Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 04-21-2010, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...
I wonder what Constantine meant by that?

...

Constantine meant that he did not like Arius. Why do some Protestants say that Roman Catholics are not real Christians, practically pagans? Why do evangelicals call mainline Protestants virtual atheists? Why do some American Republicans call others RINOs [Republicans in Name Only?]

Are you that clueless about polemical rhetoric?

mountainman · 04-21-2010, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...
Arius "fully and insatiably used base fame".

I wonder what Constantine meant by that?

...

Constantine meant that he did not like Arius. Why do some Protestants say that Roman Catholics are not real Christians, practically pagans? Why do evangelicals call mainline Protestants virtual atheists? Why do some American Republicans call others RINOs [Republicans in Name Only?]

Are you that clueless about polemical rhetoric?

I include satire as a tool within polemical rhetoric.
And I think Political and Religious parties use satire.

I find it reasonable to suggest that the description "Arius fully and insatiably used base fame" is another indication that Arius was an extremely effective satirist who opposed Constantine's initiatives.

J-D · 04-21-2010, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Constantine meant that he did not like Arius. Why do some Protestants say that Roman Catholics are not real Christians, practically pagans? Why do evangelicals call mainline Protestants virtual atheists? Why do some American Republicans call others RINOs [Republicans in Name Only?]

Are you that clueless about polemical rhetoric?

I include satire as a tool within polemical rhetoric.
And I think Political and Religious parties use satire.

I find it reasonable to suggest that the description "Arius fully and insatiably used base fame" is another indication that Arius was an extremely effective satirist who opposed Constantine's initiatives.

Well, you got that half right. Constantine's statement that 'Arius fully and insatiably used base fame' is an indication that Arius opposed Constantine's initiatives. But nobody doubts that. That is not a point in dispute.

mountainman · 04-21-2010, 07:57 PM

In his work "Arius: Heresy and Tradition" Rowan Williams cites a description of Arius taken from Epiphanius and associates the description of the clothing worn by Arius with a description by Philo of the clothing worn by the contemplative "Therapeutae".

(NB: These "therapeutae" may have been called "Essenes" in the city of Ephesus in Greece - See PAUSANIAS 8. 13.1)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROWAN_WILLIAMS

Epiphanius' portrait [27] of Arius:

"He was very tall in stature [28], with downcast countenance [29],
counterfeited like a guileful serpent, and well able to deceive
any unsuspecting heart through its cleverly designed appearance.
For he was always garbed in a short cloak (hemiphorion) and sleeveless
tunic (kolobion); he spoke gently, and people found him persuasive
and flattering."

The sleeveless tunic is reminiscent of the "exomis" worn by both the
philosophers and ascetics: Philo [30] mentions that the contemplative
Therapeutae of his day were dressed thus. Arius' costume would have
identified him easily as a teacher of the way of salvation - a guru,
we might almost say... Epiphanius also notes [31] that he had the care
of seventy women living a life of ascetic seclusion, presumably attached
to his church.

[27] Haer 69.3, 154.12-16
[28] Or possibly "advanced in years".
[29] Or possibly "with a stooping figure"
[30] Vita Cont. 38
[31] Haer 69.3.154.17ff

ARIUS: Heresy & Tradition
Rowan Williams
Revised Edition (2002)

Arius before Arianism
p.32

Further Comments

nb: these are not from Rowan Williams

The term "Therapeutae" is also to be strongly associated to the The Therapeutae of Asclepius.

As we all know, the major temples of Asclepius were suddenly destroyed c.324 CE and all the priests and temple servants (ie: the therapeutae) were essentially made redundant since the use of the temples was prohibited and enforced by the army.

The ancient "Universal Church" which was Greek had been put out of business, and a New "Universal Church" was about to be contructed in the empire. Was Arius simply one of the non christian collegiate of "therapeutae" and the last voice of the ancient Greek resistance?

J-D · 04-21-2010, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

In his work "Arius: Heresy and Tradition" Rowan Williams cites a description of Arius taken from Epiphanius and associates the description of the clothing worn by Arius with a description by Philo of the clothing worn by the contemplative "Therapeutae".

(NB: These "therapeutae" may have been called "Essenes" in the city of Ephesus in Greece - See PAUSANIAS 8. 13.1)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROWAN_WILLIAMS

Epiphanius' portrait [27] of Arius:

"He was very tall in stature [28], with downcast countenance [29],
counterfeited like a guileful serpent, and well able to deceive
any unsuspecting heart through its cleverly designed appearance.
For he was always garbed in a short cloak (hemiphorion) and sleeveless
tunic (kolobion); he spoke gently, and people found him persuasive
and flattering."

The sleeveless tunic is reminiscent of the "exomis" worn by both the
philosophers and ascetics: Philo [30] mentions that the contemplative
Therapeutae of his day were dressed thus. Arius' costume would have
identified him easily as a teacher of the way of salvation - a guru,
we might almost say... Epiphanius also notes [31] that he had the care
of seventy women living a life of ascetic seclusion, presumably attached
to his church.

[27] Haer 69.3, 154.12-16
[28] Or possibly "advanced in years".
[29] Or possibly "with a stooping figure"
[30] Vita Cont. 38
[31] Haer 69.3.154.17ff

ARIUS: Heresy & Tradition
Rowan Williams
Revised Edition (2002)

Arius before Arianism
p.32

Further Comments

nb: these are not from Rowan Williams

The term "Therapeutae" is also to be strongly associated to the The Therapeutae of Asclepius.

As we all know, the major temples of Asclepius were suddenly destroyed c.324 CE and all the priests and temple servants (ie: the therapeutae) were essentially made redundant since the use of the temples was prohibited and enforced by the army.

The ancient "Universal Church" which was Greek had been put out of business, and a New "Universal Church" was about to be contructed in the empire. Was Arius simply one of the non christian collegiate of "therapeutae" and the last voice of the ancient Greek resistance?

No.

mountainman · 04-21-2010, 10:58 PM

The following extract is taken from ARIUS: Heresy & Tradition (or via: amazon.co.uk), Rowan Williams
Revised Edition (2002). Ten pages are spent trying to find any precedents in
the works of earlier authors by which to explain the beliefs expressed by Arius
and none are found. Williams then cites Kannengiesser who states:

"Arius' entire effort consisted precisely in acclimatizing
Plotinic logic within biblical creationism."

Quote:

INTELLECT and BEYOND
p.209

".... It should be fairly clear by now that these views were unusual
in the church of his day, if not completely without precedent of some
sort in Origen. Kannengeisser suggests that we should look directly
at the fifth Ennead [of Plotinus] for the background to Arius's ideas,
and for the heresiarch's 'break with Origen and his peculiarity with
respect to all the masters of Middle-Platonism with whom he has been
compared.

For Kannengiesser .... only the radical disjunction between first and
second principles for which Plotinus argues can fully account for Arius'
novel teaching in this area.

"Arius' entire effort consisted precisely in acclimatizing
Plotinic logic within biblical creationism."

If Arius was a follower of the intellectual ideas of Plotinus this would
explain exactly why Constantine called Arius a "Porphyrian".

J-D · 04-22-2010, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The following extract is taken from ARIUS: Heresy & Tradition (or via: amazon.co.uk), Rowan Williams
Revised Edition (2002). Ten pages are spent trying to find any precedents in
the works of earlier authors by which to explain the beliefs expressed by Arius
and none are found. Williams then cites Kannengiesser who states:

"Arius' entire effort consisted precisely in acclimatizing
Plotinic logic within biblical creationism."

Quote:

INTELLECT and BEYOND
p.209

".... It should be fairly clear by now that these views were unusual
in the church of his day, if not completely without precedent of some
sort in Origen. Kannengeisser suggests that we should look directly
at the fifth Ennead [of Plotinus] for the background to Arius's ideas,
and for the heresiarch's 'break with Origen and his peculiarity with
respect to all the masters of Middle-Platonism with whom he has been
compared.

For Kannengiesser .... only the radical disjunction between first and
second principles for which Plotinus argues can fully account for Arius'
novel teaching in this area.

"Arius' entire effort consisted precisely in acclimatizing
Plotinic logic within biblical creationism."

If Arius was a follower of the intellectual ideas of Plotinus this would
explain exactly why Constantine called Arius a "Porphyrian".

Constantine had no reason to give a fair account of Arius and no interest in doing so, and that would explain why Constantine called Arius a 'Porphyrian'. Why you want to agree with Constantine's insults is more puzzling.

And if Arius was an intellectual follower of Plotinus, that is no reason to think he was not a Christian. If it's true that Arius was trying to accommodate both Plotinus and the Bible, his interest in accommodating the Bible fits logically with his being a Christian.

mountainman · 04-23-2010, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The following extract is taken from ARIUS: Heresy & Tradition (or via: amazon.co.uk), Rowan Williams
Revised Edition (2002). Ten pages are spent trying to find any precedents in
the works of earlier authors by which to explain the beliefs expressed by Arius
and none are found. Williams then cites Kannengiesser who states:

"Arius' entire effort consisted precisely in acclimatizing
Plotinic logic within biblical creationism."

If Arius was a follower of the intellectual ideas of Plotinus this would
explain exactly why Constantine called Arius a "Porphyrian".

Constantine had no reason to give a fair account of Arius and no interest in doing so, and that would explain why Constantine called Arius a 'Porphyrian'. Why you want to agree with Constantine's insults is more puzzling.

Porphry was a pagan. Are you suggesting Constantine
insulted Arius by calling him a "Porphyrian", when it is
widely acknowledged that Porphyry was the greatest
academic of his age?

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

Porphyry of Tyre

(Ancient Greek: Πορφύριος, A.D. 234–c. 305) was a Neoplatonic philosopher who was born in Tyre.[1] He edited and published the Enneads, the only collection of the work of his teacher Plotinus. He also wrote many works himself on a wide variety of topics.[2] His Isagoge, or Introduction, is an introduction to logic and philosophy,[3] and in Latin translation it was the standard textbook on logic throughout the Middle Ages.[4] In addition, through several of his works, most notably Philosophy from Oracles and Against the Christians, he was involved in a controversy with a number of early Christians,[5] and his commentary on Euclid's Elements was used as a source by Pappus of Alexandria.[6]

Quote:

And if Arius was an intellectual follower of Plotinus, that is no reason to think he was not a Christian.

Are you about to suggest that Plotinus was a Christian? Isn't it patently obvious that everyone sees (or categorises) Plotinus and Porphyry as pagans?

Quote:

If it's true that Arius was trying to accommodate both Plotinus and the Bible, his interest in accommodating the Bible fits logically with his being a Christian.

Arius's interest in accommodating the logic of Plotinus within biblical creationism fits more logically with his being a Pagan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROWAN_WILLIAMS

Epiphanius' portrait [27] of Arius:

"He was very tall in stature [28], with downcast countenance [29],
counterfeited like a guileful serpent, and well able to deceive
any unsuspecting heart through its cleverly designed appearance.
For he was always garbed in a short cloak (hemiphorion) and sleeveless
tunic (kolobion); he spoke gently, and people found him persuasive
and flattering."

The sleeveless tunic is reminiscent of the "exomis" worn by both the
philosophers and ascetics: Philo [30] mentions that the contemplative
Therapeutae of his day were dressed thus. Arius' costume would have
identified him easily as a teacher of the way of salvation - a guru,
we might almost say... Epiphanius also notes [31] that he had the care
of seventy women living a life of ascetic seclusion, presumably attached
to his church.

Do we have any Christians having "the care of seventy women" before Arius?

It is more reasonable from a logical basis to explore the possibility that Arius
of Alexandria was perhaps associated with the Pagan Therapeutae,
in service to Asclepius and other Graeco-Roman temple "divinities".
Who was Lithargoel [NHC 6.1] if he was not the Historical Jesus?

Toto · 04-23-2010, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...
Arius's interest in accommodating the logic of Plotinus within biblical creationism fits more logically with his being a Pagan.

No it doesn't. Christians admired some pagan philosophers. No pagan philosophers admired biblical creationism.

Quote:

....
Do we have any Christians having "the care of seventy women" before Arius?

We read in Acts 6 that early Christians took care of widows. We don't know how early, or exactly how historical this is, but it seems evident that the idea of taking care of widows and orphans was associated with Christianity.

Quote:

It is more reasonable from a logical basis to explore the possibility that Arius of Alexandria was perhaps associated with the Pagan Therapeutae, in service to Asclepius and other Graeco-Roman temple "divinities".

No. There is no logical connection.

Quote:

Who was Lithargoel [NHC 6.1] if he was not the Historical Jesus?

Why does this matter?

darstec · 04-23-2010, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...
Arius's interest in accommodating the logic of Plotinus within biblical creationism fits more logically with his being a Pagan.

No it doesn't. Christians admired some pagan philosophers. No pagan philosophers admired biblical creationism.

We read in Acts 6 that early Christians took care of widows. We don't know how early, or exactly how historical this is, but it seems evident that the idea of taking care of widows and orphans was associated with Christianity.

That could be a Jewish thing.

Quote:

Isaiah 10:1-2 -- Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed; to turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless.

In Job chapter 22 the evils which caused misfortune are innumerated and we find among them:

Quote:

Thou hast sent widows away empty, and the arms of the fatherless have been broken

Apparently the OT indicates not taking care of widows is not a good thing.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.