stephan huller

the word heresy comes from the term designating a philosophical "sect". it has nothing to do with being a pagan

sotto voce

Anyone actually attracted to circumcision or kosher is far from being Christian. All through history, from the time that Pharisees who had joined the church promoted circumcision, some who have liked to call themselves Christians have attempted to promote 'Jewish' beliefs and practices. However, the principle of these Judaisers was to shift belief in the saving death of the Christ onto something, anything, else. This Judaising principle was applied to water baptism, to Mass attendance, auricular confession, fasting, many other 'virtuous' religious practices that were made a condition of salvation, and actually enforced on people in many cases. These practices were often made exclusive to particular cults. So, under the cult of Rome, salvation was possible only by going to an agent of the corrupt Roman imperium. By this means, not only was a christ or saviour totally excluded, external political force was placed in control, and the state became 'saviour' to millions of absurdly deluded people, deluded by totally immoral people who committed every sort of crime. This was a powerful means of mind control. Other sorts of Judaising followed Luther, and often resulted in egregious criminal activity, even into the Early Modern Period.

The Inquisitions were examples of the criminal behaviour of Constantinian criminals, to which every Catholic today gives tacit approval, wittingly or otherwise. That's the 'bottom line' meaning of heresy, in practice. It's not just theoretical 'issues'. Theology is closely related to praxis, and where there is antisocial practice, there is always heresy among those responsible, if there is religion involved at all.

Toto

Arians always and everywhere considered themselves to be Christians, and were treated by the orthodox as Christians who were in error. Pete has invented the unsupported idea that Arians were really pagan Greek philosophers. This is his crazy theory alone - no one agrees with him.

Like it's possible that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene by his uncle Joseph of Arimathea on a trip to Britain...

You spend too much time trying to construct hypothetical situations that have no basis in history. Why not actually read some book about the history of the time instead of wasting all this time in idle speculation?

Duvduv

Meaning that an ordinary gentile in the empire who wasn't a Christian would be exempt from all the prohibitions concerning interaction with Jews, merely by going around with a sign on his lapel saying "I don't believe in Jesus"?

Or could a person be considered a non-Christian EVEN if he believed in some kind of docetic or celestial Christ figure and still be exempt from these laws?

Was a Christian a card-carrying member of the Constantinian church? That's why I asked whether the regime would consider an Apollinarian, an Arian, a gnostic to be a Christian, because IF they did, that would certainly run counter to the idea of persecuting any group that never even belonged to the official church.
Conceivably a gnostic would not be considered a Christian because his movement never identified with the official church.

So the very idea of laws concerning Christians that early seems to be a nice way of reinforcing and pretending there was only ONE CHURCH for all, and that no competitors existed.

Toto

That would probably create other, more serious problems.

"Catholic" means universal. The idea behind a Catholic Church was that there was only one true church. Of course there were other groups - Marcians, Valentinians, etc., but they were labeled as heretics.

Otherwise, I don't get where you are going with this.

mountainman

What happened to the professed pagan believers of the Graeco-Roman God of medicine Asclepius? There can be no doubt that Asclepius had a large network of followers - professed believers.

What happened when the religious beliefs of the Roman Empire were suddenly and unexpectedly changed at Nicaea? When the official religion became Christianity, all of sudden anyone who subscribed to the old pagan religions found themselves in a very precarious situation.


You've had a few years to peruse Epiphanius. This heresiologist provides us with a list of heresies. Its clear that the pagans were deemed heretics.

Nicaea represents a case in which the above definition must be examined with care. The official religion was changed. The Nicaean Creed exhibits two sides of belief. The christian statement of belief, and the anathema statement that pronounced heresy upon the Arians.

Everyone ASSUMES this was an inter-christian squabble, but is this assumption justified? The victors of the struggle (the orthodox heresiologists) rewrote the history of the conflict. They painted their history in glorious christian colors, and covered over the conflicts with the pagans.



Stoics and Platonists were pagans and Epiphanius lists them as heretics.

mountainman

In the first place, Arians always and everywhere considered themselves to be the followers of the words of Arius of Alexandria. That is how they are defined so the question becomes who was this heretic Arius.

Constantine calls Arius a "Porphyrian" (Porphyry was pagan), exiled him, and pronounced "Damnatio memoriae"on hos books, his name and his political memory.

Rowan Williams writes that Arius appears to adopt the philosophy of Plotinus in arguing against the orthodox beliefs.


Arius was the focal point of the resistance against Consantine's Bible in Alexandria. The victors in the struggle have wrote their history of the conflict and have painted Arius a christian. I think they lied.

The idea that Arius and the Arians were in fact pagans explains where the pagans disappeared to ... they became heretics. It is entirely consistent with the misrepresentations of the heresiologists writing false information about other heretics, such as Mani and the Manichaeans.


The question is whether this idea is crazy enough to be right.

sotto voce

Equally, Arians were liars to call the imperial faction Christian. It's absurd to give these pitiful squabbles the dignity of serious philosophy or theology, or their surviving heritage. The fact is that the present Vatican is occupied by buffoons, as are Greek street corners when men in long beards and black frocks stand on them, trying to look important.

Like everyone else. You became a heretic, or you got on a ship to civilisation, or to a mountain fastness beyond the reach of the barbarity that called itself civilisation. If you stayed, you became persona non grata, and then you 'disappeared', no fuss, no trace, no questions. Persecution went underground, once Big Con had seen his 'vision'.

Everyone believed something about Jesus (except people far, far away, who must have been 'barbarians'). There was no option. Nobody believed what Jesus said was true. "Not bloody likely." So everyone called everyone else, who had a different opinion, heretics, which meant 'wayward', in effect. And they were all correct. You were alright as long as you were partly wrong. If you were completely right, you did not even get mentioned— not that you stayed around long enough to get mentioned.

Modern Catholicism is not so different. You can be Arian, agnostic, Buddhist, voodooist, Pentecostal, Calvinist, Hindu, anti-papist, anything you like, as a modern Catholic, as long as you don't agree with the NT. Plus ça change...

mountainman

But just a minute, we do not know this for sure. The writings of key so-called Arians (such as Arius of Alexandria and Eunomius of Cyzicus") were purposefully destroyed by order of the Christian Emperors. Practically all extant written material on Arianism was written by its heresiological opponents. Basically we do not really know for sure what the Arians were on about, unless we are willing to accept as true the accounts of their enemies, and I am not about to do that.



I am not really interested in the discussion of theology or philosophy in this forum, but rather the discussion of ancient history related to Christian origins. The entire Arian controversy, on the surface of things (i.e. according to the VENEER fabricated by the heresiologists, appears to be pitiful squabbles, but I seriously question that we have all the information.



Dont get me going on Pontifex Maximus and Pope Damasius ....







Perhaps later in the 4th century this was the case, but it was not so in the beginning. In the beginning of the Arian controversy, Arius was politically exiled. There was no choice. He was probably lucky to leave Nicaea intact.

The first heretic was decreed as such by the Emperor. It was a supreme imperial pronouncement. Arius (and a few others) had no choice in the matter. The rest of the Nicaean attendees then had to decide whether they agreed with the words of Arius, or the words of Constantine's council. The five sophisms of Arius are appended to the earliest Nicaean Creed Oath

The key question is what did Arius believe about Jesus.

Here are his words, which are just about all that we have for certain from him. What do these tell us about that something about Jesus which Arius believed?

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.

Doctors of Christian Theology are taught that Arius is comparing Jesus to the Jewish God of the Hebrew Bible, and highlighting the differences. What do you think Arius is doing with these five sophisms sv?

sotto voce

Of course they called the imperial faction Christian. If they had anything whatever to do with them that was not antagonistic, they recognised the hilarious imperial claim to speak for the accursed Galilean chippy. With straight faces, of course. They probably didn't have the nerve to tell Constantine and his bully 'bishops' that they fulfilled the prophecy of 2 Peter 2:1-3. They probably didn't add that, while God sent a powerful lie, he wasn't above sending a damn silly one.

The British Labour Party was founded just over a century ago. Do we have to wait another two centuries to discuss its origins?

Discussion of the history of Christian origins entails doing theology. Constantinianism isn't even slightly serious. It's farcical, it's unintelligent, unfit for academic study. It's the tale of self-important charlatans, strutting and fretting on a stage, protected by brute force. The only thought worth serious attention is that which arises when thought is free. Free thought is rational, is respectable, is worth attention.

So those who want to discuss the history of Christianity must stop reading at the end of Acts, and start again in the 13th century, and go warily about it. That's the reality, not the wishful thinking.