantly spews from your fingertips. When I demonstrate that you cite material incorrectly from Athanasius, this suddenly seems like a minor affair - not even worth acknowledging. Instead you send me to some idiotic blog of someone who happens to espouse the same nonsense that you do.

At some point you are going to have to admit that you constantly put the cart before the horse. You have an argument which you want evidence from the fourth century to support WHICH IT DOES NOT. Show me one proof from the writings of Athanasius that supports this claim:

aa5874

What absurdity!!!

Do you expect people who believe in Gods to claim their Gods are myths?

Are you for real?

ALL God believers claim their God exist and perhaps is the ONLY God and ONLY TRUE GOD.

It is people who do NOT believe that there are Jewish Gods, Muslim Gods, Christian Gods and all manner of Gods who consider Gods as MYTHS.

The Gods that people BELIEVE in today are no less MYTHOLOGICAL than Apollo, Zeus, Jupiter and Marcion's phantom.

You think human beings will always believe in the same Gods?

Check your history. Soon people are not going to even bother with the God Jesus. He will become OBSOLETE.

stephan huller

Again, AA - if you want to say that it is a myth, that's fine just don't project your assumptions on to Arius. Arius certainly did not think the Passion or Jesus for that matter were myths.

aa5874

Where are you from?

I NEVER expect Arius to claim his Gods are myths. God believers do not claim their Gods are myths.

When people believed in ZEUS, and Apollo they MUST HAVE believed they did exist.

Now, we consider all Gods as MYTHS.

Are you from the 1st century or what?

You must know that people used to pray to the STONES for God's guidance.