The blog is not pretty much accurate. The blog said that Appollinarianism was a heresy that said Jesus only suffered in his human nature but not his divine. I cited official primary texts from the Council of Chalcedon to prove that this is not Appolinarianism; it is orthodox hypostatic union theology. The blog is unreliable because it doesn't even know what Appolinarianism is.
Appolinarianism says that Jesus had no human mind. Athanasius does not say anything about whether or not Jesus had a human mind. If I am wrong, please cite an Athanasius passage that demonstrates my mistake.
I offered you detailed analysis of this entire issue, and you didn't respond to a single thing. Instead you said "the blog is accurate" and continued to assert the doctrine I challenged. This is an unsubstantiated claim. Without evidence, I expect you to retract it.
Shermana wrote:I am very surprised how difficult it is to find real objective sources on history, even with writings of the historians themselves. The Blog and the Book are nonetheless presenting what I consider accurate arguments and labels for his beliefs. When it comes to a question of sources, it matters more what the sources are saying. A mental patient can tell you the sky is a blue, but a scientist may in fact have a vested interest in feeding fabricated information to make you think its red. The evidence that the Goths comprised mostly of Arians is there, the Germanics did not accept Roman Christianity as a whole til much later, not like the Frankish. I will look up any sources from where I heard or read that "Arians destroyed Rome", but I would bet dollars to Yuan that the grand majority of the pillagers were Arian.
This part I specifically I was going to spend a whole post on when I said "Before I get into more"....to summarize when you said that the concept MIGHT be the same you're onto something. What is nature?
You say the evidence is there, and yet you have provided exactly zero pieces of evidence.
You say that the majority of the pillagers of Rome were Arians, but this was one hundred years later. That would be like saying the declaration of independence was rigged because not enough confederate soldiers were invited. We know, after all, that there were many confederate soldiers during the American civil war. What in the world does this have to do with anything? You need to explain how many Arians existed in 325, not in 410, and you need to explain how so many of them came about in 6 years.
- Fair enough, there is little I have presented to explain the sudden widespread appearance and hold of Arianism among the Germanics by the time Rome was pillaged. I will get into this in more detail and look for sources on the beliefs of the Central European Christians before the pillage of Rome which wasn't too far in the future, and not quite like Confederates and Unionists, more like Marcionites and Nestorians but in my interpretation of the evidence, Jehovah's Witnesses vs. Catholics, one side I agree on certain critical doctrine issues so I flatly admit bias towards in terms of history as an Orthodox may chooes to view Orthodoxy, and it depends on your view of the facts. A judge settles court cases by his view of the evidence, let's examine the evidence you presented and then to Athanasius the Egyptian leader who had a bad fallout with Constantine (I didn't mean throw tomatoes at HIM, I meant at the supporters) and was in fact charged for whatevr reason, which I shall investigate, for threatening to try to stop Egyptian Grain from going to his power center and why the other charges were dropped like "illegally taxing the Egyptian people". He very well had enemies, so false charges may appear such as the mummified hand thing, which is actually monty-python worthy.
The grain charge doesn't have anything to do with "rigging the vote" in Nicea.
Your view of the evidence. The Synod of Tyre most certainly bears, in view of the evidence, an attempt to go against what happened at Nicea, and Constantine obviously didn't quite approve of Athanasius, and the Council of Constantinople was the reaction to the reaction of Tyre.
Do you have any single piece of evidence that says the vote was rigged? I've provided over twenty pieces of evidence suggesting it was not. Let's summarize:
- It depends on if you accept for a fact that the evidence points to there being such few Arians at the time and that they grew like a great reformation by less than a century to Rome-shattering numbers, assuming they were not non-Arian majority. As I've stated elsewhere, movements can move very fast and you say that the Theology of the Emperor doesn't interest you, interesting, he obviously joined the movement with his inner circle and his son within a few years.
(1) Nicea was an Arian territory under the Arian bishop Theognus
Not really evidence of your point's cogency. All the more reason to stick it to enemy territory at its heart. The Archbishop of Constantinople was Arian. Prominent power players were. And in my view, Athanasius knew this and somehow had a role in stacking the cards. You say no evidence but this is evidence?
(2) The leading Arian sympathizers, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea, were present at the council
- I see a pattern here regarding what you call 'evidence". You're pre-assuming the status quo and then asking for evidence to go against speculation on the status quo that these Eusebius and Constantine were evidence against the concept.
(3) Eusebius of Caesarea says that every bishop in the empire was invited to Nicea
I am finding it difficult to find an objective source on how many Bishops were there in the Empire altogether. If there were so few, why would Constantine and the Eusebiui be Arians other than personal conviction? There was a real friction, and judging by the Grain charge, there's equal lack of evidence that Athanasius wasn't trying to show it up to Constantine especially. Athansius didn't show up to Councils. How many times were all Bishops to a council and what was the turnout?
(4) Eusebius of Nicomedia actually gave the welcoming address, and presented a pro-Arian proposal with 17 other bishops from his region
Okay, evidence for 17+ Bishops from his region on a pro-Arian proposal. Fair enough. Perhaps we will have to examine what others say about Athanasius's relations to the Bishops from his region.
(5) Eusebius of Caesarea gave his own proposal despite his own Arian sympathies
- More "evidence", what is this evidence of? That he supported a possible compromise despite his beliefs?
(6) Constantine requested that the council restore full honor to Eusebius of Caesarea even though he was accused of being Arian. Therefore, Constantine put pressure on the council in defense of a leading Arian
- What is this evidence of other than the friction of Constantine trying to assert for the Arians in his region and his own leanings?
(7) The leading Arians there (including the two Eusebiuses) actually signed the creed. Those who abstained did so for different reasons.
- They signed and that means what? They had political stakes to say the least and may have even done so under pressure, what is this evidence of other than that they signed? Are you implying that this evidence that they agreed because they signed?
(8) This means that Nicea didn't really resolve the Arian dispute. Constantinople in 381 and Chalcedon in the next century resolved tings
- Exactly.
(9) Part of why things weren't resolved is that the final creed incorporated words from Paul of Samosota, a heretic. This is evidence of the influence of the Arians at Nicea.
- So at least I understand you are quoting evidence in favor of my position that a compromise was reached to agree to disagree without knowing what they were signing, thank you then.
(10) The fact that Arians had influence suggests things weren't rigged.
That's an interpretation of a fact that they had influence. You are assuming something from the fact that both the Eusebui signed, as evidence,
(11) There wasn't a vast conspiracy to remove Arians from the vote. Arius had only begun teaching his heresy in 319, but the council was a mere six years later in 325. Arianism was still small at this point.
But by less than 100 years later it was the dominant religion of the Barbarians as I think you concede. One can say that it swept fast like Milleritism in a way or Marcionism, sects that instantly take off.
(12) We don't know how many bishops were present due to conflicting counts between eyewitnesses.
All the more evidence that there may be some agendas in who said what and how many.
(13) We don't know how many attendants came because each bishop could bring priests and presbyters and deacons.
Yeah that is another element so what is this evidence of? How many Bishops altogether were in the Empire, I gotta find a source for that.
(14) We don't know the names or theological perspectives of most of the attendants.
You're right. And this is more evidence that we don't know if anyone who signed knew what they were saying other than "let's all get along and agree".
(15) Because of the lack of clarity in numbers, identity, and theological perspective, we have no way of knowing how many Arians were at Nicea. We do know that everyone was invited, the leading Arians attended and presented their own views, and the leading Arians actually signed off on the council.
The leading Arians were obviously at odds with the Trinitarians who dominated politically sensitive areas such as areas that produced large quantities of Grain. This we know, and if they did outnumber them by what margin. How many Bishops were there in the Empire altogether, it seems rather odd for the Emperor to have such a small number of bishops in his own backyard, but it also depends on the way you view it. Let's assume it wasn't rigged. Within 6 years, the number of Bishops presented is still a large number but still not that much in relation to the "Orthodoxy". Percentage wise, even around "20" out of 300, 30 even, that's 8-10% in 6 years. If I was an Egyptian Bishop I'd see that swarming the empire in 2 generations.
(16) After Nicea, Constantine exiled both orthodox and Arian bishops at different times. This suggests he did not have a strong desire to push one agenda or another. Athanasius was a notable orthodox exilee, but I can list others if need be.
Its possible maybe even Eusebius was exiled for signing, what were they all exiled for specifically, lays a critical element to what is called evidence. Obviously the Synod of Tyre reflects an "Arians fight back". You can view it as a Constantinople vs. Egypt issue of which everyone was trying to have their own say.
(17) After Nicea, Arianism grew. This suggests Nicea was not a conspiracy to silence the opposition, and was not in fact effective.
It certainly did, and like I said in 6 years it was between 8-10% of the empire. That's a massive increase. It would only grow exponentially. Your idea that this is evidence is only an opinion. My opinion is that it was an ATTEMPT. And Constantine didn't like it. I think you may be assuming Athanasius was not brave enough to dare defy even the Emperor himself. (Though he was certainly trying to duck him for awhile).
(18) After Nicea, new heresies multiplied that still were able to endorse Nicea. This suggests Nicea was too vague to eliminate the basic tendencies of Arianism.
Yes, but not evidence against the idea that it was an attempt to do so from the Egyptian perspective who had seen it rise from 8-10% of the population by 6 years according to the conservative estimate of Arian Bishops who went.
(19) Even if Nicea was a result of a rigged vote, this does not explain why, out of the dozens of Arians present, only two voted no.
Possibly only two had the guts to stick to their guns in the face of the mob. Any evidence otherwise? Does signing mean they really agree and will go on and stop preaching Arianism or was it a cow tow? A signature means nothing obviously as the council had little effect. My idea is that was an attempt that had an aftershock after Constantine was gone. Without Constantine, I am saying the Bishops would have more easily bullied the Arians like in the Council of Constantinople.
(20) You found the names of ten famous Arians present at Nicea: Secundus of Ptolemais, Theonus of Marmarica, Zphyrius, and Dathes, Eusebius of Nicomedia,[21] Eusebius of Caesarea, Paulinus of Tyrus, Actius of Lydda, Menophantus of Ephesus, and Theognus of Nicaea.
Accounted for.
(21) The later Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon were both called because Nicea did not solve anything. It certainly wasn't a rigged forceful majoritarian affair.
That's your opinion on why it was called. I say it was to reverse the Council of Tyre once 'Stan was outta the way to protect the Arians.
(22) No eyewitness accounts claim that the affair was rigged. We have similar accusations against other councils, most notably the "Robber's Council" in Ephesus in 449. Why don't we have any eye witness accusations of rigging things?
Fair enough, I ask the same question about things like references to the Pastoral Epistles before Iraneus. As well as the Book of John by name.
(23) Constantine called the council, and his own son Constantius was an Arian.
Accounted for. Do you account for the power struggle between Egypt and Thrace?
Not only do you have to prove that there were more Arian bishops in the Empire, you also have to prove that either (1) they weren't invited; (2) they were coerced to vote; (3) they had no say at the council; or (4) they weren't permitted to participate. I've already provided conclusive evidence against #1, 3, and 4. We have no eyewitness claims of #2, so that's highly unlikely.
I retract that it was for sure there were more Arians at the time and I now state that it was an issue of its rapid growth that could have gotten to 50% within a generation or two. And certainly by 3 generations later in Germania.
Moreover, you don't "throw tomatoes" at Constantine to force him to accept something. Constantine was the first Emporer who even recognized Christianity. The emperor before him killed hundreds and thousands of Christians, seized churches, and burned Christian holy books. At this time period, Christians lacked the power to force the emperor to do anything.
That's an incorrect historical assumption. The empire was in its declining era right before Constantinople became the center of power and there were power struggles all over. Constantine was Emperor and had power, but Athanasius obviously challenged it enough, the Grain charge cannot be dispelled with the mummy hand false charge. If that's not evidence of him actually conspiring to withhold grain, it's not evidence of 'Stan making up evidence either just because he had false charges by one of his many enemies.
Plus you have a theory with exactly zero evidence. I admit it is quite possible that Christianity is false, or orthodoxy is wrong. However, to come here and promote a conspiracy theory without any evidence, while ignoring all evidence presented to you to the contrary and not responding to the vast majority of contrary evidence is just silly. You don't need a conspiracy theory to not be an orthodox Christian, so why continue to try to support one in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary?
Admitting its possible is better than most Christians, I don't say that the original Hebrew Nazarene version is false, I say that "Orthodoxy" is a misleading word and is more or less "Iraneusism + Tertullianism" with Roman flavor. Maybe Ignatius and Clement depending on what you call Orthodox. You have presented much evidence that is nonetheless opinion of fact.
I'm sorry, but you can't just make up a theory and then have it be factual. You can't just say something and have it be true. Do you have any single piece of first hand testimony to back you up? Do you have a single piece of relevant evidence? Did God himself reveal this to you?
Making up a theory and assuming it to be factual is exactly what you do with almost all those "evidence" points.
Let's look at the facts. Do you even have the name of a single Germanic Arian who was writing on or before 325 AD when Nicea was called? Not necessarily a bishop. Any Arian at all. The only Arians I am aware of were in Africa (Arius himself in Alexandria, the Libyan Arians), Judea (Eusebius of Caesarea) and Asia Minor (Theognus of Nicea, Eusebius of Nicomedia). If the Arians in Germany were so prominent, it should be easy to list three or four of them. Can you?
I will give it a search. For now I will stand on the issue of it growing to at least 8-10% of the population by 6 years alone by conservative estimate of the Nicean representation for this.
Please provide evidence for any claim you have made about the Council of Nicea. Otherwise, retract your entire argument.
You have some tricky ideas on what you call evidence and a fine line has to be drawn on what you consider a conclusion or evidence.
Polemics are not the source of good or real conversation. Honest presentation of factual evidence with an openness and willingness to learn is the basis for real and good conversation.
Most of your points are nonetheless presentations of an idea based on a fact, a controversial fact that had controversial ideas.
Empty conspiracy theories without a single factual piece of evidence (except a blog and a few Wikipedia quotes with inner contradictions), even if these conspiracy theories are aggressively presented, are nothing but empty. They are not "real conversation." They are a joke.
Prove that the Empire was solidly under Constantine's fist and that the Egyptians were firmly under his control and maybe I will consider that there was not an attempt by Athanasius to undermine the Arianism of the North and Central part of the Empire of which he was thousands of miles away from. The thing about Nicea being across the sea from Byzantium is as speculative as my idea that it was a thrust into the heart of enemy territory by Trinitarians.
