Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 06-07-2013, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

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?

It should be noted that this fragment of Philip of Side is recently translated and published (by Roger's program of getting stuff out into the public domain) and that therefore is may not yet have been subject to any academic assessment. I certainly know of no treatment of it to date.

Momigliano mentions this history of Philip of Side decades earlier in the following:

"Eusebius' History of the Church ideally reflected the moment in which the Church had emerged victorious under Constantine - a separate body within the Roman Empire. With all his gifts Eusebius could not shape his historiography in such a way as to envisage situations in which it would be impossible to separate what belonged to Caesar from what belonged to Christ." .........

There was a very real duality in Eusebius' notion of ecclesiastical history: "on the one hand ecclesiastical history was the history of the Christian nation now emerging as the ruling class of the Roman Empire. On the other hand it was the history of a divine institution not contaminated by political problems." .........

"How to deal with this divine institution's very earthly relations with other institutions in terms of power, violence and even territorial claims? .........

"How would the continuators of Eusebius deal with the politics of the emperors, the plotical intrigues of the bishops?" .........

"If we had the Christian History which the priest Philip of Side wrote about 430, we would know more about the significance of the predominance of the Eusebian model. It is evident that Philip of Side tried to go his own way and to avoid imitating Eusebius..."

(p.141/142) The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography, Arnaldo Momigliano, (1961-62)

If Momigliano thinks that Philip of Side tried to go his own way and to avoid imitating Eusebius then one of the issues that Philip of Side appears to have identified is the presence of a large number of philosophers at the Council of Nicaea.

This seems diametrically opposed to the Eusebian statement that the Council of Nicaea hosted a whole stack of Christian Bishops.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 06-07-2013, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

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.

While it is true that these and other (very very few) sources are listed under the name of Arius we cannot be uncritical of the claim that some of these were forged by the orthodoxy.

Letters written by Arius claiming to subscribe to the Nicaean orthodoxy must be expected to be forgeries.

Quote:

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.

But the duplication of the identity of Origen is just one of three (or four) when the duplications of the identities of Ammonius, Anatolius (and indeed Porphyry who supposedly also wrote Christian literature).

Quote:

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.

The conjecture is based on a pattern of similar facts, not just the duplicate Origen instance. Please address the duplication of all these Platonist identities (1. Ammonius, 2. Origen, 3. Anatolius, 4. Porphyry).

Quote:

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.

And yet Constantine's opinion was not followed. The holders of Arius's opinion were not henceforth known as "Porphyrians" but as "Arians".

Quote:

The purpose of forcibly converting Arius to paganism is transparently a part of mountainman's hobby horse...

Rowan Williams spends a great deal of time searching for any precedents in the beliefs expressed by Arius and finally concludes ....

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 [63] 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. [64]

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."

I do not see that Kannengiesser is forcing anything here.

His analysis is also consistent with Arius being a follower of Plotinus, just as Porphyry was a follower of Plotinus.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Jeffrey Gibson · 06-07-2013, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

This seems diametrically opposed to the Eusebian statement that the Council of Nicaea hosted a whole stack of Christian Bishops.

If and only if the word translated as philosophers was not also something the orthodox bishops were know to be.

Give us the word, Pete.

Jeffrey

mountainman · 06-07-2013, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

This seems diametrically opposed to the Eusebian statement that the Council of Nicaea hosted a whole stack of Christian Bishops.

If and only if the word translated as philosophers was not also something the orthodox bishops were know to be.

"One kind of account in pagan historiography Pagan historiography could help Eusebius considerably. That was the history of philosophical schools - such as we find in Diogenes Laertius. The idea of succession was equally important in philosophical schools and and in Eusebius' notion of Christianity. The bishops were the diadochoi of the Apostles, just as the scholarchai were the diadochoi of Plato, Zeno, and Epicurus. Like any philosophical school, Christianity had its orthodoxy and its deviationists. Historians of philosophy in Greece used antiquarian methods and quoted documents much more frequently and thoroughly than their colleagues, the political historians. To both Eusebius and Diogenes Laertius - Direct original evidence was essential to establish the rightful claims of orthodoxy against external persecutors and internal dissidents. Here again we can be certain that Jewish influences were not without importance for Eusebius. The idea of scholarly succession is fundamental to rabbinic thought, which had developed in its turn under the impact of Greek theory."

[Arnaldo Momigliano: Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century A.D. ]

Jeffrey do you really think that there is any similarity between the schools of Greek philosophers (such as the Platonists) and the HERESIOLOGICAL schools of Christian bishops asserted to have existed by Eusebius?

I don't.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

spin · 06-07-2013, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

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.

While it is true that these and other (very very few) sources are listed under the name of Arius we cannot be uncritical of the claim that some of these were forged by the orthodoxy.

You can naturally suspect anything that doesn't support your conjecture, but the first example was cited because it comes from exactly the same source as you used, so that you could not complain about it without making a total farce of your use of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Letters written by Arius claiming to subscribe to the Nicaean orthodoxy must be expected to be forgeries.

What the fuck has that got to do with anything. You mustn't have read the cited letter if you come out with the idea of Arius being made to subscribe to Nicaean orthodoxy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

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.

But the duplication of the identity of Origen is just one of three (or four) when the duplications of the identities of Ammonius, Anatolius (and indeed Porphyry who supposedly also wrote Christian literature).

You are shaping the data in order to try to fit up your conjecture about Arius. Ammonius was little known and a teacher of Origen, so people made mistakes.

The elephant in the room here, the one you will not look at, making your contortions all the more entertaining, is that Arius is a heretic. Ammonius was assumed by some to have been a christian because of his connection with Origen. Origen was simply a christian, whose name was the same as someone Porphyry knew. Then of course there was a christian Porphyry, whose life didn't overlap chronologically with the pagan at all. Do you really want to argue they were derived from the same person? What you must end up claiming is that everyone from antiquity must have had a unique name otherwise we must suspect that those who didn't were really the same person.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

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.

The conjecture is based on a pattern of similar facts, not just the duplicate Origen instance. Please address the duplication of all these Platonist identities (1. Ammonius, 2. Origen, 3. Anatolius, 4. Porphyry).

This stuff is so uninspiring its a wonder that your needed to even use your cerebellum on it.

1. Ammonius - already explained, only one.
2. Origen - already explained, two (co-existent)
3. Anatolius, there was a whole bunch, not that it was a particularly uncommon name.
4. Porphyry - already explained, two (not co-existent)

Happy? There is nothing there but your sad attempt to explain away Arius as not being christian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

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.

And yet Constantine's opinion was not followed. The holders of Arius's opinion were not henceforth known as "Porphyrians" but as "Arians".

So?

Constantive was being rhetorical. Live with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

The purpose of forcibly converting Arius to paganism is transparently a part of mountainman's hobby horse...

Rowan Williams spends a great deal of time searching for any precedents in the beliefs expressed by Arius and finally concludes ....

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 [63] 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. [64]

(Tell me, would that be Origen the pagan?

)

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

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."

I do not see that Kannengiesser is forcing anything here.

His analysis is also consistent with Arius being a follower of Plotinus, just as Porphyry was a follower of Plotinus.

You post is also consistent with a poke in the eye with a sharp stick

Jeffrey Gibson · 06-07-2013, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

This seems diametrically opposed to the Eusebian statement that the Council of Nicaea hosted a whole stack of Christian Bishops.

If and only if the word translated as philosophers was not also something the orthodox bishops were know to be.

"One kind of account in pagan historiography Pagan historiography could help Eusebius considerably. That was the history of philosophical schools - such as we find in Diogenes Laertius. The idea of succession was equally important in philosophical schools and and in Eusebius' notion of Christianity. The bishops were the diadochoi of the Apostles, just as the scholarchai were the diadochoi of Plato, Zeno, and Epicurus. Like any philosophical school, Christianity had its orthodoxy and its deviationists. Historians of philosophy in Greece used antiquarian methods and quoted documents much more frequently and thoroughly than their colleagues, the political historians. To both Eusebius and Diogenes Laertius - Direct original evidence was essential to establish the rightful claims of orthodoxy against external persecutors and internal dissidents. Here again we can be certain that Jewish influences were not without importance for Eusebius. The idea of scholarly succession is fundamental to rabbinic thought, which had developed in its turn under the impact of Greek theory."

[Arnaldo Momigliano: Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century A.D. ]

Jeffrey do you really think that there is any similarity between the schools of Greek philosophers (such as the Platonists) and the HERESIOLOGICAL schools of Christian bishops asserted to have existed by Eusebius?

I don't.

Let's stick with the question at hand, shall we?

What's the Greek word used by Philip of Side that's translated as "philosophers" in the text you ? Was this word never used of any christian teacher?

You don't know, do you, Pete?

Jeffrey

mountainman · 06-07-2013, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

While it is true that these and other (very very few) sources are listed under the name of Arius we cannot be uncritical of the claim that some of these were forged by the orthodoxy.

You can naturally suspect anything that doesn't support your conjecture, but the first example was cited because it comes from exactly the same source as you used, so that you could not complain about it without making a total farce of your use of it.

I have not yet made any complaints about the source, but I will, just to be sure you are on the same wavelength. The wavelength is political. The source itself is farcical in the sense that it is overly orthodox. Did you see my claim:

Also see Fr. 5.7 - [The Arian Philosopher and the Simple Old Man] - this appears to be a homily. It is a legendary version of Nicaea, where the holy spirit triumphs again.

The conjectured source Philip of Side gives himself away in Fr.5.7, betraying an extremely superficial legend of the Nicaean Victory Process, where the philosophers were vanquished by the holy spirit in the simple old man. Please read this and provide a sentence summary. The way I see it is that this simple old man could have been one of Constantine's centurions, but the very orthodox Philip of Side does not see behind his own holy spirit at Nicaea legend.

Philip of Side's political inclinations are revealed in his polemic against Julian.

So I am not citing these sources to have these orthodox heresiological lying scumbags prove any point. The source was cited because it provides a window inside the twisted heads of people like Philip of Side who, despite his rank and file support of the very military minded holy spirit, occasionally mentions new evidence about Arius of Alexandria.

Quote:

The elephant in the room here, the one you will not look at, making your contortions all the more entertaining, is that Arius is a heretic.

Arius was not just any heretic. He was the most thoroughly demonised heretic in the entire history of Christian religion.

You spin appear to be arguing for those who are satisfied with the report filed by the Victorious Heresiologists on Arius. I am not satisfied with the report of the 4th and 5th century authoritarian following authors, that Arius was "One of Our Boys".

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 06-07-2013, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

What's the Greek word used by Philip of Side that's translated as "philosophers" in the text you ? Was this word never used of any christian teacher?

You don't know, do you, Pete?

I can hardly wait for the news Jeffrey, if indeed it is your intention to furnish it.

You must know by now that I read this text in English.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 06-07-2013, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Ammonius was assumed by some to have been a christian because of his connection with Origen. Origen was simply a christian, whose name was the same as someone Porphyry knew. Then of course there was a christian Porphyry, whose life didn't overlap chronologically with the pagan at all. Do you really want to argue they were derived from the same person? What you must end up claiming is that everyone from antiquity must have had a unique name otherwise we must suspect that those who didn't were really the same person.

That is not my argument at all.

You have not read my argument for Porphyry.

In the 4th century a Christian version of "Philosophy from Oracles" attributed to Porphyry, was accepted by Eusebius and appealed to by apologists like Theodoret. The fact that Augustine was one of the first to reject it, and that Dr Nathaniel Lardner rejected the attribution in the 18th century, does not influence the fact that Eusebius accepted the attribution.

My point is that the Christians forged additional books in the name of Porphyry. These perpetrators simply fabricated additional works in his name which, by openly denouncing the Christian religion, allowed Constantine an excuse to burn the authentic books of Porphyry. Eunapius, in regard to these later books of Porphyry, comments:

At any rate [Porphyry] left behind him many speculations that conflict
with the books that he had previously published; with regard to which
we can only suppose that he changed his opinions as he grew older."

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 06-07-2013, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

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."

I do not see that Kannengiesser is forcing anything here.

His analysis is also consistent with Arius being a follower of Plotinus, just as Porphyry was a follower of Plotinus.

You post is also consistent with a poke in the eye with a sharp stick

Epiphanius classified Platonists as heretics.

Who got the poke in the eye with a sharp stick?

Sopater?

Do textual critics engage in political history?

We do not have a political history of the 4th century spin.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.