Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ted Hoffman · 09-28-2005, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

The passages you considered to be indicative of a mythical Jesus came from writers who elsewhere make it clear they believe in a Jesus who existed in history.

GDon's point is that, if all we had was the former (eg M.Felix) you would conclude incorrectly (as you have apparently done) that this author did not believe in a Jesus who existed in history.

And Doherty argues that the problem with this argument is that wrt Tertullian, Ad Nationes is not all we have. And we cannot assume for M.F. based on what we dont have or based on Ad Nationes. I have also provided differences between MF and Tertullian wrt this argument in the "shattering the cement block" thread.

It is like arguing that if all we had were hands and feet and no eyes, then we would not know what red is. True. But we have eyes, so we know what red is. Doherty's analogy is that GDon is like one arguing that since one chapter of a book does not indicate an idea, we can ignore other chapters and conclude that the author therefore never had that idea.
Are we to expect writers to pack all their beliefs in every document they produce?
We cannot ignore what we know. And we cannot assume what we dont know. Parsimony.

I am myself not for using passages alone as a guide. Neither does Doherty. He goes further than a passage. I break down the passages to indicators and assign them weight according to the criteria they meet and one can arrive at a reliable balance of probability wrt whether the writer believed in a HJ or otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

He is arguing that the statements Doherty focuses upon in the writings of 2nd century Christians are not reliable indicators of a lack of belief in a Jesus who existed in history.

They are not adequate for arriving at a conclusion. They are however indicators.

GakuseiDon · 09-28-2005, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

GDon is running all over the place. First he argued that the early Christians used concepts like Logos because they were useful for Christianity. Then he argued that we find the early Christians using pagan philosophical concepts because the early Christians were re-imaging Christianity. Then he argued that we find these pagan concepts because philosophizing Christianity "was part of an on-going process in the Second Century, when numbers of philosophically trained pagans were converting to Christianity."

Yes, that's not too far from what I'm saying. Second Century Christians built on First Century Wisdom theology, and began to associate it with the Logos. As more pagans converted to Christianity in the Second Century, they built on and developed the notion - "paganized" it, in other words. This made it more attractive to other pagans, who had regarded Christianity as a superstitious cult.

So Second Century Christians began to re-image Christianity as a philosophy school, using the concepts brought in by pagan converts with a philosophical education, Justin Martyr being one of the more famous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

GDon also argues that these early apologists only focused on expounding on philosophical concepts like logos rather than mention historical details about Jesus because these pagan philosophical concepts (which GDon sees as functionally divergent from historical details about Jesus) were the most effective for winning converts.

Not quite. I argue that the apologists were more concerned with defending the image of Christianity than winning converts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Note the following:

GDon is incapable of demonstrating that mention of historical details about Jesus would have repulsed potential converts.
GDon has no clear method for determining what was or was not important to early Christianity.

True enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

GDon is unable to show texts that show us that these apologists previously were part of a Christianity that was different from the one they propounded.

I'm not saying they were propounding something different to what they believed, if that's what you mean.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Don is equally unable to demonstrate that Christians wanted to re-image Christianity. The argument he claims he derives from Armstrong's work to support his reasoning is incorrect as I have shown. After I have ensured that his argument has no logical feet to support it, GDon remains clinging to it on the basis that Armstrong, who allegedly favours that argument is a respected atheist. Being a respected atheist is now a new way of being an authority in this particular field.

She's a respected scholar in the field, at any rate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

GDon is unable to demonstrate that there was a revision process that started at a specific point in time that the "philosophically trained pagans" joined upon upon converting to Christianity.

Quotes taken from Karen Armstrong's A History of God:

These ideas [First Century Wisdom theology] were comprehensible in a strictly Jewish context, though later Christians with a Greek background would interpret them differently...

Educated pagans looked to philosophy not religion for enlightenment... How could the Christians explain their faith to the pagan world? It seemed to fall between two stools, appearing neither a religion, in the Roman sense, nor a philosophy...

During the second century, however, some pagan converts to Christianity tried to reach out to their unbelieving neighbours in order to show that their religion was not a destructive breach with tradition. One of the first of these apologists was Justin of Caesarea (100-165), who died a martyr for the faith... In his two apologiae (c 150 and 155), he argued that Christians were simply following Plato, who had also maintained that there was only one God... He also argued that Jesus was the incarnation of the logos or divine reason, which the Stoics had seen in the order of the cosmos, the logos had been active in the world throughout history, inspiring Greeks and Hebrews alike.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

GDon, at the same time, would have us believe that Christianity, a cult he presents as so en vogue that "numbers of philosophically trained pagans" proudly joined, was, at the same time "viewed as a barbarous new religion". Contradictions like this continually emerge when one examines GDon's arguments closely.

It was viewed as a barbarous new religion by the pagan public, as per Tacitus around 115 CE. By the time of Justin, some pagan converts were regarding it as a valid philosophy, and promoting it as such.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

GDon's style of argumentation, from the above (and below), appears to be arbitrary, fluid, and poorly thought out. It is reactive and based on the immediate difficulty at hand, fuelled by random thoughts that occur to him.

That is why he is contradicting himself (above and below), and that is why he is pulling different rabbits out of a hat without adducing any evidence to support his conjectures. That is why he is asking us to join him in a guessing game instead of providing a framework that supports and shows how he arrived at his conclusions. We have seen that his usage of Justin is a hasty generalization. We have seen that his attempt at drawing a parallel with the ID movement is a false analogy. And I am sure we will see more attempts and more ideas come from him.

Yep! I hope so, at least

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

When asked to provide evidence that demonstrates that the Christians apologists had made a conscious choice to slant their presentations to exclude a historical Jesus, GDon, like one that does not understand what "conscious choice to slant" means, responds:

Quote:

What about Justin's comments about presenting "secular" arguments to pagans, and "faith-based" arguments to believers? What about Tertullian's Ad nationes, where he doesn't mention any details of Christ's life, not even Christ's name? What about Clement of Alexandria (182-202 CE): "Exhortation to the Heathen" (Use of 'Jesus' and 'Christ', but no historical details)? Or Commodianus (240 CE): “Instructions of Commodianus�? (No historical details)? I think there is plenty of evidence. I think the evidence is, in fact, overwhelming.

If this was not IIDB, I would have felt it necessary to explain why GDon's response fails to respond to what I asked. But since everyone is familiar with logic here, no need to waste valuable space and bandwidth.

OK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Luckily for me, you even used the exact word "adopt". Here:

Quote:

The [logos] concept was adopted by orthodox Christianity as well as by streams that were later declared heretical.

You have therefore contradicted yourself. Do you need time to revise your initial article? It is no fun arguing with a confused person.
Or do you want to disown the entire article?

No, thanks anyway. Please go ahead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Ouch. Self-contradiction is a bitch. Must feel like hearing the sound of shattering cutlery that you've just knocked over in the dark.

So they were re-imaging Christianity from what? What was Christianity before the renovation started?

It depends on the period. But at the start of the Second Century, probably still influenced by Jewish Wisdom theology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Quote:

Originally Posted by GDon

I'm not saying that Christians imported concepts like the Logos to appeal to pagans...<snip>

Christians didn't import concepts like the Logos in order to appeal to pagans. Pagans brought that concept in when they started converting. This, in turn, became a useful concept to push to other pagans. If this is unclear, I apologise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Quote:

Originally Posted by GDon

That belief had already existed. Ignatius wrote about the Logos, and we first see Justin later pushing the Logos idea to pagans. Apologists pushed the concept of the Logos to pagans since this was a concept already familiar to them. But that belief already existed.

You need to be clear about whether you are abandoning your earlier argument before we can adress this.

Nope, no change at all. Please go ahead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Quote:

Originally Posted by GDon

I understood this to mean that you believe that, as the concept of the Logos was similar to that used by pagan religions, it wouldn't have been a useful concept to use for writers like Tertullian who wanted to distance Christianity from those pagan religions.

You misunderstand. I mean to argue the following:
1. You argued that Christians adopted the logos concept because it would have been a useful concept for Christianity [Yes, you have done a volte face and denied you did this. And I have challenged this entire argument, but lets not be distracted by those]
2. (1) is premised on the idea that Christians co-opted or adopted concepts in pagan religions to make Christianity similar to pagan religions in order to make Christianity more applealing to pagans.
3. But Tertullian, instead of embracing the similarities between Christianity and pagan religions, condemns them as the works of the devil.
4. Therefore not all early Christians were interested in presenting Christianity as similar to pagan religions: some sought to argue that Christianity is not similar to paganism.

This is what I was arguing.

Now, about MF and Tertullian, MF's work is only one. And in it, he rejects the idea that a man could die to confer salvation to fellow men.
Tertullian argues that a divine being is not mortal and thus existed even before incarnation.

Here are the differences:
1. Ad Nationes provides a metaphysical framework that the "incarnation" alluded to in Apology can fit in by spanning the lifetime of the divinity pre and post the incarnation. Octavius has no countervailing text to salvage the the rejected godman.
In other words, Apology is like a Text saying "You are a pig" and Ad Nationes is like a text saying "Sorry I was drunk when I said that". OTOH, with MF, all we have is Octavius and Octavius says "You are a pig". We have no reason to believe that such an expression was influenced by alcohol (to maintain my analogy).

I'm afraid I can't follow this. I'm sorry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

2. The tone in Octavius is also devoid of any reverence to the crucified man. If MF was a Christian, he would have cut down on the tone of ridicule, which any Christian would have found offensive.

Which Christians found it offensive? That's actually one of the pieces of my evidence: Christians not only found it NOT offensive, it was even praised.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

3. Tertullian appeared to have been addressing a misunderstanding or explaining a metaphysical framework while MF was rejecting a specific concept without any qualms.

These differences, IMO, set apart MF and Tertullian.

OK, I don't agree with the conclusion, of course - I barely understand your point, in fact. But OK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Quote:

What is your opinion on the matter, Ted? Does it make any difference that by the 160s CE, the pagans generally thought that Christ was historical, as Doherty says? And that the MJ writers nearly all (if not all) wrote after 160 CE?

This is not what Doherty said. But I do think saying "everyone knew what Christians believed" makes a difference.

OK, thank you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Are you telling us that you have read all the literature of the period?

No, but that is still the correct approach.

And that's it. Ted, I'm afraid I'm too weary to continue to debate you. If you raise any good points, I'll reply, but otherwise, I won't. Since you DO raise good points at times, I expect to be replying to you, but I just don't think you are capable of continuing this particular discussion rationally (at least from my perspective).

Ted Hoffman · 09-28-2005, 06:14 AM

GDon,
Being weary clarifies nothing and does not help us understand your arguments. However, feel free to take your time and remove the contradictions and proceed to offer adequate support to your arguments.
Looking forward to your revised work

.
Jacob

TedM · 09-28-2005, 08:11 AM

TedH, I don't know the ins and outs of all your disagreements, but I've always thought Gdon has thought things through very logically. You made the following critique of him, claiming a contradiction, which I'll respond to in his defense:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gdon

I'm not saying that Christians adopted the Logos to appeal to pagans. That belief had already existed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedH

Luckily for me, you even used the exact word "adopt". Here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by GDon - from his first article

The [logos] concept was adopted by orthodox Christianity as well as by streams that were later declared heretical.

You have therefore contradicted yourself. Do you need time to revise your initial article? It is no fun arguing with a confused person.
Or do you want to disown the entire article?

I don't see how the top (later) statement contradicts his earlier statements. In neither of these statements does Gdon say WHY the Christians adopted the Logos. He appears to me to say just that by the 2nd century it was adopted. It was then used to appeal to pagans on some level. Where is the contradiction here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gdon

They [Christians] pushed the concept of the Logos to pagans

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedH

Ouch. Self-contradiction is a bitch. Must feel like hearing the sound of shattering cutlery that you've just knocked over in the dark.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gdon

Apologists pushed the concept of the Logos to pagans since this was a concept already familiar to them.

What's the problem?

Please try and keep your comments directed to this specific issue, as I am not interested in going through all the different issues you've raised.

tedM

Amaleq13 · 09-28-2005, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Second Century Christians built on First Century Wisdom theology, and began to associate it with the Logos.

Do you place the fourth Gospel in the Second Century?

Ted Hoffman · 09-28-2005, 09:39 AM

TedM,
This is how the contradiction takes place:

1. He writes in his first article that Christians adopted the logos concept from the pagans [the word "adopt" means they(Christians) never "developed" or "invented" it].
2. He writes now that Christians did not adopt the logos concept from the pagans [but that the concept was "floating" all over the place without any originator or owner].

This, dear TedM, is a contradiction.

PS: You can help clarify things by explaining why, in GDon's opinion, the logos would have been a useful concept.

TedM · 09-28-2005, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

2. He writes now that Christians did not adopt the logos concept from the pagans

I don't see this in the quotes you provided. I dont' see it here either:

Quote:

Second Century Christians built on First Century Wisdom theology, and began to associate it with the Logos.

. Where is it?

tedm

Ted Hoffman · 09-28-2005, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

2. He writes now that Christians did not adopt the logos concept from the pagans...

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I don't see this in the quotes you provided. I dont' see it here either: . Where is it?
tedm

Quote:

Originally Posted by GDon

I'm not saying that Christians imported concepts like the Logos ...

And consider:

Quote:

Originally Posted by GDon

They pushed the concept of the Logos to pagans since this was a concept already familiar to them

He is now arguing that the logos concept (among other philosophical concepts) was useful in re-imaging Christianity as a non-superstitious cult because it was a concept already familiar to the pagans and not because it was a pagan concept.

He is attempting to argue himself out of the position that Christianity adopted the logos concept from the pagans. Which was his initial position. If they did not adopt it from the pagans, who did they adopt it from? Certainly not Judaism - the closest you get to the logos is sophia - a totally different kettle of fish.

I think his fears or discomfort is misplaced. He is just apprehensive IMO.

GakuseiDon · 09-29-2005, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by GDon

Second Century Christians built on First Century Wisdom theology, and began to associate it with the Logos.

Do you place the fourth Gospel in the Second Century?

Good question. I think the consensus is end of First Century. If so, then it might mark the earliest reference to associating Christ to the Logos.

Does anyone know of any definite first century references associating Christ with the Logos?

GakuseiDon · 09-29-2005, 12:50 AM

Hi Ted Hoffman,

To summarise into general periods:
* In the first century, Christians were influenced by Jewish Wisdom theology.
* In the first half of the second century, pagans began converting to Christianity, bringing in pagan concepts like the Logos.
* In the second half of the second century, Christians like Justin began using the Logos (with Christian characteristics) in their writings to the pagans, since it was a useful and familiar concept.

I'm trying to argue against your view that I am saying Christians co-opted the concept of the Logos as they perceived it to be useful in re-imaging Christianity. But I'm saying that they didn't adopt it for the purpose of re-imaging Christianity. They already held that belief, as it had previously been brought in by earlier pagan converts.

If this is unclear, please let me know, and I will try to think of some other way to explain it.
________________

I will also note your editting of one of my statements. In one of my replies here I said:

I'm not saying that Christians imported concepts like the Logos to appeal to pagans. That belief had already existed.

I'd already said that Christians adopted concepts like the Logos. Your first edit of my comment:

I'm not saying that Christians imported concepts like the Logos to appeal to pagans...<snip>

That's okay, since it leaves in the implication of the meaning: that Christian adoption of the Logos was for other reasons. But in your last edit of that comment, you quoted me as saying:

I'm not saying that Christians imported concepts like the Logos ...

That's NOT okay, TedH.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-28-2005, 06:14 AM	#23
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	GDon, Being weary clarifies nothing and does not help us understand your arguments. However, feel free to take your time and remove the contradictions and proceed to offer adequate support to your arguments. Looking forward to your revised work . Jacob

09-28-2005, 09:39 AM	#26
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	TedM, This is how the contradiction takes place: 1. He writes in his first article that Christians adopted the logos concept from the pagans [the word "adopt" means they(Christians) never "developed" or "invented" it]. 2. He writes now that Christians did not adopt the logos concept from the pagans [but that the concept was "floating" all over the place without any originator or owner]. This, dear TedM, is a contradiction. PS: You can help clarify things by explaining why, in GDon's opinion, the logos would have been a useful concept.

09-29-2005, 12:50 AM	#30
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	Hi Ted Hoffman, To summarise into general periods: * In the first century, Christians were influenced by Jewish Wisdom theology. * In the first half of the second century, pagans began converting to Christianity, bringing in pagan concepts like the Logos. * In the second half of the second century, Christians like Justin began using the Logos (with Christian characteristics) in their writings to the pagans, since it was a useful and familiar concept. I'm trying to argue against your view that I am saying Christians co-opted the concept of the Logos as they perceived it to be useful in re-imaging Christianity. But I'm saying that they didn't adopt it for the purpose of re-imaging Christianity. They already held that belief, as it had previously been brought in by earlier pagan converts. If this is unclear, please let me know, and I will try to think of some other way to explain it. ________________ I will also note your editting of one of my statements. In one of my replies here I said: I'm not saying that Christians imported concepts like the Logos to appeal to pagans. That belief had already existed. I'd already said that Christians adopted concepts like the Logos. Your first edit of my comment: I'm not saying that Christians imported concepts like the Logos to appeal to pagans...<snip> That's okay, since it leaves in the implication of the meaning: that Christian adoption of the Logos was for other reasons. But in your last edit of that comment, you quoted me as saying: I'm not saying that Christians imported concepts like the Logos ... That's NOT okay, TedH.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.