Was Arius of Alexandria a pagan?

[ABuddhist]

As a person formerly interested in Arian Christianity, I say that these accusations against Arius by his opponents arose because they wrongly concluded that his christology was hostile to Christianity rather than being a legitimate interpretation of it. Arius's claim that Christ was created from nothing is not referring to a Jesus as fiction but rather to the claim that YHWH created Jesus from nothing (creation ex nihilo). This claim that Jesus was a created being is what made Arius's ideas so controversial.

[Giuseppe]

Arius's claim that Christ was created from nothing is not referring to a Jesus as fiction but rather to the claim that YHWH created Jesus from nothing (creation ex nihilo).

I agree. And I see a marcionite influence on Arius insofar that creation of Jesus from nothing was something of entirely new, unexpected, blunt.

For the rest, Arius was a Judaizer and probably anti-Marcionite.

[Leucius Charinus]

As a person formerly interested in Arian Christianity, I say that these accusations against Arius by his opponents arose because they wrongly concluded that his christology was hostile to Christianity rather than being a legitimate interpretation of it.

The "accusations" that are listed above are from Constantine himself c.333 CE if we accept the source material to be legitimate. Did you actually read these? Constantine had earlier legislated:

that all the writings of Arius,
wherever they be found,
shall be delivered to be burned with fire,
in order that not only
his wicked and evil doctrine may be destroyed,
but also that the memory of himself
and of his doctrine may be blotted out,
that there may not by any means
remain to him remembrance in the world.

Now this also I ordain,
that if any one shall be found secreting
any writing composed by Arius,
and shall not forthwith deliver up
and burn it with fire,
his punishment shall be death;
for as soon as he is caught in this
he shall suffer capital punishment
by beheading without delay.

The first section deals with an imperial "damnatio memoriae" pronounced by Constantine on Arius. The second section deals with the fact that any ne could face immediate execution for possessing the books of Arius.

Are you really saying that Constantine wrongly concluded stuff about Arius?

Arius's claim that Christ was created from nothing is not referring to a Jesus as fiction but rather to the claim that YHWH created Jesus from nothing (creation ex nihilo).

That's what the church industry propaganda would have everyone believe. But is it the historical truth of the Nicene epoch, Arius and the Arian controversy? I doubt that it is.

This claim that Jesus was a created being is what made Arius's ideas so controversial.

Jesus did not appear in the Nicene council. If he ever lived Jesus had been dead for three centuries. Any claims about the nature of the essence of Jesus, whether those claims related to history or fiction or myth, had to have been sourced from the NT Bible which Constantine had just published and backed as a "Holy Writ" of the Graeco-Roman empire.

It's obvious that people reacted against these claims and the veracity of the Jesus Story Book which had not forgotten to mention material essence (wealth, property, inheritance, etc) but had forgotten to mention divine or spiritual essence.

Characters who appear in Story Books need not be historical. Skeptics would point out that the Jesus Story Book could well be a fiction story. Constantine would be of course highly displeased with such a reception to the Jesus Story Book. His treatment of Arius, and his authorship and circulation of books about UNBELIEF, is quite conducive with the proposition that Arius thought Jesus was a "figment".

[Leucius Charinus]

Since the OP was created by another I have asked a few questions:

(1) Why does Constantine refer to the followers of Arius as "Porphyrians"?

(2) Why does Philip of Side depict the Nicene Council as a confrontation between the philosophers and the bishops with Arius classed - not with the bishops - but with the philosophers?

(3) Why does "Arius' entire effort consisted precisely in acclimatizing Plotinic logic within biblical creationism" ?

(4) Why did Arius wear the garb of a philosopher and have the care of 70 women?

(5) Did Arius author anti-Jesus books?

(6) Is asking the question "Was Arius a pagan" indulging in conspiracy theory?
(Remember that Arius is the greatest heretic of all Christian history)



Any answers?
Here's another one:

(7) Why do we think that Arius was a Christian?

Answer: The church sources literary describing the Nicene epoch tell us this.
Qualms: But could the church sources be mistaken? Do institutions write false propaganda about their enemies?

[schillingklaus]

Arius is just hallucinatory fiction, and thus it did not author anything.