spin

You're yet again trying to change the subject. If you'd like to stop talking about Philip of Side and complain about the source, then you are complaining about a source that you brought into the discussion. I just happened to use another bit to show that you were cherry-picking, one of your favorite sports.

Any more garden path wanders?

Now you are playing the angry old man: "these orthodox heresiological lying scumbags". That's just more assertion. What do you support it with? Hang on, I'll churn out another assertion to support it....

The more assertions you make the more evidence you demonstrate you need, only worsening your situation.

The heresy didn't die with Arius, but was maintained by Constantius and a number of other emperors for several decades. This christian heresy was spread to the Gothic groups and widely across the known world. He was just a christian heretic, but the heresy lived on to cause strife due to internal christian disagreements. Julian brought a little peace from the struggles.

We use the same sources. You have, after many years of trying, supplied no reason not to read them for what they say

This is somewhat misguided in the sense that no-one on the winning side seems to have thought that Arius was "One of Our Boys". And everyone knows that you are not satisfied, but I don't think anyone is satisfied with your persistent failure to find any evidence to support your assertions. Not one of them. This prompts me to remind that you'd probably have more success if you took up makrame.

spin

I can see your lips moving underwater, mountainman, but no sound issues forth, just bubbles.

I didn't imply anyone got a poke in the eye. I merely said that your post was consistent with said poke in the eye. Saying that says about as much as you saying "His analysis is also consistent with Arius being a follower of Plotinus". It doesn't help us one iota.

Where exactly did Eusebius classify Platonists as heretics? Is it what his writing actually says?

Chili

These is only 2, Christ and anti-christ but only 1 Christ and 20.000 antichrists and Arius was just the leader of one pack who used Platonist 'look-alikes' to make himself look good as 'look-alike' too.

So which one would be it today? The most vocal of course, and then let me remind you again that Catholics are not Christian based on the same principle that Constantine was defending here, wherein [the mind of] Christ is the end of religion and not some historic so and so with the promise of better days ahead after you die.

And I may bitch about Muslims at times but their vocabulary inside their scope of reference is a 100 times what so called Christian theology will ever be.

mountainman

These sources have serious integrity issues, including pious forgery and pseudo-historical polemic.







εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

Epiphanius.





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

spin

Stop the smart ass act and supply the fucking exact source.

spin

So you assert, but it doesn't stop you from cherry-picking as it suits you.

stephan huller

Pete is making shit up. "Epiphanius" cannot be the answer to "where does Eusebius classify Platonists as heretics." It never occurs

mountainman

Have you read Isaac Newton on Athanasius (one of the sources for Arius)


“Paradoxical Questions Concerning the Morals and Actions of Athanasius and his Followers” written by Isaac Newton in the early 1690s







εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

stephan huller

And the relevance to anything discussed here is? ...