Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jeffrey Gibson · 06-03-2013, 05:43 AM

Pete has constantly claimed that of those who study the primary evidence regarding the Constantine and Arius, he is among the few who read and present this century evidence soberly and without bias.

But is this really the case? Does he skew or misrepresent what he reads? Let's see by examining one of Pete's readings/presentations.

Previously and recently, Pete has explicitly claimed that in a letter from Constantine found in sections 24-31 in Athanasius' Defense of the Nicene Definition 40, where Constantine speaks of certain false theological ideas that Arius was promoting Arius, Constantine noted the following things about Arius -- namely, that

He accepted Jesus as a figment
He called Jesus foreign
He demoted Jesus
He dared to circumscribe Jesus
He detracted from Jesus who is indetractable
He questioned the presence of Jesus
He questioned the activity of Jesus
He questioned the all-pervading law of Jesus
He thought that there was a place outside of Jesus
He thought that there something else outside of Jesus
He denied the infiniteness of Jesus
He detracted from the belief in immortality of Jesus.

But is this what Constantine actually does? Lets look at this text to see.

Here's the Greek of this section of Athanasius' work and a translation of it:

Quote:

ὦ τῶν πάντων ἔχων τὸ κῦρος [40.26.2]δέσποτα, ὦ τῆς μονήρους δυνάμεως πάτερ, διὰ τουτονὶ τὸν ἀνόσιον ὀνείδη τε καὶ μώλωπας καὶ μέντοι καὶ τραύματα καὶ ὀδύνας ἡ σὴ ἔχει ἐκκλησία. Ἄρειός σοι τόπον ἤδη προς αρμόζει καὶ μάλα γε εὐφυῶς, ἐφ' οὗ καθιζάνων οἶμαι σύνοδον ἑαυτῷ ἢ παῖδα τὸν Χριστὸν [40.26.5] τὸν σὸν τὸν ἐκ σοῦ τὸν τῆς ἡμετέρας ἐπικουρίας ἀρχηγέτην θέσεως νόμῳ περιπεποίηται καὶ ἴσχει. ἐπάκουσον, ἀντιβολῶ σε, τῆς θαυμασίας πίστεως. σὲ τὴν κατὰ τὸν τόπον κινεῖσθαι, δέσποτα, κίνησιν οἴεται. σὲ τῆς ἀφωρισμένης καθέδρας κύκλῳ περιγράφειν τολμᾷ. ποῦ γὰρ οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ σὴ παρουσία; ἢ ποῦ τὴν σὴν οὐ πάντες ἐνέργειαν ἐκ τῶνἐπὶ πάντα σου διηκόντων νόμων αἰσθάνονται; πάντα γὰρ αὐτὸς περιέχεις, καὶ ἔξω σου [40.27.5]οὔτε τόπον οὔτε ἄλλο οὐδὲν ἐπινοεῖσθαι θέμις. οὕτως ἡ σὴ δύναμις μετ' ἐνεργείας ἐστὶν [40.28.1] ἄπειρος. σὺ μὲν δὴ ἐπάκουσον, ὁ θεός, ὑμεῖς δέ, πᾶς ὁ λαός, προσέχετε τὸν νοῦν. ὁ ἄπειρος. σὺ μὲν δὴ ἐπάκουσον, ὁ θεός, ὑμεῖς δέ, πᾶς ὁ λαός, προσέχετε τὸν νοῦν. ὁγὰρ ἀναίσχυντος οὗτος καὶ ἀχρεῖος, ὁ ἐπ' ἄκρον μοχθηρίας τε καὶ ἀνομίας ὁμοίως ἐληλακὼς [40.29.1] εὐλάβειαν σκήπτεται.εἶτα, ὦ λυμεὼν καὶ ὀλέθριε, σοὶ τοῦτ' ἔστι πίστις;

Quote:

O Lord, you who have the supreme authority over all things, O Father of singular power, because of this profane person your Church receives both reproaches and griefs and also both wounds and pains. Arius now adapts for you a place (and very cleverly indeed), in which, constituting – as I think – a synod for himself, by the law of adoption he procures and preserves your Son Christ, born from you, the bringer of our aid. (27.) Hear, I entreat you, this marvelous faith. He thinks that you, Lord, the principle of motion, are demoted from your place. He dares to circumscribe you by a circle of a defined seat. For where is not your presence? Or where do all persons not perceive your activity from your all-pervading laws? For you yourself encompass all things and it is not right to think of either a place or anything else outside you. Thus your power with activity is infinite.

Do you, God, then hear; do you, all the people, pay attention. For this fellow is shameless and useless, who, having progressed to the height both of wickedness and likewise of lawlessness, pretends piety. (29.) He 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: that God, when he had made the newly born and the newly created essence of Christ, prepared aid for himself, as it seems indeed to me. For what you have taken from him, this you have made less.” Is this, then, your faith, spoiler and destroyer? (30.) According to hypothesis do you accept as a figment him who has condemned the figments of the heathen? Do you call foreign and – as it were – a servant of duties him who without reflection and reasoning, in that he coexists with the Father’s eternity, perfected all things? Now adapt, if indeed you dare, adapt I say, to God both precaution and hope of what will happen, also reflection, reasoning, declaration and articulation of considered judgment, and, in short, delight, laughter, grief. (31.) What then, do you say, one more wretched than the wretched, oh, truly an adviser of evil? Understand, if you can, that in your very knavery you are destroyed as a villain. [http://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-34/]

As can easily be seen, the name, let alone any reference to, "Jesus" appears nowhere in this section of Constantine's letter.

More importantly, though,<edit>, is the fact that in stark and absolute contradiction to what Pete has asserted, Constantine is claiming that the one who is diminished, detracted, questioned, etc. by Arius is God the Father, not Jesus.

So when we place Pete's claim against the text he is making claims about, what do we find? Isn't it that Pete has misrepresented what this text actually says?

So -- to return to the question I raised above (i.e., does Pete read and present the primary evidence he uses to support his claims about Constantine and Arius soberly and without bias?), what is the answer?

Seems to me that it's pretty inescapable -- at least with respect to this Constantinian text.

He does not.

<edit>

Jeffrey

aa5874 · 06-03-2013, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Pete has constantly claimed that of those who study the primary evidence regarding the Constantine and Arius, he is among the few who read and present this century evidence soberly and without bias.

But is this really the case? Does he skew or misrepresent what he reads? Let's see by examining one of Pete's readings/presentations.

Previously and recently, Pete has explicitly claimed that in a letter from Constantine found in sections 24-31 in Athanasius' Defense of the Nicene Definition 40, where Constantine speaks of certain false theological ideas that Arius was promoting Arius, Constantine noted the following things about Arius -- namely, that

He accepted Jesus as a figment
He called Jesus foreign
He demoted Jesus
He dared to circumscribe Jesus
He detracted from Jesus who is indetractable
He questioned the presence of Jesus
He questioned the activity of Jesus
He questioned the all-pervading law of Jesus
He thought that there was a place outside of Jesus
He thought that there something else outside of Jesus
He denied the infiniteness of Jesus
He detracted from the belief in immortality of Jesus.

But is this what Constantine actually does? Lets look at this text to see.

Here's the Greek of this section of Athanasius' work and a translation of it:

Quote:

ὦ τῶν πάντων ἔχων τὸ κῦρος [40.26.2]δέσποτα, ὦ τῆς μονήρους δυνάμεως πάτερ, διὰ τουτονὶ τὸν ἀνόσιον ὀνείδη τε καὶ μώλωπας καὶ μέντοι καὶ τραύματα καὶ ὀδύνας ἡ σὴ ἔχει ἐκκλησία. Ἄρειός σοι τόπον ἤδη προς αρμόζει καὶ μάλα γε εὐφυῶς, ἐφ' οὗ καθιζάνων οἶμαι σύνοδον ἑαυτῷ ἢ παῖδα τὸν Χριστὸν [40.26.5] τὸν σὸν τὸν ἐκ σοῦ τὸν τῆς ἡμετέρας ἐπικουρίας ἀρχηγέτην θέσεως νόμῳ περιπεποίηται καὶ ἴσχει. ἐπάκουσον, ἀντιβολῶ σε, τῆς θαυμασίας πίστεως. σὲ τὴν κατὰ τὸν τόπον κινεῖσθαι, δέσποτα, κίνησιν οἴεται. σὲ τῆς ἀφωρισμένης καθέδρας κύκλῳ περιγράφειν τολμᾷ. ποῦ γὰρ οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ σὴ παρουσία; ἢ ποῦ τὴν σὴν οὐ πάντες ἐνέργειαν ἐκ τῶνἐπὶ πάντα σου διηκόντων νόμων αἰσθάνονται; πάντα γὰρ αὐτὸς περιέχεις, καὶ ἔξω σου [40.27.5]οὔτε τόπον οὔτε ἄλλο οὐδὲν ἐπινοεῖσθαι θέμις. οὕτως ἡ σὴ δύναμις μετ' ἐνεργείας ἐστὶν [40.28.1] ἄπειρος. σὺ μὲν δὴ ἐπάκουσον, ὁ θεός, ὑμεῖς δέ, πᾶς ὁ λαός, προσέχετε τὸν νοῦν. ὁ ἄπειρος. σὺ μὲν δὴ ἐπάκουσον, ὁ θεός, ὑμεῖς δέ, πᾶς ὁ λαός, προσέχετε τὸν νοῦν. ὁγὰρ ἀναίσχυντος οὗτος καὶ ἀχρεῖος, ὁ ἐπ' ἄκρον μοχθηρίας τε καὶ ἀνομίας ὁμοίως ἐληλακὼς [40.29.1] εὐλάβειαν σκήπτεται.εἶτα, ὦ λυμεὼν καὶ ὀλέθριε, σοὶ τοῦτ' ἔστι πίστις;

Quote:

O Lord, you who have the supreme authority over all things, O Father of singular power, because of this profane person your Church receives both reproaches and griefs and also both wounds and pains. Arius now adapts for you a place (and very cleverly indeed), in which, constituting – as I think – a synod for himself, by the law of adoption he procures and preserves your Son Christ, born from you, the bringer of our aid. (27.) Hear, I entreat you, this marvelous faith. He thinks that you, Lord, the principle of motion, are demoted from your place. He dares to circumscribe you by a circle of a defined seat. For where is not your presence? Or where do all persons not perceive your activity from your all-pervading laws? For you yourself encompass all things and it is not right to think of either a place or anything else outside you. Thus your power with activity is infinite.

Do you, God, then hear; do you, all the people, pay attention. For this fellow is shameless and useless, who, having progressed to the height both of wickedness and likewise of lawlessness, pretends piety. (29.) He 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: that God, when he had made the newly born and the newly created essence of Christ, prepared aid for himself, as it seems indeed to me. For what you have taken from him, this you have made less.” Is this, then, your faith, spoiler and destroyer? (30.) According to hypothesis do you accept as a figment him who has condemned the figments of the heathen? Do you call foreign and – as it were – a servant of duties him who without reflection and reasoning, in that he coexists with the Father’s eternity, perfected all things? Now adapt, if indeed you dare, adapt I say, to God both precaution and hope of what will happen, also reflection, reasoning, declaration and articulation of considered judgment, and, in short, delight, laughter, grief. (31.) What then, do you say, one more wretched than the wretched, oh, truly an adviser of evil? Understand, if you can, that in your very knavery you are destroyed as a villain. [http://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-34/]

As can easily be seen, the name, let alone any reference to, "Jesus" appears nowhere in this section of Constantine's letter.

Your claim is most blatantly erroneous and fallacious.

There is a reference to "Jesus" in the passsage you provided.

Quote:

....Arius now adapts for you a place (and very cleverly indeed), in which, constituting – as I think – a synod for himself, by the law of adoption he procures and preserves your Son Christ, born from you, the bringer of our aid...

Jeffrey Gibson · 06-03-2013, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Pete has constantly claimed that of those who study the primary evidence regarding the Constantine and Arius, he is among the few who read and present this century evidence soberly and without bias.

But is this really the case? Does he skew or misrepresent what he reads? Let's see by examining one of Pete's readings/presentations.

Previously and recently, Pete has explicitly claimed that in a letter from Constantine found in sections 24-31 in Athanasius' Defense of the Nicene Definition 40, where Constantine speaks of certain false theological ideas that Arius was promoting Arius, Constantine noted the following things about Arius -- namely, that

He accepted Jesus as a figment
He called Jesus foreign
He demoted Jesus
He dared to circumscribe Jesus
He detracted from Jesus who is indetractable
He questioned the presence of Jesus
He questioned the activity of Jesus
He questioned the all-pervading law of Jesus
He thought that there was a place outside of Jesus
He thought that there something else outside of Jesus
He denied the infiniteness of Jesus
He detracted from the belief in immortality of Jesus.

But is this what Constantine actually does? Lets look at this text to see.

Here's the Greek of this section of Athanasius' work and a translation of it:

Quote:

ὦ τῶν πάντων ἔχων τὸ κῦρος [40.26.2]δέσποτα, ὦ τῆς μονήρους δυνάμεως πάτερ, διὰ τουτονὶ τὸν ἀνόσιον ὀνείδη τε καὶ μώλωπας καὶ μέντοι καὶ τραύματα καὶ ὀδύνας ἡ σὴ ἔχει ἐκκλησία. Ἄρειός σοι τόπον ἤδη προς αρμόζει καὶ μάλα γε εὐφυῶς, ἐφ' οὗ καθιζάνων οἶμαι σύνοδον ἑαυτῷ ἢ παῖδα τὸν Χριστὸν [40.26.5] τὸν σὸν τὸν ἐκ σοῦ τὸν τῆς ἡμετέρας ἐπικουρίας ἀρχηγέτην θέσεως νόμῳ περιπεποίηται καὶ ἴσχει. ἐπάκουσον, ἀντιβολῶ σε, τῆς θαυμασίας πίστεως. σὲ τὴν κατὰ τὸν τόπον κινεῖσθαι, δέσποτα, κίνησιν οἴεται. σὲ τῆς ἀφωρισμένης καθέδρας κύκλῳ περιγράφειν τολμᾷ. ποῦ γὰρ οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ σὴ παρουσία; ἢ ποῦ τὴν σὴν οὐ πάντες ἐνέργειαν ἐκ τῶνἐπὶ πάντα σου διηκόντων νόμων αἰσθάνονται; πάντα γὰρ αὐτὸς περιέχεις, καὶ ἔξω σου [40.27.5]οὔτε τόπον οὔτε ἄλλο οὐδὲν ἐπινοεῖσθαι θέμις. οὕτως ἡ σὴ δύναμις μετ' ἐνεργείας ἐστὶν [40.28.1] ἄπειρος. σὺ μὲν δὴ ἐπάκουσον, ὁ θεός, ὑμεῖς δέ, πᾶς ὁ λαός, προσέχετε τὸν νοῦν. ὁ ἄπειρος. σὺ μὲν δὴ ἐπάκουσον, ὁ θεός, ὑμεῖς δέ, πᾶς ὁ λαός, προσέχετε τὸν νοῦν. ὁγὰρ ἀναίσχυντος οὗτος καὶ ἀχρεῖος, ὁ ἐπ' ἄκρον μοχθηρίας τε καὶ ἀνομίας ὁμοίως ἐληλακὼς [40.29.1] εὐλάβειαν σκήπτεται.εἶτα, ὦ λυμεὼν καὶ ὀλέθριε, σοὶ τοῦτ' ἔστι πίστις;

Quote:

O Lord, you who have the supreme authority over all things, O Father of singular power, because of this profane person your Church receives both reproaches and griefs and also both wounds and pains. Arius now adapts for you a place (and very cleverly indeed), in which, constituting – as I think – a synod for himself, by the law of adoption he procures and preserves your Son Christ, born from you, the bringer of our aid. (27.) Hear, I entreat you, this marvelous faith. He thinks that you, Lord, the principle of motion, are demoted from your place. He dares to circumscribe you by a circle of a defined seat. For where is not your presence? Or where do all persons not perceive your activity from your all-pervading laws? For you yourself encompass all things and it is not right to think of either a place or anything else outside you. Thus your power with activity is infinite.

Do you, God, then hear; do you, all the people, pay attention. For this fellow is shameless and useless, who, having progressed to the height both of wickedness and likewise of lawlessness, pretends piety. (29.) He 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: that God, when he had made the newly born and the newly created essence of Christ, prepared aid for himself, as it seems indeed to me. For what you have taken from him, this you have made less.” Is this, then, your faith, spoiler and destroyer? (30.) According to hypothesis do you accept as a figment him who has condemned the figments of the heathen? Do you call foreign and – as it were – a servant of duties him who without reflection and reasoning, in that he coexists with the Father’s eternity, perfected all things? Now adapt, if indeed you dare, adapt I say, to God both precaution and hope of what will happen, also reflection, reasoning, declaration and articulation of considered judgment, and, in short, delight, laughter, grief. (31.) What then, do you say, one more wretched than the wretched, oh, truly an adviser of evil? Understand, if you can, that in your very knavery you are destroyed as a villain. [http://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-34/]

As can easily be seen, the name, let alone any reference to, "Jesus" appears nowhere in this section of Constantine's letter.

Your claim is most blatantly erroneous and fallacious.

There is a reference to "Jesus" in the passsage you provided.

Quote:

....Arius now adapts for you a place (and very cleverly indeed), in which, constituting – as I think – a synod for himself, by the law of adoption he procures and preserves your Son Christ, born from you, the bringer of our aid...

And yet you have explicitly claimed, haven't you, that when Tacitus uses the word Christ here:

Quote:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

he does not mean Jesus! See, e.g. here. So are you now saying that "christ" is the equivalent of Jesus? Hmmm. How curious.

In any case, my claim was that the word Ἰησοῦς does not appear in the Greek text. Can you show me where Ἰησοῦς does?

Jeffrey

aa5874 · 06-03-2013, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Pete has constantly claimed that of those who study the primary evidence regarding the Constantine and Arius, he is among the few who read and present this century evidence soberly and without bias.

But is this really the case? Does he skew or misrepresent what he reads? Let's see by examining one of Pete's readings/presentations.

Previously and recently, Pete has explicitly claimed that in a letter from Constantine found in sections 24-31 in Athanasius' Defense of the Nicene Definition 40, where Constantine speaks of certain false theological ideas that Arius was promoting Arius, Constantine noted the following things about Arius -- namely, that

He accepted Jesus as a figment
He called Jesus foreign
He demoted Jesus
He dared to circumscribe Jesus
He detracted from Jesus who is indetractable
He questioned the presence of Jesus
He questioned the activity of Jesus
He questioned the all-pervading law of Jesus
He thought that there was a place outside of Jesus
He thought that there something else outside of Jesus
He denied the infiniteness of Jesus
He detracted from the belief in immortality of Jesus.

But is this what Constantine actually does? Lets look at this text to see.

Here's the Greek of this section of Athanasius' work and a translation of it:

Quote:

ὦ τῶν πάντων ἔχων τὸ κῦρος [40.26.2]δέσποτα, ὦ τῆς μονήρους δυνάμεως πάτερ, διὰ τουτονὶ τὸν ἀνόσιον ὀνείδη τε καὶ μώλωπας καὶ μέντοι καὶ τραύματα καὶ ὀδύνας ἡ σὴ ἔχει ἐκκλησία. Ἄρειός σοι τόπον ἤδη προς αρμόζει καὶ μάλα γε εὐφυῶς, ἐφ' οὗ καθιζάνων οἶμαι σύνοδον ἑαυτῷ ἢ παῖδα τὸν Χριστὸν [40.26.5] τὸν σὸν τὸν ἐκ σοῦ τὸν τῆς ἡμετέρας ἐπικουρίας ἀρχηγέτην θέσεως νόμῳ περιπεποίηται καὶ ἴσχει. ἐπάκουσον, ἀντιβολῶ σε, τῆς θαυμασίας πίστεως. σὲ τὴν κατὰ τὸν τόπον κινεῖσθαι, δέσποτα, κίνησιν οἴεται. σὲ τῆς ἀφωρισμένης καθέδρας κύκλῳ περιγράφειν τολμᾷ. ποῦ γὰρ οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ σὴ παρουσία; ἢ ποῦ τὴν σὴν οὐ πάντες ἐνέργειαν ἐκ τῶνἐπὶ πάντα σου διηκόντων νόμων αἰσθάνονται; πάντα γὰρ αὐτὸς περιέχεις, καὶ ἔξω σου [40.27.5]οὔτε τόπον οὔτε ἄλλο οὐδὲν ἐπινοεῖσθαι θέμις. οὕτως ἡ σὴ δύναμις μετ' ἐνεργείας ἐστὶν [40.28.1] ἄπειρος. σὺ μὲν δὴ ἐπάκουσον, ὁ θεός, ὑμεῖς δέ, πᾶς ὁ λαός, προσέχετε τὸν νοῦν. ὁ ἄπειρος. σὺ μὲν δὴ ἐπάκουσον, ὁ θεός, ὑμεῖς δέ, πᾶς ὁ λαός, προσέχετε τὸν νοῦν. ὁγὰρ ἀναίσχυντος οὗτος καὶ ἀχρεῖος, ὁ ἐπ' ἄκρον μοχθηρίας τε καὶ ἀνομίας ὁμοίως ἐληλακὼς [40.29.1] εὐλάβειαν σκήπτεται.εἶτα, ὦ λυμεὼν καὶ ὀλέθριε, σοὶ τοῦτ' ἔστι πίστις;

Quote:

O Lord, you who have the supreme authority over all things, O Father of singular power, because of this profane person your Church receives both reproaches and griefs and also both wounds and pains. Arius now adapts for you a place (and very cleverly indeed), in which, constituting – as I think – a synod for himself, by the law of adoption he procures and preserves your Son Christ, born from you, the bringer of our aid. (27.) Hear, I entreat you, this marvelous faith. He thinks that you, Lord, the principle of motion, are demoted from your place. He dares to circumscribe you by a circle of a defined seat. For where is not your presence? Or where do all persons not perceive your activity from your all-pervading laws? For you yourself encompass all things and it is not right to think of either a place or anything else outside you. Thus your power with activity is infinite.

Do you, God, then hear; do you, all the people, pay attention. For this fellow is shameless and useless, who, having progressed to the height both of wickedness and likewise of lawlessness, pretends piety. (29.) He 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: that God, when he had made the newly born and the newly created essence of Christ, prepared aid for himself, as it seems indeed to me. For what you have taken from him, this you have made less.” Is this, then, your faith, spoiler and destroyer? (30.) According to hypothesis do you accept as a figment him who has condemned the figments of the heathen? Do you call foreign and – as it were – a servant of duties him who without reflection and reasoning, in that he coexists with the Father’s eternity, perfected all things? Now adapt, if indeed you dare, adapt I say, to God both precaution and hope of what will happen, also reflection, reasoning, declaration and articulation of considered judgment, and, in short, delight, laughter, grief. (31.) What then, do you say, one more wretched than the wretched, oh, truly an adviser of evil? Understand, if you can, that in your very knavery you are destroyed as a villain. [http://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-34/]

As can easily be seen, the name, let alone any reference to, "Jesus" appears nowhere in this section of Constantine's letter.

Your claim is most blatantly erroneous and fallacious.

There is a reference to "Jesus" in the passsage you provided.

Quote:

....Arius now adapts for you a place (and very cleverly indeed), in which, constituting – as I think – a synod for himself, by the law of adoption he procures and preserves your Son Christ, born from you, the bringer of our aid...

And yet you have explicitly claimed, haven't you, that when Tacitus uses the word Christ here:

Quote:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

he does not mean Jesus! See, e.g. here. So are you now saying that "christ" is the equivalent of Jesus? Hmmm. How curious.

In any case, my claim was that the word Ἰησοῦς does not appear in the Greek text. Can you show me where Ἰησοῦς does?

Jeffrey

What utter absurdity you post!!!

In Athanasius' "Defence of the Nicene Definition" it is claimed that Jesus Christ is God's Son.

Examine the Introduction of "Defence of the Nicene Definition"

Quote:

...And again, `There is one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him125 .' And knowing also that the Word, the Wisdom, the Son Himself was the Image of the Father, he says in the Epistle to the Colossians, `Giving thanks to God and the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light, who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son; in whom we have redemption, even the remission of sins; who is the Image of the Invisible God, the First-born of every creature...

Jeffrey Gibson · 06-03-2013, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In Athanasius' "Defence of the Nicene Definition" it is claimed that Jesus Christ is God's Son.

Examine the Introduction of "Defence of the Nicene Definition"

Quote:

...And again, `There is one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him125 .' And knowing also that the Word, the Wisdom, the Son Himself was the Image of the Father, he says in the Epistle to the Colossians, `Giving thanks to God and the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light, who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son; in whom we have redemption, even the remission of sins; who is the Image of the Invisible God, the First-born of every creature...

OK. But tell me: of whom is Constantine speaking when at 27 he says διὰ τουτονὶ τὸν ἀνόσιον ὀνείδη τε καὶ μώλωπας καὶ μέντοι καὶ τραύματα καὶ ὀδύνας ἡ σὴ ἔχει ἐκκλησία. Is it Jesus?

Jeffrey

aa5874 · 06-03-2013, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In Athanasius' "Defence of the Nicene Definition" it is claimed that Jesus Christ is God's Son.

Examine the Introduction of "Defence of the Nicene Definition"

Quote:

...And again, `There is one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him125 .' And knowing also that the Word, the Wisdom, the Son Himself was the Image of the Father, he says in the Epistle to the Colossians, `Giving thanks to God and the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light, who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son; in whom we have redemption, even the remission of sins; who is the Image of the Invisible God, the First-born of every creature...

OK. But tell me: of whom is Constantine speaking when at 27 he says διὰ τουτονὶ τὸν ἀνόσιον ὀνείδη τε καὶ μώλωπας καὶ μέντοι καὶ τραύματα καὶ ὀδύνας ἡ σὴ ἔχει ἐκκλησία. Is it Jesus?

Jeffrey

OK? That's all? You need to apologise to mountainman for your blatant fallacious claims.

Athanasius' "Defense of the Nicene Definition" does refer to Jesus as the Son of the Lord and was introduced as the Son of God.

Now, you were told that you must provide an English translation for the language you posted.

Please, do not violate the rules.

People here post in English.

It was primarily because you translated that language into English why I identified your blatant errors.

Please comply with the rules and translate that passage into English as soon as possible.

Quote:

.... διὰ τουτονὶ τὸν ἀνόσιον ὀνείδη τε καὶ μώλωπας καὶ μέντοι καὶ τραύματα καὶ ὀδύνας ἡ σὴ ἔχει ἐκκλησία.

spin · 06-04-2013, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

OK. But tell me: of whom is Constantine speaking when at 27 he says διὰ τουτονὶ τὸν ἀνόσιον ὀνείδη τε καὶ μώλωπας καὶ μέντοι καὶ τραύματα καὶ ὀδύνας ἡ σὴ ἔχει ἐκκλησία. Is it Jesus?

OK? That's all? You need to apologise to mountainman for your blatant fallacious claims.

This seems to be a malicious allegation for which you should apologize.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Athanasius' "Defense of the Nicene Definition" does refer to Jesus as the Son of the Lord and was introduced as the Son of God.

You're not answering. Does the text in question specifically refer to Jesus?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Now, you were told that you must provide an English translation for the language you posted.

Please, do not violate the rules.

People here post in English.

It was primarily because you translated that language into English why I identified your blatant errors.

Please comply with the rules and translate that passage into English as soon as possible.

Quote:

.... διὰ τουτονὶ τὸν ἀνόσιον ὀνείδη τε καὶ μώλωπας καὶ μέντοι καὶ τραύματα καὶ ὀδύνας ἡ σὴ ἔχει ἐκκλησία.

All you needed to do was look back at what had already been cited from Constantine. The translation is there. Thus:

[O Lord, you who have the supreme authority over all things, O Father of singular power,] because of this profane person your Church receives both reproaches and griefs and also both wounds and pains.

Toto · 06-04-2013, 12:38 AM

The translation is in the OP

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

...

Here's the Greek of this section of Athanasius' work and a translation of it:

Quote:

ὦ τῶν πάντων ἔχων τὸ κῦρος [40.26.2]δέσποτα, ὦ τῆς μονήρους δυνάμεως πάτερ, διὰ τουτονὶ τὸν ἀνόσιον ὀνείδη τε καὶ μώλωπας καὶ μέντοι καὶ τραύματα καὶ ὀδύνας ἡ σὴ ἔχει ἐκκλησία. . . .

Quote:

O Lord, you who have the supreme authority over all things, O Father of singular power, because of this profane person your Church receives both reproaches and griefs and also both wounds and pains. . . .

avi · 06-04-2013, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

More importantly, though, especially when considering whether Pete is honest and unbiased in his presentation of the evidence he appeals to in support of his claims, is the fact that in stark and absolute contradiction to what Pete has asserted, Constantine is claiming that the one who is diminished, detracted, questioned, etc. by Arius is God the Father, not Jesus.

Less importantly, perhaps, is my question:
I thought Arius had REJECTED trinitarianism? Is this Greek text suggesting something else?

Jeffrey Gibson · 06-04-2013, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

More importantly, though, especially when considering whether Pete is honest and unbiased in his presentation of the evidence he appeals to in support of his claims, is the fact that in stark and absolute contradiction to what Pete has asserted, Constantine is claiming that the one who is diminished, detracted, questioned, etc. by Arius is God the Father, not Jesus.

Less importantly, perhaps, is my question:
I thought Arius had REJECTED trinitarianism?

What reading on Arius either in the primary sources (see here) and/or in the secondary literature (such as Gregg and Groh's Early Arianism: A View of Salvation orDoctrines of God and Christ in the Early Church (Studies in Early Christianity) by Paul Corby Finney, David Scholer and Everett Ferguson or the older but still valuable works on Arius by Gwatkin [available online here and here]) -- has led you to this "thought"?

Quote:

Is this Greek text suggesting something else?

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "trinitarianism".

Jeffrey

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.