Unpacking Christian Doctrine

[Cal]

This whole tangent started about a week ago. I followed a link to another link that lead me to reading the Wikipedia version of Buddhist Cosmology. To be perfectly honest, I wish I hadn't, it only served to give me a solid serving of confusion. Now I don't remember how, but I ended up looking at some iconography this morning, and following  link to another link etc. I was "stopped" at iconography painted on the Sistine Chapel. Specifically the image of God extending his arm and finger to a point and that of a man (Adam) extending relatively less to touch at the finger of god. There is some powerful implication in this image, and while reflecting, I continued my tangent and ended up researching some into the story of Adam and Eve.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Sistine+chapel&newwindow=1&tbm=isch&imgil=bKozlJFMFUbaNM%253A%253BUEaV0S5DyhggzM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fen.wikipedia.org%25252Fwiki%25252FSistine_Chapel_ceiling&source=iu&pf=m&fir=bKozlJFMFUbaNM%253A%252CUEaV0S5DyhggzM%252C_&biw=1680&bih=913&usg=__eO6Dc66FvOt4s7p_p1c67Sg1DgY%3D&ved=0CDoQyjdqFQoTCJva5sz08sgCFYQ9PgodlPoD6g&ei=LfQ3VtuPGIT7-AGU9Y_QDg#imgrc=jQ6qzGGngZbG8M%3A&usg=__eO6Dc66FvOt4s7p_p1c67Sg1DgY%3D

I'd like to note some specific correlations;
-Adam and Eve and Buddhist Temporal Cosmology and Evolution
-Adam and Eve and Christian "Dependent Origination"

The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan.
"...This is the most ancient story in the world--it has survived because it embodies the basic fact of human life. A fact that has not changed one iota; amid all the superficial changes of civilization's vivid array, this fact remains: the conflict of Good and Evil; the fight between Man and the Devil; the eternal struggle of human nature against sin.
That the Adam and Eve story pervaded the thoughts of ancient writers is seen in the large number of versions that exist, or whose existence may be traced, through the writings of Greeks, Syrians, Egyptians, Abyssinians, Hebrews, and other ancient peoples. As a lawyer might say who examines so much apparently unrelated evidence--there must be something back of it...."

BUT Adam and Eve wept for having come out of the garden, their first abode.

2 And, indeed, when Adam looked at his flesh, that was altered, he wept bitterly, he and Eve, over what they had done. And they walked and went gently down into the Cave of Treasures.
3 And as they came to it Adam wept over himself and said to Eve, "Look at this cave that is to be our prison in this world, and a place of punishment!"
4 "What is it compared with the garden? What is its narrowness compared with the space of the other?
5 "What is this rock, by the side of those groves? What is the gloom of this cavern, compared with the light of the garden?
6 "What is this overhanging ledge of rock to shelter us, compared with the mercy of the Lord that overshadowed us?
7 "What is the soil of this cave compared with the garden-land? This earth, strewed with stones; and that, planted with delicious fruit-trees?"
8 And Adam said to Eve, "Look at thine eyes, and at mine, which afore beheld angels in heaven, praising; and they, too, without ceasing.
9 "But now we do not see as we did: our eyes have become of flesh; they cannot see in like manner as they saw before."
10 Adam said again to Eve, "What is our body to-day, compared to what it was in former days, when we dwelt in the garden?"
11 After this Adam did not like to enter the cave, under the overhanging rock; nor would he ever have entered it.
12 But he bowed to God's orders; and said to himself, "Unless I enter the cave, I shall again be a transgressor."

There are many religious implications in this. I have not researched the author at all, but his reflections on the events that "transpire" after Adam and Eve were kicked from the garden served me in providing "fictional perspective", that some of it just happens to be true. 
For example in; "And as they came to it (Cave of Treasure) Adam wept over himself and said to Eve, "Look at this cave that is to be our prison in this world, and a place of punishment!" I see the First Noble Truth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve

In the Book of Genesis of the Hebrew Bible, chapters one through five, there are two creation narratives with two distinct perspectives. In the first, Adam and Eve are not referenced by name. Instead, God created humankind in God's image and instructed them to multiply and to be stewards over everything else that God had made. In the second narrative, God fashions Adam from dust and places him in the Garden of Eden. Adam is told that he can till the ground and eat freely of all the trees in the garden, except for a tree of the knowledge of good and evil, of which he is prohibited from eating. Subsequently, Eve is created from one of Adam's ribs to be Adam's companion. However, a serpent tricks Eve into eating fruit from the forbidden tree, and she gives some of the fruit to Adam. God curses the serpent and the ground. God prophetically tells the woman and the man what will be the consequences of their sin of disobeying God. Then he banishes 'the man' from the Garden of Eden.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology#cite_note-21
Vivartakalpa

The Vivartakalpa begins with the arising of the primordial wind, which begins the process of building up the structures of the universe that had been destroyed at the end of the last mahākalpa. As the extent of the destruction can vary, the nature of this evolution can vary as well, but it always takes the form of beings from a higher world being born into a lower world. The example of a Mahābrahmā being the rebirth of a deceased Ābhāsvara deva is just one instance of this, which continues throughout the Vivartakalpa until all the worlds are filled from the Brahmaloka down to Naraka. During the Vivartakalpa the first humans appear; they are not like present-day humans, but are beings shining in their own light, capable of moving through the air without mechanical aid, living for a very long time, and not requiring sustenance; they are more like a type of lower deity than present-day humans are.

Over time, they acquire a taste for physical nutriment, and as they consume it, their bodies become heavier and more like human bodies; they lose their ability to shine, and begin to acquire differences in their appearance, and their length of life decreases. They differentiate into two sexes and begin to become sexually active. Then greed, theft and violence arise among them, and they establish social distinctions and government and elect a king to rule them, called Mahāsammata, "the great appointed one". Some of them begin to hunt and eat the flesh of animals, which have by now come into existence."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agga%C3%B1%C3%B1a_Sutta[/b]]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agga%C3%B1%C3%B1a_Sutta
Aggañña Sutta

The Buddha said that sooner or later, after a very long time, there would come a time when the world shrinks. At a time of contraction, beings are mostly born in the Abhassara Brahma world. And there they dwell, mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous, moving through the air, glorious — and they stay like that for a very long time. But sooner or later, after a very long period, this world begins to expand again. At a time of expansion, the beings from the Abhassara Brahma world, having died from there, are mostly reborn in this world. Here they dwell, mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous, moving through the air, glorious — and they stay like that for a very long time.

Now while I noted a large amount of things in the specifics of "Adam and Eve", I'm going to leave them until I've finished, as I'm reading them from the Bible and I don't want to misinterpret something. But I will share them. Just thought I'd share the pattern I'm seeing whilst on mah tangent.

[Cal]

I found this to be an interesting read. I am unsure how much truth lies in it, but thought i would share it none-the-less.

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-general/why-christmas-held-25th-december-001161

[Jhanananda]

Yes, Call, Why Christmas is held on 25th December is because it was the winter solstice about 2,000 years ago.  The winter solstice was observed by many cultures in the ancient world, so the early Christian church appropriated and subverted it.  Thanks for the link.

[Jhanananda]

On your comments regarding the Garden of Edan, I take both the Garden of Edan and the Cave of Treasure to be metaphors for the human genitalia, especially the female genitalia being specifically the Cave of Treasure, so that it is an admonish to avoid too much pleasure taking, and seek the inner most pleasure of the charisms, as we here are pursuing.

Your comments regarding Buddhism belong elsewhere unless there is a specific parallelism, and if so we should start a new thread on the influence of Buddhism upon Christianity, which can be a very interesting subject.

[Cal]

On your comments regarding the Garden of Edan, I take both the Garden of Edan and the Cave of Treasure to be metaphors for the human genitalia, especially the female genitalia being specifically the Cave of Treasure, so that it is an admonish to avoid too much pleasure taking, and seek the inner most pleasure of the charisms, as we here are pursuing.

Your comments regarding Buddhism belong elsewhere unless there is a specific parallelism, and if so we should start a new thread on the influence of Buddhism upon Christianity, which can be a very interesting subject.

Hmm yes, I was noting parallels between them, but I havnt kept up with it. It's interesting to think of the garden of edan and the cave of treasures as human genitalia. When I was looking at the above I recall looking at both respectively different and much broader. I seen the cave of treasures as the physical world, and the garden of edan as the immaterial domains. It's rekindled an interest in the subject.   

[Jhanananda]

I seen the cave of treasures as the physical world, and the garden of edan as the immaterial domains. It's rekindled an interest in the subject.   

I take both as reasonable hypotheses.

[Jhanananda]

Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ'

London (PRWEB UK) 8 October 2013

American Biblical scholar Joseph Atwill will be appearing before the British public for the first time in London on the 19th of October to present a controversial new discovery: ancient confessions recently uncovered now prove, according to Atwill, that the New Testament was written by first-century Roman aristocrats and that they fabricated the entire story of Jesus Christ. His presentation will be part of a one-day symposium entitled "Covert Messiah" at Conway Hall in Holborn (full details can be found at http://www.covertmessiah.com).

I seem to recall looking at this claim before and concluding that, while the Gospels may very well have not been written by any of the apostles; and the Christian Church was clearly hijacked by the hegemony of Rome in the 4th century; and all translations of the Gospels depend upon gross mistranslations; nonetheless, this is insufficient evidence to reject the existence of Jesus.  The problem is Christian doctrine has so doctored the life and teachings of Jesus, that there is little truth in mainstream Christianity, and their bogus translations of the Gospels.

[Jhanananda]

I found this new Blog from Michale Hawkins a worthy read. Salvation from What?.

Reading his blog, I was reminded of my father who claimed to be an agnostic most of his life, but he had so much conviction in his denial of a spiritual dimension, and an existence of God, that he was really an atheist.  Then two years before his death he became a born-again Christian.  Which to me just showed how much a fraud he was.  If he was going to live the life of an atheist, then he might as well die as one instead of taking an easy out by just embracing a deeply flawed interpretation of the Way, truth and life of Jesus.

Which, by the way, reminds me of Buddhism in the sense of: way = path (magga); truth = dhamma, or belief, or philosophy; and life = a lifestyle as described by the Noble Eight fold Path.

[Jhanananda]

Two sources of Christian criticism which could be very useful to any western person wishing to take up a fruitful contemplative life:

jesus never existed, which is based upon a single and hopeless failure in logic, because the existence of Jesus, or God, can neither be proven or disproven intellectually beyond a shadow of a doubt; because there is simply no physical proof that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt either way either premise; however, it has been my experience that by leading a rigorous, self-aware, fruitful contemplative life I have found incontrovertible proof for both premises.  Nonetheless, I also find that most of what has been written on both subject is mostly fiction.

I do not believe that I have read Beyond Belief, which seems to have Christian criticism in its table of contents, which could be quite useful, so I plan to start reading through it as time is available.

[Jhanananda]

Here is an interesting article on possibly pushing back the date of the redaction of the bible and the extent of literacy at the time and in the culture. 

The article misses some serious problems with literature and literacy prior to the common era.  It just so happens almost no culture wrote their religious books down prior to 65BCE.  Then around 65BCE it all got written in a storm.

What was going on in 65BCE was the Persian Emperor, who had conquered India, set up scriptoriums to set down in print much of the religious literature of the day, including the Pali Canon and the Bible.

My interpretation of this even, as an anthropologist who has studied ancient literature extensively, is prior to the redaction of religious literature, the priesthood of each religion had control of religious literature through memorization.  This meant anyone who wanted to understand the teachings of the ancient sages, mystics, and prophets of the past had to go to a priest to do so, which more often than not came with a donation. 

This means control of the religion's literature was a livelihood for the priests, and a source of power. This means, when King Malinda (Minander) had the religious literature written down, he took power from the priesthood and took it for himself, and gave it freely to the population who were interested in literacy.

Now, how common was literacy?  Books needed to be printed for access to literature, which required Gutenberg to invent the printing press in 1439.  Literacy; however, was not common in any culture until the 19th century.  Now literacy is so common that we almost never meet someone who is illiterate.

So, in my opinion, the article has a number of problems with its basic premises.
The Bible was written way earlier than we thought, mathematicians suggest

Even if you’re not religious, there’s no denying the enormous - and sometimes devastating - influence that the Bible as an historic text has had on the world over the past 3,000 years. And yet, when it comes to the most widely distributed book on the planet, we still can’t agree on who wrote it, and when.

So a bunch of mathematicians teamed up with archaeologists to shed a bit of light on the origins of the Bible, by using artificial intelligence to come up with an estimate of how many people could read and write during certain periods in ancient history.

Led by mathematician Shira Faigenbaum-Golovin from Tel Aviv University in Israel, the team came up with new image processing techniques and a handwriting recognition tool to investigate 16 inscriptions found in the desert fortress of Arad, just west of the Dead Sea.

Dated to around 600 BCE (so about 2,600 years ago) these ink inscriptions detail fairly mundane military commands and supply orders, and were written on ceramic pottery shards called ostraca during the late First Temple Period - 24 years before the Kingdom of Jerusalem was overthrown by the Babylonian king.

Find Shows Widespread Literacy 2,600 Years Ago in Judah

[Jhanananda]

The Nag Humadi texts have proven to aide in the unpacking of Christian doctrine.  Here are some interesting articles based upon the Nag Humadi texts:

Scholars Have Found a Rare Copy of Heretical Writings on Jesus And His 'Brother'
Copy of 'Jesus' secret revelations to his brother,' discovered by biblical scholars
Egyptian wedding certificate key to authenticating controversial biblical text
The Lost Tomb Of Jesus? Religious Scholar Provides Insight On The Controversy
The Platonist Christianity of Marius Victorinus
Saint Luke: chronicler of the first Christmas and most published of any doctor

[Jhanananda]

I have been recently reflecting upon the use of the term 'Tektōn' in the original Gospels, so I examined again its definition, which is as follows:

The Ancient Greek noun tektōn (τέκτων) is a common term for an artisan/craftsman, in particular a carpenter, wood-worker, mason, builder or teacher. The term is frequently contrasted with an iron-worker, or smith (χαλκεύς) and the stone-worker or mason (λιθολόγος, λαξευτής).[1]

Septuagint

The characteristic Ancient Greek distinction between the general worker or wood-worker and the stonemason and the metal-worker occurs frequently in the Septuagint:

    Isaiah 41:7 "So the carpenter (tektōn) encouraged the goldsmith, and he that smootheth with the hammer him that smote the anvil, saying, ...[2]

The distinction occurs in lists of workmen working on building or repairs to the temple in Jerusalem, for example in the repairs carried out under the priest Jehoiada and "the carpenters and builders, that wrought upon the house of the LORD,... And to masons, and hewers of stone, and to buy timber and hewed stone to repair the breaches of the house of the LORD," in 2 Kings 12:11–12. This same incident is recounted in similar language, using tekton again, in the account of Josephus.[3]

New Testament
Gospel references

The term is chiefly notable for New Testament commentators' discussion of the employment of Jesus and his adoptive father Joseph, both described as "tekton" in the New Testament. This is translated as "carpenter" in English-language Bibles.

The term occurs in combination with the definite article in the Gospel of Mark,[6:3] to describe the occupation of Jesus.[4]
“    Is not this the carpenter (ho tektōn) the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?[4]    ”

The term is also used in the Gospel of Matthew in relation to Jesus' adoptive father Joseph.[13:55]
“    Is not this the carpenter's son (ho tou tektōnos huios)?[4]    ”

In modern scholarship, the word has sometimes been re-interpreted from the traditional meaning of carpenter and has sometimes been translated as craftsman, as the meaning of builder is implied, but can be applied to both wood-work and stone masonry.[4]
Hebrew naggar interpretation

In the Septuagint the Greek noun tektōn either stands for the generic Hebrew noun kharash (חרש), "craftsman," (as Isaiah 41:7) or tekton xylon (τέκτων ξύλον) as a word-for-word rendering of kharash-'etsim (חָרַשׁ עֵצִים) "craftsman of woods." (as Isaiah 44:13).[5] The term kharash occurs 33 times in the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible.

As an alternative to kharash, some authors have speculated that the Greek term corresponds to the Aramaic term naggara (Hebrew |נגר naggar "craftsman") and in 1983 Geza Vermes (1983) suggested that given that the use of the term in the Talmud "carpenter" can signify a very learned man, the New Testament description of Joseph as a carpenter could indicate that he was considered wise and literate in the Torah.[6] This theory was later popularized by A. N. Wilson to suggest that Jesus had some sort of elevated status.[7][8]

The original text with "There is no carpenter or son of carpenter that can take it apart" is found in Avodah Zarah 50b in discussion of whether to prune a tree on the Sabbath, with "carpenter" used in Isidore Epstein (Soncino) and Michael Rodkinson's translations and Ezra Zion Melamed's Lexicon.[9] In the modern English version of the Talmud Jacob Neusner the passage reads as follows:

    1.5 A. Said R. Joseph bar Abba ... "people may remove worms from a tree or patch the bark with dung during the Sabbatical Year, but people may not remove worms or patch the bark during the intermediate days of a festival. ... But there is no craftsman let alone a disciple of a craftsman who can unravel this teaching."

    B. Said Rabina, "I am not a craftsman let alone a disciple of a craftsman, but I can unravel this teaching. What is the problem anyhow? ..."[10]

However the Greek term tekton does not carry this meaning, the nearest equivalent in the New Testament is Paul's comparison to Timothy of a "workman" (ἐργάτης ergatēs) rightly "dividing" the word of truth. This has been taken as a carpentry-image by some Christian commentators.[11] The suggested term naggar "craftsman" is not found in biblical Aramaic or Hebrew, or in Aramaic documents of the New Testament period,[12] but is found in later Talmudic texts where the term "craftsman" is used a metaphor for a skilled handler of the word of God.[13][14]

For this reason I accept that the use of the term 'Tektōn' suggests 'wise' especially in the interpretation of the bible.

[Alexander]

This is a great effort, Jeff, and unfortunately one that is lacking in most people's studies of the Bible. The process of translation alters many meanings over time. Most people do not adopt this type of critical approach.

One example of a mistranslation which I learned is the line "it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle." This one mistranslates the word "rope" for "camel" (the Greek word for the two is almost identical) which creates a much more appropriate metaphor.

Another which I believe I learned from you was the "of Nazareth" title of Jesus. This actually comes from the term "Nazirite" which was a sect of the Essenes (who we can assume Jesus belonged to).

The reference to Jesus' siblings is another point which is plainly stated in the Gospels, and contradicts what I was taught growing up (that Jesus was an only child).

I recently returned to the Bible this past year with a critical eye, and coming from the body of knowledge of a mystic, found large parts of it contradictory and baffling. Many of the mythological elements, such as the virgin birth, the folklore about Mary, and the miracles, are very strange. I often wonder why they were included at all.

[Jhanananda]

Thank-you, Alexander, for posting your interesting comments.  Upthread here we have a book that we discussed, which investigates bias in the translation of the Gospels.  Some of that bias gives voice to many of the myths about Jesus, and other progenitors, some of it is more recent biases based upon more recent belief systems.  All of this constitutes what lies behind language shift.  So, if we want to understand the life and teachings of Yeshua ben David (Jesus's Aramaic name) we will have to dump language shift to get there.

[Jhanananda]

Over the years I have come across a number of references to Eastern Christianity, and the later Greco-Roman reaction to its earlier cousin.  One of those important influences was Arius (AD 256–336).

To begin with Arius's name suggests a link to the Aryan people, who we refer to as "Persian." And, it was the Persians who were the home of the earliest known Christian church, which is also known as the Eastern Christian Church.

Arius (/əˈraɪəs, ˈɛəri-/; Koinē Greek: Ἄρειος, Áreios; 250 or 256–336) was a Libyan presbyter and ascetic,[1] and priest in Baucalis in Alexandria, Egypt.[2] His teachings about the nature of the Godhead in Christianity, which emphasized God the Father's uniqueness and Christ's subordination under the Father,[3] and his opposition to what would become the dominant Christology, Homoousian Christology, made him a primary topic of the First Council of Nicaea, which was convened by Emperor Constantine the Great in 325.

After Emperors Licinius and Constantine legalized and formalized the Christianity of the time in the Roman Empire, Constantine sought to unify the newly recognized Church and remove theological divisions.[4] The Christian Church was divided over disagreements on Christology, or, the nature of the relationship between Jesus and God. Homoousian Christians, including Athanasius of Alexandria, used Arius and Arianism as epithets to describe those who disagreed with their doctrine of coequal Trinitarianism, a Homoousian Christology representing God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son as "of one essence" ("consubstantial") and coeternal.

Negative writings describe Arius's theology as one in which there was a time before the Son of God, when only God the Father existed. Despite concerted opposition, Arian Christian churches persisted throughout Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa, especially in various Germanic kingdoms, until suppressed by military conquest or voluntary royal conversion between the fifth and seventh centuries.

The Son's precise relationship with the Father had been discussed for decades before Arius's advent; Arius intensified the controversy and carried it to a Church-wide audience, where others like Eusebius of Nicomedia proved much more influential in the long run. In fact, some later Arians disavowed the name, claiming not to have been familiar with the man or his specific teachings.[5][6] However, because the conflict between Arius and his foes brought the issue to the theological forefront, the doctrine he proclaimed—though not originated—is generally labeled as "his".

It become known as the "Arian heresy."

Early life and personality

Reconstructing the life and doctrine of Arius has proven to be a difficult task, as none of his original writings survive. Emperor Constantine ordered their burning while Arius was still living, and any that survived this purge were later destroyed by his Orthodox opponents. Those works which have survived are quoted in the works of churchmen who denounced him as a heretic. This leads some — but not all — scholars to question their reliability.[7]

Now, we should all be asking ourselves, "Why would Emperor Constantine care about Christian doctrine, when he never considered himself a Christian?" And, "Why would Emperor Constantine burn Arius's writing?"

It seems to me that Constantine was interested in controlling the doctrine of Christianity for his own purposes.

Arius was of Berber descent.[1] His father's name is given as Ammonius. Arius is believed to have been a student at the exegetical school in Antioch, where he studied under Saint Lucian.[8] Having returned to Alexandria, Arius, according to a single source, sided with Meletius of Lycopolis in his dispute over the re-admission of those who had denied Christianity under fear of Roman torture, and was ordained a deacon under the latter's auspices. He was excommunicated by Bishop Peter of Alexandria in 311 for supporting Meletius,[9] but under Peter's successor Achillas, Arius was re-admitted to Christian communion and in 313 made presbyter of the Baucalis district in Alexandria.

Although his character has been severely assailed by his opponents, Arius appears to have been a man of personal ascetic achievement, pure morals, and decided convictions. Paraphrasing Epiphanius of Salamis, an opponent of Arius, Catholic historian Warren H. Carroll describes him as "tall and lean, of distinguished appearance and polished address. Women doted on him, charmed by his beautiful manners, touched by his appearance of asceticism. Men were impressed by his aura of intellectual superiority."[10]

As we can see from the history of how mystics are commonly marginalized Arius was also demonized.

Though Arius was also accused by his opponents of being too liberal, and too loose in his theology, engaging in heresy (as defined by his opponents), some historians argue that Arius was actually quite conservative,[11] and that he deplored how, in his view, Christian theology was being too freely mixed with Greek paganism.[12]

This might explain why Constantine demonized Arius, and had Arius' writing burned; because Constantine may have wanted Christian theology mixed with Greek paganism.

The Arian controversy
Main article: Arianism

Arius is notable primarily because of his role in the Arian controversy, a great fourth-century theological conflict that led to the calling of the first ecumenical council of the Church. This controversy centered upon the nature of the Son of God, and his precise relationship to God the Father. Before the council of Nicaea, the Christian world knew several competing Christological ideas. Church authorities condemned some of these ideas but did not put forth a uniform formula. The Nicaean formula was a rapidly concluded solution to the general Christological debate.[13]

Beginnings

The Trinitarian historian Socrates of Constantinople reports that Arius sparked the controversy that bears his name when Alexander of Alexandria, who had succeeded Achillas as the Bishop of Alexandria, gave a sermon stating the similarity of the Son to the Father. Arius interpreted Alexander's speech as being a revival of Sabellianism, condemned it, and then argued that "if the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he [the Son] had his substance from nothing."[14] This quote describes the essence of Arius's doctrine.

Socrates of Constantinople believed that Arius was influenced in his thinking by the teachings of Lucian of Antioch, a celebrated Christian teacher and martyr. In a letter to Patriarch Alexander of Constantinople Arius' bishop, Alexander of Alexandria, wrote that Arius derived his theology from Lucian. The express purpose of Alexander's letter was to complain of the doctrines that Arius was spreading, but his charge of heresy against Arius is vague and unsupported by other authorities. Furthermore, Alexander's language, like that of most controversialists in those days, is quite bitter and abusive. Moreover, even Alexander never accused Lucian of having taught Arianism; rather, he accused Lucian ad invidiam of heretical tendencies—which apparently, according to him, were transferred to his pupil, Arius.[15] The noted Russian historian Alexander Vasiliev refers to Lucian as "the Arius before Arius".[16]
Origen and Arius

Like many third-century Christian scholars, Arius was influenced by the writings of Origen, widely regarded as the first great theologian of Christianity.[17] However, while both agreed on the subordination of the Son to the Father, and Arius drew support from Origen's theories on the Logos, the two did not agree on everything. Arius clearly argued that the Logos had a beginning and that the Son, therefore, was not eternal, the Logos being the highest of the Created Order. This idea is summarized in the statement "there was a time when the Son was not." By way of contrast, Origen believed the relation of the Son to the Father had no beginning, and that the Son was "eternally generated". However, it must be remembered that to Origen, the universe, and even all souls had no beginning.[18]

Arius objected to Origen's doctrine, complaining about it in his letter to the Nicomedian Eusebius, who had also studied under Lucian. Nevertheless, despite disagreeing with Origen on this point, Arius found solace in his writings, which used expressions that favored Arius's contention that the Logos was of a different substance than the Father, and owed his existence to his Father's will. However, because Origen's theological speculations were often proffered to stimulate further inquiry rather than to put an end to any given dispute, both Arius and his opponents were able to invoke the authority of this revered (at the time) theologian during their debate.[19]

Arius emphasized the supremacy and uniqueness of God the Father, meaning that the Father alone is infinite and eternal and almighty, and that therefore the Father's divinity must be greater than the Son's. Arius taught that the Son had a beginning, contrary to Origen, who taught that the Son was less than the Father only in power, but not in time. Arius maintained that the Son possessed neither the eternity nor the true divinity of the Father, but was rather made "God" only by the Father's permission and power, and that the Logos was rather the very first and the most perfect of God's productions, before ages.[20][21]

This goes on and on, but leads to some rather interesting nuances in the early history of Christianity, which supports our mystical tendencies.  I suggest the members of this forum read further on this subject.