Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

perseusomega9 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 8:42 am

Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Sun Apr 17, 2022 4:20 am
Did any other Christian presbyters have the care of seventy women living a life of ascetic seclusion, presumably attached to his church?

Yes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syneisaktism

So did Arius have seventy concurrent "spiritual marriages" to seventy different women? The Christian elites of the 4th century such as Athanasius and John Chrysostom condemned having one "spiritual marriage" between one man and women. What would think of 70?

Arius was no typical Christian presbyter. He wrote anti-Christian books.

Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Sat Apr 16, 2022 5:42 pm
(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" ?

1. That is news to me. I thought Porphyry was trying to stop the Christian movement because they accepted women as equals in spirit and not as sexual playthings? I know of no evidence that Arius was credibly accused of having a concubine.

2. " Arianism, had an insistence on clarity and logic, and on coherent readings of the Gospels, that those schooled in Greek philosophy were particularly likely to appreciate." pg. 179 When Jesus Became God.

3. Because when you are confused and the answer is not in the scriptures, the logic behind Neo-Platonism can help you answer your question.

How about we flip the coin over and you answer the following:

1. If Arius was a pagan, adulterer, and reprobate, why would Constantine after interrogating Arius himself in the summer of 336 C.E. declare his creed and testimony acceptable and ordered the assembled bishops to readmit Arius to the Church? pg. 134 When Jesus Became God.

2. Why did four different councils pronounce Arius theology as orthodox?

3. Arius was no pagan. But rather a Christian theologian, who questioned the of essence for Jesus for which the answer could not be found in the scriptures. So, he gave his honest interpretation. To Constantine, both Athanasius and Arius were splitting hairs over a word not found in the gospels so he tried to unify both sides over what he considered a trivial matter. Why do you still reject this narrative?

The very idea of Arius being a pagan is ludicrous. It's not even worth responding. He sat in the throne of St Mark in the church of St Mark. Arius wouldn't have been influential if he had been a pagan and it would have come up in the literature (especially among his opponents). Even Origen has this said about him.

Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 6:25 am

perseusomega9 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 8:42 am

Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Sun Apr 17, 2022 4:20 am
Did any other Christian presbyters have the care of seventy women living a life of ascetic seclusion, presumably attached to his church?

Yes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syneisaktism

(WIKI)= Syneisaktism is the practice of "spiritual marriage", which is where a man and a woman who have both taken vows of chastity live together in a chaste and non-legalized partnership.[1] More often than not, the woman would move into the house of the man, and they would live as brother and sister, both committed to the continuation of their vows of chastity.

So did Arius have seventy concurrent "spiritual marriages" to seventy different women? The Christian elites of the 4th century such as Athanasius and John Chrysostom condemned having one "spiritual marriage" between one man and women. What would think of 70?

That's the tip of the iceberg. It offended all sensibilities, it was an early asceticism arrangement which the 3rd and 4th centuries found 'better' solutions for with monasteries and women led households, the Pastorals delve into it. Both major and minor (readers, ecclesiarches) clerical orders were attacked (defrocked/excommunicated) for varieties of similar arrangements.

Arius was no typical Christian presbyter. He wrote anti-Christian books.

If by typical you mean the orthodox interpretation I agree. If by typical you mean the orthodox interpretation retrojected as a necessary condition to define christian I disagree.

When looked at through the rear view mirror of any modern day Christianity, Arius was a Pagan. But the real question seems to be: Did Arius see himself as a Christian, or as a Pagan?

lsayre wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 3:02 pm When looked at through the rear view mirror of any modern day Christianity, Arius was a Pagan. But the real question seems to be: Did Arius see himself as a Christian, or as a Pagan?

Not according to modern Arian Christians, for some of whom Trinitarian Christianity is the paganism.

John T wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 9:11 am
1. That is news to me. I thought Porphyry was trying to stop the Christian movement because they accepted women as equals in spirit and not as sexual playthings?

The question I asked concerns the evaluation of political history. Why is it that Constantine refer to the followers of Arius as "Porphyrians"? Surely the followers of Arius are referred to as Arians. Everyone knows that right? So what does Constantine mean when he refers to the followers of Arius as though they were followers of the pagan philosopher Porphyry? One of the foremost Platonist philosophers and academic Greek writers in circulation during the early 4th century. His works included Euclid.

I know of no evidence that Arius was credibly accused of having a concubine.

Neither do I. The source provided (Epiphanius via Rowan Williams) notes that he [Arius] had the care of seventy women living a life of ascetic seclusion, presumably attached to his church. How is this be explained

2. " Arianism, had an insistence on clarity and logic, and on coherent readings of the Gospels, that those schooled in Greek philosophy were particularly likely to appreciate." pg. 179 When Jesus Became God.

The Platonic philosophers - particularly at the academy in Alexandria - pointed out to Constantine and the bishops that the authors of the gospels etc had somehow forgotten to mention "essence" as a non-physical concept. The gospels deal with material essence such as wealth, inheritance, property et al. They forgot to describe the non-physical or spiritual essence or divine essence of Jesus, or to even mention it.

So the controversy started over different opinions over the divine essence of Jesus.

Later in the 4th century the Christian Trinity was fabricated using Plotinus.

3. Because when you are confused and the answer is not in the scriptures, the logic behind Neo-Platonism can help you answer your question.

Yes of course it can. Equally it can also help formulate your question.

I'd be inclined to suggest that is what happened. The philosophers and Arius asked the bishops for scripture about the divine essence of Jesus. They had read the NT and LXX and knew there was nothing in the NT about the essence of Jesus Chrestos.

While one word ('homoousios') implied that Jesus was of the same essence or being, another word ('homoiousios') implied that Jesus was of a similar essence or being. The critical question that must be asked is precisely what was this conceptual essence or being
to which the essence or being of Jesus was being compared by Arius and the Arians?

The Platonic divinity in the books of Plato?

How about we flip the coin over and you answer the following:

1. If Arius was a pagan, adulterer, and reprobate, why would Constantine after interrogating Arius himself in the summer of 336 C.E. declare his creed and testimony acceptable and ordered the assembled bishops to readmit Arius to the Church? pg. 134 When Jesus Became God.

Demographically the empire c.325 C was non-Christian. In 325 CE suddenly and unexpectedly the pagan Graeco-Roman empire had a new "Holy Writ". There was a massive controversy. The historical sources describing this controversy are from three 5th century church historians, who were continuators of Eusebius. These guys preserved documents, and letters. Here are the one's for Arius



Some of these are forged propaganda. I list the details here:
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/autho ... andria.htm

2. Why did four different councils pronounce Arius theology as orthodox?

At the moment I view Arianism as the natural expected pagan resistance to the Christianisation of the empire. The people were wondering WTF was going on. It was also big business for the elite. The Nicene Church industry during the rule of Constantine was making inroads into the upper echelons of the military and the business community.

Jerome did not say "The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Christian." He says that: "The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian." The Christianisation of the empire and the conversion of the populace was obviously resisted. Most people may have been in resistance mode, until the generations passed through to 381 CE and Theodosius.

3. Arius was no pagan. But rather a Christian theologian, who questioned the of essence for Jesus for which the answer could not be found in the scriptures. So, he gave his honest interpretation. To Constantine, both Athanasius and Arius were splitting hairs over a word not found in the gospels so he tried to unify both sides over what he considered a trivial matter. Why do you still reject this narrative?

It is the narrative of the church industry as preserved in the Nicene Fathers and Post-Nicene Fathers (28 vols). The pagans have been air-brushed out of the history of the Christian revolution of the 4th century. In the same way that the indigenous people were air-brushed out of the earlier (pre-1970) colonial histories of the US, Canada, Australia and other places,

The victors wrote their ecclesiastical history of the Christians. And IMO suppressed the political history of the pagans in the conflict..

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 9:41 am The very idea of Arius being a pagan is ludicrous. It's not even worth responding.

The very idea that the political history of the Nicene Council and the Arian controversy can be reconstructed from the ecclesiastical sources of the Nicene Church industry is ludicrous.

He sat in the throne of St Mark in the church of St Mark.

Dogma in dogma out.

Arius wouldn't have been influential if he had been a pagan and it would have come up in the literature (especially among his opponents).

The church industry has conspired to suppress the political history of the controversy that emerged as a direct result of using a fabricated Holy Writ to bind the Graeco-Roman empire together.

Even Origen has this said about him.

According to the classical historians two separate people - Origen the Platonist and Origen the Christian - coexisted in the 3rd century. This directly contributed to the Origenist controversies in the 4th and 5th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen_(disambiguation)

perseusomega9 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 2:54 pm

Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 6:25 amArius was no typical Christian presbyter. He wrote anti-Christian books.

If by typical you mean the orthodox interpretation I agree. If by typical you mean the orthodox interpretation retrojected as a necessary condition to define christian I disagree.

What I mean to explore is the proposition that Arius was a Platonist theologian, logician, philosopher and writer and that the Arian controversy was not restricted to a theological squabble among Christians concerning the nuances of defining the "essence" of Jesus. Rather that the Arian controversy also involved an avalanche of literature written in response to Constantine's Bible by the elite pagans of the eastern empire and where Arius was one of the lead contributing authors.

According to Constantine he wrote anti-Christian books. These were destroyed according to the present understanding with some fragments such as "Thalia", (But see further)

The Christian history tells us how the elite Christians of the 4th century received the NT and LXX Bible. The question here is how did the elite pagans of the East receive Constantine's Bible in the rule of Constantine 325-337 CE?

My opinion is that the pagan narrative has been suppressed. What fragments we have indicate that the Jesus Story Book was ridiculed. Hence the first question - was Arius a pagan? Did the church preserve his memory as a Christian rather than a non-Christian Platonist philosopher? Suddenly the controversy is diminished and the heat is taken off asking how the pagans actually received their brand new holy writ.


Further proposition...

This avalanche of literature I propose can be identified with the corpus of Christian literature that we now refer to as the NT Apocryphal literature and which includes the entire contents of the Nag Hammadi Library. (NHL)

The "Gnosticism" plastered all through the gnostic gospels and the NHL is chiefly Platonism. Not Middle Platonism but Neo-Platonism - developed by Plotinus and published by Porphyry. The Sethian Gnostic material was authored by elite Platonists - highly literature people in the generation which were the first to receive the NT Bible (325-337 C).

(5) Did Arius author anti-Jesus books?

We can be reasonably certain that Arius wrote books which supposedly don't survive. (But perhaps some do survive within the NT Apocrypha?). Below are a list of statements made by Constantine about the books which Arius wrote. And about the limiting - perhaps derogatory - comments made by Arius about Jesus.

Was Arius really a Christian? Or was Arius made out to be a Christian by the Christian Orthodox victors who wrote the history of the conflict from the vantage point of 5th century politics?

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




URL: https://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-34/
LETTER: Emperor Constantine to Arius
Type: Early Arian Document (Urkunde) 34 (=AW III2 no. 27; CPG 2042)
Date: 333 CE
Source: Athanasius, Defense of the Nicene Definition 40 (TLG)
Also found in Socrates, Church History 1.9.30
and Gelasius, Church History 3.19.1
Trans: Coleman-Norton, P.R.,
Roman State and Christian Church, London:
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge
(SPCK) 1966, #67.