FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-06-2013, 05:39 PM   #41
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
the heresy, the exile and the "damnatio memoriae" of Arius of Alexandria, a non christian theologian/philosopher associated with the Alexandrian academy of Plato c.324 CE. (6,7)
Associated with the what??

See Ammonius Saccas

Quote:
Ammonius Saccas (3rd century AD) (Ancient Greek: Ἀμμώνιος Σακκᾶς) was a Greek philosopher from Alexandria who was often referred to as one of the founders of Neoplatonism. He is mainly known as the teacher of Plotinus, whom he taught for eleven years from 232 to 243. He was undoubtably the biggest influence on Plotinus in his development of Neoplatonism, although little is known about his own philosophical views.

Later Christian writers stated that Ammonius was a Christian, but it is now generally assumed that there was a different Ammonius of Alexandria who wrote biblical texts.

Elsewhere we find that there are two Origens and two Anatolii in the 3rd century.

Do you think there has been a mistake made somewhere?




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia
mountainman is offline  
Old 06-06-2013, 05:49 PM   #42
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
..

All this is more than interesting.

Please allow me to point out the obvious. Constantine is actually quoting Arius in part of the blue highlit text.
I don't think so. It appears that he is framing Arius' argument so that he can refute it.
The point being the argument presented is from Arius himself. This is very important to understand.

We do not have much of what Arius thought because the Nicaean Christians burnt everything they could find and the imperial "damnatio memoriae" was quite effective.


Quote:
Quote:
The full quote runs like this. I have taken the liberty of splitting it into bits...
He [ARIUS of Alexandria] says:

“Away! I do not wish God to appear to be subject to suffering of outrages,

and on this account I suggest and fabricate wondrous things indeed in respect to faith:
The first bit “Away! I do not wish God to appear to be subject to suffering of outrages ..." seems to me to be an indirect reference to the Canonical Story of the Jesus/God figure. In the canon (i.e. in the Bible widely published and supported by Bullneck) the Jesus/God figure gets a raw deal in the crucifixion. Arius does not like this story. He does not wish his concept of God to be the subject of suffering and outrages.

...[trimmed]...

Have you actually made a point here? I can't find it.
The point is that if we look at what Constantine says here (about the argument of Arius) we find that Arius wrote (fabricated) stuff because he did not wish God to appear to be subject to suffering of outrages - such as the fantastic crucifixion story tale.

The point is that Arius did not like the canonical story where god/jesus gets shafted by the Romans and/or Jews.

Therefore on account of this dislike, Arius wrote and fabricated his own stories.

The motivation of Arius to write is the point being explored.


εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia
mountainman is offline  
Old 06-06-2013, 06:12 PM   #43
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
the heresy, the exile and the "damnatio memoriae" of Arius of Alexandria, a non christian theologian/philosopher associated with the Alexandrian academy of Plato c.324 CE. (6,7)
Associated with the what??

See Ammonius Saccas

Quote:
Ammonius Saccas (3rd century AD) (Ancient Greek: Ἀμμώνιος Σακκᾶς) was a Greek philosopher from Alexandria who was often referred to as one of the founders of Neoplatonism. He is mainly known as the teacher of Plotinus, whom he taught for eleven years from 232 to 243. He was undoubtably the biggest influence on Plotinus in his development of Neoplatonism, although little is known about his own philosophical views.

Later Christian writers stated that Ammonius was a Christian, but it is now generally assumed that there was a different Ammonius of Alexandria who wrote biblical texts.
εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

But you said Platonic school. Are you asserting that Neoplatonsim was essentially the same thing as Platonism -- and that what was taught at Alexandria by, say, Sosipatra and Hypatia, was essentially the same thing that was taught at Plato's Academy in Athens?

Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 06-06-2013, 06:41 PM   #44
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
The first bit “Away! I do not wish God to appear to be subject to suffering of outrages ..." seems to me to be an indirect reference to the Canonical Story of the Jesus/God figure. In the canon (i.e. in the Bible widely published and supported by Bullneck) the Jesus/God figure gets a raw deal in the crucifixion. Arius does not like this story. He does not wish his concept of God to be the subject of suffering and outrages.
Could you do two things for me, please?

(1) tell me what words in the Greek text of this passage stand behind the expression "to be subject to [the] suffering of outrages" and whether the word translated here as "suffering" is a noun or a verb, and whether there is the Greek equivalent of "and" between the Greek words for "suffering" and "outrages" as you seem to think there is when you say that Arius "does not wish his concept of God to be the subject of suffering and outrages"?

(2) show me on the basis of the language and the syntax of the Greek text of this passage me how Arius refers to the crucifixion and how Constantine acknowledges this and/or points it out when he goes on, as he does, to list what Arius does to avoid seeing God subjected to outrages?

With thanks in advance.

Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 06-06-2013, 07:01 PM   #45
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
the heresy, the exile and the "damnatio memoriae" of Arius of Alexandria, a non christian theologian/philosopher associated with the Alexandrian academy of Plato c.324 CE. (6,7)
Associated with the what??

See Ammonius Saccas

Quote:
Ammonius Saccas (3rd century AD) (Ancient Greek: Ἀμμώνιος Σακκᾶς) was a Greek philosopher from Alexandria who was often referred to as one of the founders of Neoplatonism. He is mainly known as the teacher of Plotinus, whom he taught for eleven years from 232 to 243. He was undoubtably the biggest influence on Plotinus in his development of Neoplatonism, although little is known about his own philosophical views.

Later Christian writers stated that Ammonius was a Christian, but it is now generally assumed that there was a different Ammonius of Alexandria who wrote biblical texts.
εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

But you said Platonic school. Are you asserting that Neoplatonsim was essentially the same thing as Platonism -- and that what was taught at Alexandria by, say, Sosipatra and Hypatia, was essentially the same thing that was taught at Plato's Academy in Athens?

Jeffrey
The opening two sentences of my essay from the wayback machine

Quote:
The later 3rd and 4th century CE Platonists who are to be examined here would not have referred to themselves as Neoplatonists. It is generally now agreed that they perceived themselves to the true followers, consistently following a great and well respected historical lineage, sourced with Plato's original teachings.

It remains an historical fact that where the Roman Emperor Gallienus publically praised Plotinus, the Roman Emperor Constantine publically executed Sopater.


There was an incumbent lineage of philosophers at Nicaea and the Platonists were well represented following the books of Porphyry.

Constantine burnt Porphyry.




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia
mountainman is offline  
Old 06-06-2013, 07:23 PM   #46
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Philip of Side (fragment)

Suggests the presence of a large number of philosophers at the Council of Nicaea, who were associates of Arius.

Also see Fr. 5.7 - [The Arian Philosopher and the Simple Old Man] - this appears to be a homily.



Quote:

Fr. 5.6
[Supporters of Arius at the Council of Nicaea]


Anonymous Ecclesiastical History 2.12.8-10 [p. 47, lines 5-19 Hansen][160]

(8) When these things were expressed by them—or rather, through them, by the Holy Spirit—those who endorsed Arius' impiety were wearing themselves out with murmuring (these were the circles of Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea, whom I have already pointed out earlier), and yet they were looking with favor on the "hirelings" of Arius, certain philosophers who were indeed very good with words; Arius had hired them as supporters of his own wickedness, and arrived with them at that holy and ecumenical council.

(9) For there were present very many philosophers;
and having put their hopes in them, as I have said just now, the enemies of the truth were reasonably caught, along with the one who actually taught them their blasphemy. The Holy Scripture was fulfilled in him and in them, which says, "Cursed is everyone who has his hope in a mortal man, and whose heart has departed from the Lord."[161]

(10) For truly, the blasphemous heart of the fighter against God, Arius, and of those who shared in his impiety, departed from the Lord—they dared to say that the Son of God, the creator of the universe and the craftsman of both visible and invisible created natures, is something created and something made.

Arius and MANY PHILOSOPHERS were bravely saying that .... "Jesus is something created and something made"?



The seemingly idiotic claim that Arius was not a Christian theologian but a philosophical theologian seems supported in the above.

Please discuss.

And while you're at it explain to me why you think Constantine called Arius a "Porphyrian".






Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
Quote:
FFS the argument is in the essay you snipped.
I have seen these arguments go round and round. If there is any real content to this idiotic claim then surely you can set it out here in a few paragraphs.



εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia
mountainman is offline  
Old 06-06-2013, 09:08 PM   #47
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
..

Arius and MANY PHILOSOPHERS were bravely saying that .... "Jesus is something created and something made"?

The seemingly idiotic claim that Arius was not a Christian theologian but a philosophical theologian seems supported in the above.

Please discuss.

...
No, that quote does not support the idea that Arius was a pagan and not a Christian. Where did pagan philosophers discuss the substance of Jesus, which was a uniquely Christian concept?

We know what pagans thought about Jesus - that he was a failed prophet executed by Pilate who died and stayed dead. Only Christians debated whether Jesus was of the same essence as their god or had been created by god at the beginning of the world.

I'm getting tired of this. You've got nothing in your hand. There are other more important issues.
Toto is offline  
Old 06-07-2013, 02:19 AM   #48
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Where did pagan philosophers discuss the substance of Jesus, which was a uniquely Christian concept?
According to the source I have provided (Philip of Side) it is reasonable to assume the possibility that the philosophers discussed the Holy Writ of the Pagan Roman Empire at Nicaea.

These philosophers are clearly opposed to the Bishops.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr. 5.7

[The Arian Philosopher and the Simple Old Man]


Anonymous Ecclesiastical History 2.13 [p. 47, line 20 - p. 50, line 5 Hansen][162]

2.13

(1) A certain one of the hirelings of Arius, a philosopher, who was marveled at much more than all the others, contended much, indeed very much, on Arius' behalf with our bishops for very many days, with the result that there was a great lecture every day arising from their verbal encounters: the crowd of those who were gathering would rush together, and the philosopher would put forward the impious blasphemies of Arius against what was said by the holy council, saying about the Son that "there was a time when he was not," and that "he is a created being, made from nothing, and from a different substance[163] and existence[164] [than the Father]."

(2) On behalf of these abominable doctrines of Arius, he had a great struggle, and [sent forth] his "showers" of arguments, as he raved against the Son of God and attacked the chorus of those holy priests[165]--the enemy of human salvation was speaking in him and through him.

There are two parties being described.
The victorious bishops and the abominable philosophers.

Are you going to argue that these philosophers were Christians?


Quote:
We know what pagans thought about Jesus - that he was a failed prophet executed by Pilate who died and stayed dead.
What source are you using to do this "knowing"?

Celsus via Origen via Eusebius?

The question here is specific about the time. Nicaea 325 CE.


Quote:
Only Christians debated whether Jesus was of the same essence as their god or had been created by god at the beginning of the world.

I think this is a false assumption on mainstream's part. Why would the pagans not be interested in such questions following and at Nicaea?

Also there is the "lovely bath" reference supplied by Clivedurdle.

The Philip of Side fragments suggest otherwise, unless you are prepared to argue that the philosophers so described in the two fragments referenced above were Christian philosophers. Is this your argument?

My argument is that these fragments suggest non Christians were vocal at Nicaea.






εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia
mountainman is offline  
Old 06-07-2013, 05:07 AM   #49
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Philip of Side (fragment)

Suggests the presence of a large number of philosophers at the Council of Nicaea, who were associates of Arius.

Also see Fr. 5.7 - [The Arian Philosopher and the Simple Old Man] - this appears to be a homily.



Quote:

Fr. 5.6
[Supporters of Arius at the Council of Nicaea]


Anonymous Ecclesiastical History 2.12.8-10 [p. 47, lines 5-19 Hansen][160]

(8) When these things were expressed by them—or rather, through them, by the Holy Spirit—those who endorsed Arius' impiety were wearing themselves out with murmuring (these were the circles of Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea, whom I have already pointed out earlier), and yet they were looking with favor on the "hirelings" of Arius, certain philosophers who were indeed very good with words; Arius had hired them as supporters of his own wickedness, and arrived with them at that holy and ecumenical council.

(9) For there were present very many philosophers;
and having put their hopes in them, as I have said just now, the enemies of the truth were reasonably caught, along with the one who actually taught them their blasphemy. The Holy Scripture was fulfilled in him and in them, which says, "Cursed is everyone who has his hope in a mortal man, and whose heart has departed from the Lord."[161]
What Greek words stands behind "philosophers"? Is it never used of any pre-nicean apologists or of any within the orthodox party?

Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 06-07-2013, 05:30 AM   #50
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

From the same source quoted by mountainman...
Fr. 5.4
[Succession of Bishops in Alexandria—and Arius]

Anonymous Ecclesiastical History 2.1.13f. [p. 23, line 28 - p. 24, line 9 Hansen]

2.1

(12) So, when the Church of Christ our Savior throughout the world was enjoying deep peace, this [peace] having been obtained for it by God, the universal King, through his servant Constantine and his children, (13) after the death of the divine Peter, bishop of the Alexandrian Church, who had been made perfect by the very act of martyrdom and had bound his brow with the incorruptible crown of the contest, the Church there was bereft [of a leader] for one year. And after this year, the throne of that same holy martyr Peter was allotted to Achillas, (14) a man who was strong, noble, holy-minded, and pre-eminent with very great piety and wisdom, as the ancient unerring writings describe; he, after frequent urging, received Arius and made him a deacon. (15) But after this man [i.e., Achillas] had lived on only five months, the authority of high-priest[136] over the Church of Alexandria was received by Alexander, a man who was honored in every respect by both the clergy and laity of the church; small in stature, generous, well-spoken, capable, loving God, loving his fellow man, loving the poor, good and gentle to all as much as anyone ever has been. He himself too installed Arius into a position—that of presbyter, nearest to himself…
Dealing with the church of Christ the Savior the text tells us that Arius was made a deacon, a church officer, and later a presbyter of the church of Alexandria under Alexander. He was obviously considered to be of the same faith before the split occurred.

Arius below accepts "God and His Christ". He makes clear that he does not accept the notion that the son is unbegotten. He states that only god is unbegotten and so the son has a beginning. This means that the son was made like all created life.
Arius' Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia
c 319 CE
(from Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, I, IV. LPNF, ser. 2, vol. 3, 41.

To his very dear lord, the man of God, the faithful and orthodox Eusebius, Arius, unjustly persecuted by Alexander the Pope, on account of that all conquering truth of which you also are a champion, sendeth greeting in the Lord.

Ammonius, my father, being about to depart for Nicomedia, I considered myself bound to salute you by him, and withal to inform that natural affection which you bear towards the brethern for the sake of God and His Christ, that the bishop greatly wastes and persecutes us, and leaves no stone unturned against us. He has driven us out of the city as atheists, because we do not concur in what he publicly preaches, namely, God always, the Son always; as the Father so the Son; the Son co-exists unbegotten with the God; He is everlasting; neither by thought nor by any interval does God precede the Son; always God, always Son; he is begotten of the unbegotten; the Son is of God Himself. Eusebius, your brother bishop of Caesarea, Theodotus, Paulinus, Athanasius, Gregorius, Aetius, and all the bishops of the East, have been condemned because they say that God had an existence prior to that of his Son; except Philogonius, Hellanicus, and Macarius, who are unlearned men, and who have embraced heretical opinions. Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that He is a production, others the He is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe, and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten; and that He does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by His own will and counsel He has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, ot established, He was not. For He was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning. This is the cause of our persecution, and likewise, because we say that He is of the non-existent. And this we say, because He is neither part of God, nor of any essential being. For this are we persecuted; the rest you know. I bid thee farewell in the Lord, remembering our afflictions, my fellow-Lucianist, and true Eusebius.
Here among other things Arius claims to have had the same mentor, Lucian of Antioch, as bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia. Arius plainly considers himself as having beliefs similar to Eusebius of Nicomedia, ie a christian.

-----

As to the pagan and christian parallels mountainman has lined up, it is understandable that Ammonius Saccas, being the teacher of Origen might have been considered a christian by those who knew little of the man, for he taught the great Origen.

As to two Origens, in fact there were:
At this point it is desirable to say something about the pagan Origen (the Christian Origen is treated at length elsewhere in this History). He is mentioned three times in Porphyry's Life in terms which should make it clear to the discerning reader that he was a different person from his Christian namesake, of whom Porphyry so heartily disapproved and that Plotinus and the scholarly Platonist Longinus regarded him with considerable respect. He is also mentioned a number of times by Proclus, and occasionally by other later writers.
(from A.H. Armstrong, The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy, 2007 (1967), p.198)

None of this is any help in identifying Arius as a non-christian Neo-Platonist. Such a conjecture is so far a pure fantasy springing not from any evidence, but from the head of mountainman, just another argument by assertion that doesn't add any support to his main thesis, but merely calls for more evidence.

Supporting failed assertions with other failed assertions seems to be the modus operandi here. There is no reason to believe that Arius was a non-christian, especially when every source that we find including those presented by mountainman and what was written by Arius himself clearly show him within the circle of christian believers, even if seen as a heretic.

There is no logic to tarting Arius up as a non-christian other than because mountainman has to explain Arius somehow. There is no benefit in turning a non-christian into a christian heretic.

Why should Constantine call Arius a "Porphyrian"? You already know the answer for it was explained:
Porphyry wrote wicked and unlawful writings against the religion of Christians, found the reward which befitted him, that he might be a reproach to all generations after, because he fully and insatiably used base fame; so that on this account his writings were righteously destroyed; thus also now it seems good that Arius and the holders of his opinion should all be called Porphyrians
The material Arius wrote is deemed wicked and unlawful, against the religion, as did Porphyry. Arius should become a reproach for all, as should Porphyry. His works should be destroyed as with Porphyry's. As the opinion of Arius and his followers are against the religion that opinion should be regarded like that of Porphyry. The text itself clearly states its own logic.

The purpose of forcibly converting Arius to paganism is transparently a part of mountainman's hobby horse, as is the nonsense about satire. It gives mountainman something to do. He pours this shit onto the forum without regard for the effect it has and his persistently insinuation of the Eusebius conspiracy theory lurking behind it.

:tombstone: . :tombstone: . :tombstone:

. . :tombstone: . :tombstone:

:tombstone: . :tombstone: . :tombstone:
spin is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:58 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.