Was Arius of Alexandria a pagan?

[John T]

Was Arius of Alexandria a pagan?

I read a recent post on BC&H were someone implied that Arius of Alexandria was a pagan. That is a new one for me.
A heretic perhaps, a pagan no!

For those who aren't aware of the great debate of the Nicene Council of 325 C.E. you should take the time to learn about it. The main event was Arius vs. Athansisus. Two esteemed Christian theologians that had different views on the essence of Jesus. It all came down to the meaning of two Greek words which changed Christianity.

Homoiousian; which could mean, “similar but not the same in substance.”
Homoousios; which could mean, “of the same essence.”

Arius supported the former, Athanasius the latter.

The conflict began when Arius (a minister in charge of the Baucalis Church in Alexandria Egypt) wrote a song that became the number one song on the hit parade. It included the controversial lyrics: “understand that the Monad was, but the Dyad was not, before it came to exist.” To Athanasius (priest of Alexandria), this was heresy in that he believed the Son was uncreated and eternal. Athanasius ordered Arius to recant. Arius refused unless Athanasius could point to the scriptures where he was wrong. Athanasius searched the scriptures to support his claim for “Homoousios” but he could not find it. The closest he came was, “I and the Father are one,” John 10:30 and “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” John 14:9.

This debate split the Church in two.

The emperor of Rome, Constantine the Great, who recently converted to Christianity, called for a council to meet in Nicaea to settle the matter. It turned into a disaster which took decades and several wars to settle as well as Athanasius being banished by different emperors perhaps 5 different times.

Athanasius against the world!

There is much more to this incredible story that changed the course of Christianity.

For those who are interested, I recommend reading: “When Jesus Became God” by Richard Rubenstein.

Arius was no pagan!

[Secret Alias]

We should sell stupid theories at this forum if there was a market for them. If there was a market for them we'd all be rich.

[schillingklaus]

Arius is a figment of the hallucination of naive eccles`iastic historians.

[lclapshaw]

Arius is a figment of the hallucination of naive eccles`iastic historians.

You know, your writing style is distinctive enough that it doesn't take long to identify you.

[Leucius Charinus]

Was Arius of Alexandria a pagan?

I read a recent post on BC&H were someone implied that Arius of Alexandria was a pagan. That is a new one for me.
A heretic perhaps, a pagan no!

The political history for the epoch between 325-353 CE is a bit of a black hole for evidence. We learn our "history" of the Arian controversy through the writings of elite bishops of the 4th century which were gathered together in three "Ecclesiastical Histories" in the 5th century, this side of the monumental Theodosian decrees concerning Nicene orthodoxy..

In an essay I have outlined arguments from the evidence that Arius of Alexandria was not actually a Christian bishop but a pagan Platonist philosopher, and that the Nicene church industry basically lied about their political opponents.

Identity Frauds?

Were Ammonius, Origen, Anatolius and Porphyry Platonist philosophers? According to classical scholarship you can bet they were. Were Ammonius, Origen, and Anatolius also Christians as asserted by Eusebius and his continuators? According to biblical scholarship you can bet they were.

Here is an essay I wrote more than 10 years ago.

A Pageant of Christian Identity Frauds masquerade in the Academy of Plato
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/Nicae ... Christ.htm

ABSTRACT

Evidence is presented to substantiate the presence of at least a trinity of Christian Identity Frauds masquerading in the Academy of Plato during the 3rd century. (1,2,3) From the 4th century mention is resurrected of Porphyry's Christian Identity Fraud and the likelihood is explored that the Christian Presbyter Arius of Alexandria, is just another Identity Fraud in a pattern of similar evidence. (4,5) The events of the Council of Nicaea are reconstructed in such a manner as to narrate from the profane perspective, the heresy, the exile and the "damnatio memoriae" of Arius of Alexandria, a non christian theologian/philosopher associated with the Alexandrian academy of Plato c.324 CE. (6,7)


(0) Introduction - The Nondual God of Plato, Plato's Canon and its Apostolic Lineage
(1) The Two Ammonii - Ammonius Saccas the Platonist and Ammonius the Christian
(2) The Two Origen's - Origen the Platonist and Origen the Christian.
(3) The Two Anatolii - Anatolius the Platonist and Anatolius the Christian Bishop
(4) The Two Porphyrii - Porphyry the Platonist and Porphyry the Christian author
(5) The Two Arii - Arius of Alexandria the Platonist and Arius the Christian Presbyter.
(6) Reconstructing a Profane Nicene History - Gods in the books of Plato and Constantine
(7) Identity Frauds, conclusions and recommendations - Condemnation of pious forgery.


If you are after a summary of the sources:
What do know of Arius of Alexandria?
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/autho ... andria.htm

[Jagd]

We should sell stupid theories at this forum if there was a market for them. If there was a market for them we'd all be rich.

Lmao we can come up with so many.
"Was Paul of Tarsus a Muslim?"
"Was Jesus a woman?"
"Is Yahweh Irish?"

[Leucius Charinus]

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

c.325 CE - Letter of Constantine


Constantine the King to the Bishops and nations everywhere.

Inasmuch as Arius imitates the evil and the wicked,
it is right that, like them, he should be rebuked and rejected.

As therefore Porphyry,
who was an enemy of the fear of God,
and 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,
that he may be named by the name
of those whose evil ways he imitates:

And not only this, but also
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.


(Preserved in Socrates Scholasticus’ Ecclesiastical History 1:9.
A translation of a Syriac translation of this, written in 501,
is in B. H. Cowper’s, Syriac Miscellanies,
Extracts From The Syriac Ms. No. 14528
In The British Museum, Lond. 1861, p. 6–7)

[John T]

The problem with words is they can have double meanings. Just because Porphyry the Platonic philosopher used the Greek word homoousios to express that the souls of humans and animals were of the same general type, that is not to say humans and animals are gods.

Nor is there any examples of Arius using the word to make a case for paganism.

"Homoousios could mean "of the same essence," but it could also mean of the same "substance," "reality," "being," or even "type". pg 81. When Jesus became God.

I hope that clear things up.

[Leucius Charinus]

I hope that clear things up.

It doesn't because the question was why Constantine refers to the followers of Arius - not as Arians - but as Porphyrians.

Here's another question.

(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?

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.

https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/phil ... #Fr.%205.6

Here's a further question:

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

Rowan Williams's research supports the portrait of Arius drawn by the scholar Charles Kannengeisser in regard to the analysis and understanding of the historical Arius. Williams spends a great deal of time searching for any earlier precedents in the beliefs expressed by Arius, but without any success.

".... 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. 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."

- ARIUS Heresy and Tradition (2002), p.209

[Leucius Charinus]

For those who aren't aware of the great debate of the Nicene Council of 325 C.E. you should take the time to learn about it. The main event was Arius vs. Athansisus. Two esteemed Christian theologians that had different views on the essence of Jesus. It all came down to the meaning of two Greek words which changed Christianity.

Homoiousian; which could mean, “similar but not the same in substance.”
Homoousios; which could mean, “of the same essence.”

Arius supported the former, Athanasius the latter.

The conflict began when Arius (a minister in charge of the Baucalis Church in Alexandria Egypt) wrote a song that became the number one song on the hit parade. It included the controversial lyrics: “understand that the Monad was, but the Dyad was not, before it came to exist.” To Athanasius (priest of Alexandria), this was heresy in that he believed the Son was uncreated and eternal. Athanasius ordered Arius to recant. Arius refused unless Athanasius could point to the scriptures where he was wrong. Athanasius searched the scriptures to support his claim for “Homoousios” but he could not find it. The closest he came was, “I and the Father are one,” John 10:30 and “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” John 14:9.

This debate split the Church in two.

The emperor of Rome, Constantine the Great, who recently converted to Christianity, called for a council to meet in Nicaea to settle the matter. It turned into a disaster which took decades and several wars to settle as well as Athanasius being banished by different emperors perhaps 5 different times.

Athanasius against the world!

There is much more to this incredible story that changed the course of Christianity.

For those who are interested, I recommend reading: “When Jesus Became God” by Richard Rubenstein.

Just in case you were wondering I have read many books on Arius including the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (28 volumes) and am completely aware of what the mainstream paradigm says about Arius, the Arian controversy, and the sources underpinning this view.

The notion that Arius was not a Christian presbyter but a skilled pagan philosopher is AFAIK novel. I am well aware such a notion can be classed as a conspiracy theory in which the church industry has conspired to cover over the political history of the beginning of the Christian revolution of the 4th century.

There may be those here who are comfortable in accepting the church sources as legitimate history of this epoch but I am not one of them. I am sure there are many here who are reasonably convinced that the utterly corrupt church industry is quite capable of forging documents and then using these documents in their historical narratives. The question is how they have managed to do this.

"Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past," repeated Winston obediently.

Arius was no pagan!

The proposition here is that the church is controlling the narrative of Arius, and that the sudden and unexpected appearance and imperial authority invested in the NT + LXX bible codex was not just a controversy for existing Christians but for the 90-95% demographic of the pagans. There was obviously some measure of political resistance and the proposition is that Arius was raised as the focus of this resistance.

We should sell stupid theories at this forum

No doubt there is entertainment value in trashing new ideas in ancient history. However there is also the greater task in actually demonstrating the ideas to be stupid. This task cannot just be restating the mainstream paradigm as an authority. Evaluation includes answering valid questions raised against the paradigm.

I have asked three questions which highlight anomalies in the mainstream paradigm in the identification of Arius as a Christian presbyter, and such anomalies ought to be responded to. This as far as I am concerned is the historical method.

(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" ?