Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
06-06-2013, 05:39 PM | #41 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
|
Quote:
See Ammonius Saccas Quote:
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 |
||
06-06-2013, 05:49 PM | #42 | |||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
|
Quote:
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:
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 |
|||
06-06-2013, 06:12 PM | #43 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
|
Quote:
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 |
|||
06-06-2013, 06:41 PM | #44 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
|
Quote:
(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 |
|
06-06-2013, 07:01 PM | #45 | |||||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
|
Quote:
Quote:
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 |
|||||
06-06-2013, 07:23 PM | #46 | |||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
|
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:
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:
εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia |
|||
06-06-2013, 09:08 PM | #47 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Quote:
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. |
|
06-07-2013, 02:19 AM | #48 | ||||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
|
Quote:
These philosophers are clearly opposed to the Bishops. Quote:
There are two parties being described. The victorious bishops and the abominable philosophers. Are you going to argue that these philosophers were Christians? Quote:
Celsus via Origen via Eusebius? The question here is specific about the time. Nicaea 325 CE. Quote:
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 |
||||
06-07-2013, 05:07 AM | #49 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
|
Quote:
Jeffrey |
||
06-07-2013, 05:30 AM | #50 |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
|
From the same source quoted by mountainman...
Fr. 5.4Dealing 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 NicomediaHere 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 PorphyriansThe 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: |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|