Ted Hoffman

Stubbornness is not evidence of the historicity of Jesus.
This is an interpretation of the stories, not a fact. Did they say they were modelling their deaths on Christ's alleged death? If so, cite examples please.

Please support your argument.
Collective commital to be martyrs? Do you have evidence for that?
Examples illustrating that death was not brought upon the martyrs because of refusal to repudiate Christ, but (a) because the Christ being worshipped was a flesh-and-blood man and because (b) the refusal to repudiate Christ was primarily inspired by the humanity of Christ, have not been given.

I await them with bated breath.

This is not consistent with your earlier argument:
You talked about a 'minimal version' of Christianity. You ejected that argument without defining what a 'minimal version' was. You did imply that this 'minimal version' was not "worth martyrdom". I asked you for the threshold a religion must reach before it is worth martyrdom. You never provided it. I asked for the standard you used. You never provided it. You instead came up with this Pionius quote, which GDon, in a bizarre fashion, finds fantastic.
You always make clear arguments. I would appreciate it if you indicated when you are abandoning an argument and making a new one.
Now you say that "their persecutors were not interested in their victims' precise view of Christ", yet Doherty's whole argument is about the Christians view of Christ. Can you explain what you meant by the following:
Of course they do. That has never been a problem. What is at issue is the nature of the Christ that they venerate.

Athenagoras does not appear to know that Christians venerate Christ. He thinks their being anointed by oil defines them more as Christians than any devotion to a deity referred to as Christ.

This assumption appears reasonable at first, but it cannot be justified in the face of theocentric documents that contain a subordinate "Logos" type entity (even if without that specific term) like the Odes of Solomon (perhaps the best one), the Shepherd of Hermas and even the Didache. The Odes represent earlier roots of the type of Logos-religion the 2nd century apologists stand in line from. So is Philo, who almost (but not quite yet) worships the emanative Logos "only-begotten son" which, by the way, does not have any sacrificial element to him.

Texts like Discourse to the Greeks erroneously ascribed to Justin (See Jesus Puzzle p.88, ANF I, p.271-2), is the best example of a Logos-centric religion there is, worship of the Word who teaches and saves, but with no mention of incarnation or sacrificial dimension at all. It's probably early second century, but seems to stand in direct line from ideas like that of Philo, as do intermediate phases of the evolving Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers (see Doherty's Supp05 article on his site) which elevate the Logos to a status of worship.
The only important thing is that he was a Christian who rejected a HJ and regarded him as a criminal and describes him disrespectfully. This proves he was a Christian who was unaware that a man died for his sins to save him. And further, that, that man's death was the foundation of the religion he belonged to.
That is more than enough for our purposes.
We are on the same page wrt that.

Ted Hoffman

GDon seizes on the Martyrdom of Pionius as a "fantastic find", yet it refutes his earlier argument wrt MF. Pionius:

GDon fails to realize is that here the writer does exactly what would be required of Minucius Felix if he were *defending* the crucified man: putting in clear references which constitute an actual DEFENSE of that man, in the same way that the writer of Pionius is trying to discredit the charge of Christ being a criminal. GDon simply wants to read into Felix the sort of thing which the Pionius document provides, and he did the same thing in regard to Justin vs. the other apologists.

"Fantastic" indeed.

GakuseiDon

Which is why I wrote "ORTHODOX".

Let's put it this way. M Felix regarded the crucified man as someone who wasn't an earthly being. Tertullian believed that Christ wasn't an earthly being (as per the quote I gave). Agreed?

Let's put it this way. Pionius described Christ using the word "criminal". M Felix also refers to the crucified man as a criminal. Agreed?

Let's put it this way. Christians would have been upset at the charge that Christ was a malefactor who committed wicked crimes. Agreed?

GakuseiDon

What else can this be but a reference to Christ, either mythic or historical??? "You are wrong to say that the crucified man is an earthly man" and "It is wrong to worship men as gods". M Felix calls uses the word "Christian". How many crucified non-earthly men were referred to by Christians? :huh:

Ted Hoffman

When was Orthodox Christianity established?
I strongly disagree.
He writes: you have also heard that the Jews say: Christ was a man, and he died a criminal.
Agreed. Yet MF is not offended. Indeed that is how he regards Christ: as a wicked man.

So, in your understanding, MF talks about (a) a wicked man who died on the cross who christians worship (b) then he talks about the men Egyptians euhemerize (c) then he says that a good man should be honored, not worshipped.

IYO, he jumps from (c) past (b), and is actually referring to the man in (a) yet he does not bother to make the connection?

We disagree on that. But lets not revisit it.

GakuseiDon

Heh? Why do you disagree? M Felix actually says "not an earthly being". Tertullian says that "mortal beings (come) from mortals, earthly ones from earthly".

Yes, and that's all that M Felix is saying, IMO.

:huh: So now you believe that this IS a reference to Christ and his cross?

What do you mean he isn't upset??? He says: "These, and such as these infamous things, we are not at liberty even to hear; it is even disgraceful with any more words to defend ourselves from such charges." :huh: He sounds a LITTLE upset to me, Ted.

But that is all ONE passage! How can there NOT be a connection??? :huh: Why does he even bring up the topic if his Christianity had nothing to do with a crucified man who was thought to be a god? Similarly when he discusses crosses: Doherty says that M Felix dismisses the idea of them, but then M Felix spends some time discussing their importance. Why bother to bring the topic up in the first place if it was irrelevent? If M Felix's Christianity had nothing to do with a man being thought to be a god, why make the point "miserable indeed is that man whose whole hope is dependent on mortal man, for all his help is put an end to with the extinction of the man". Was he just making casual conversation???

andrewcriddle

EG Ignatius to the Romans chapter 6 'Permit me to be an imitator of the passion of my God'. Martyrdom of Polycarp chapter 14 Polycarp prays 'I give thee thanks that thou hast counted me worthy ....that I should have a part in the number of thy martyrs, in the cup of thy Christ'
It is clear in say the account of the martyrs at Vienne and Lyons that those Christians who chose to venerate Caesar rather than die were regarded by the others as having betrayed them

I'm not sure if this is my fault for not expressing myself clearly or not.

I'll try again.

IF MF did not regard Christianity as involving the veneration of Christ, then either a/ this is a weird private view of his or b/ this represents a much wider form of Christian belief of the time where it was easily possible to be a Crhistian but know nothing of Christ.

a/ Is IMO unlikely and in any case uninteresting. (Private weird views of MF are irrelevant for understanding the origins of Christianity.)

b/ Is undermined by evidence of widespread worship of Jesus among Christians contemporary with and earlier than MF. For this argument it is irrelevant whether or not the Christ these Christians worshipped was seen as being flesh-and-blood or not.

Evidence that earlier Christians believed in and were prepared to die for a mythical Jesus in Doherty's sense does not make plausible the idea that MF could regard himself as a Christian spokesman while having no belief in any form of Jesus at all.

My primary reason in bringing up the Pionius quote (in a different post than my reply to you) was to respond to Doherty's observation that MF seems to regard the idea of worshipping a crucified criminal and his cross as on a par with obscene orgies.
I think you mean Theophilus not Athenagoras here.

IMHO Theophilus is not talking about literal anointing with literal oil but regarding Christians as having come to symbolically share in Christ's anointing by God.

I may be wrong here it's a difficult passage. But if Theophilus is talking about literal anointing with literal oil as fundamental to being a Christian then this is unlikely to be relevant to understanding Christian origins. There is very little evidence of the use of anointing with oil in 1st century Christian initiation.

Also it is difficult to see how Theophilus can have accepted the Gospel of John as he appears to have done without being committed to the veneration of Christ.

IMO the Odes of Solomon the Didache and the Shepherd of Herrmas all show knowledge of a Christ figure of some sort.
IF by the Discourse to the Greeks you mean Oratio Ad Graecos then it says This seems to be some sort of idea of incarnation.

IF you mean Cohortatio Ad Graecos then I'm not familiar with the work but IIUC it is usually regarded as 3rd century CE.
Could you clarify ? Are you saying that MF believes that the accusations brought by Caecilius about worshipping a criminal and his cross are true about many Christians but is able to repudiate them because he himself doesn't believe that type of Christianity ?

Andrew Criddle

Ted Hoffman

"Passion" equals martyrdom? Polycarp talks of martyrs, not about wanting to be a martyr like Jesus. Are you regarding Jesus a martyr?
This happens with every movement whether a binding oath is taken or not. Even Rebublicans who become Democrats are seen by Republicans as having betrayed them. This sense of betrayal is what, to you, equals "Collective commital to be martyrs"?
I dont find them equivalent.
All views start as private views. He documented his rejection of a HJ as a deity. So its not exactly private. The question is, what then, did he believe in? The answer is, he believed in a Christianity that did not have or accept a HJ as a founder figure.
Characterizing his beliefs as "Weird" tells us more about your suppositions than helping us understand the beliefs themselves.
This means that, to you, if one did not know Christ, it did not matter whether he was flesh-and-blood or not. And that is where you falter. Who was Christ?

Was he an intermediary saviour figure (Odes, Shepherd etc)? Was he a manifestation of God (Marcion) or an incarnation of God (Tatian?), Was he simply a good man but not a saviour (Ebionites)? Was he a man who was adopted by God as his "son" (Adoptionist view)? Was he a pre-existent God who incarnated as a man and who died to confer salvation to Christians(Paul)? Was he the Logos in the heart of God (Theophilus,Athenagoras)? Was he sired through immaculate conception of the virgin Mary (the Orthodox view)?

What this means is that one could know Christ and not know him in a manner that is consistent with your understanding.
So, is it your argument that *because* early Christians died for a Christianity with a HJ, later Christians could not be willing to die for a Christianity without a HJ?
Do you think Marcionites were not ready to doe for their beliefs?

Even if we assume that they were only willing to die for a HJ, it still does not make sense why they would do that: nobody saw Jesus resurrect, nobody knew his tomb. Why is dying for a HJ better/easier than dying for a MJ?
After all, he was a deity. Is a deity based on a man easier to worship than an entirely supernatural one?
Please explain this to us.
Yes, thanks.
Does Theophilus say that? Where?

Except for what Theophilus writes?
This is a good argument if we assume that in its earliest form, John was in the form it is today. [btw - what is the basis of the argument that Theophilus accepted the gospel of John?]
"some kind of Christ figure", is the whole point. It is this very "intermediary Son" concept that was the dominant religious idea of the age, with its myriad of interpretations, and that links all these diverse expressions which arose independently, with no single figure or point of origin. This is what makes sense of the whole picture, and enables us to suggest tentative threads and developments (and sometimes the lack of them) between one expression and another. But to do that, you need to let go of the old paradigms. That is what you need to do.

Regarding your uncertainty about which document I am referring to by "Discourse to the Greeks", There is also another document misattributed to Justin called "Hortatory Address to the Greeks", and it is the latter that you have quoted from. The former has nothing remotely resembling incarnation or a Christ figure. This is the one you say that you are unfamiliar with, so I'd like to know where you get "it is usually regarded as 3rd century CE".
Probably the most extensive discussion of it in the 20th century is found in E. R. Goodenough's "By Light, Light" (p.299-305), and he links it closely to Philo and Hellenistic Judaism. Nothing in it would suggest a date as late as the 3rd century. Even the ANF (p.161) says of the several disputed works of Justin, "there is but one opinion as to their earliness. The latest of them, in all probability, was not written later than the third century."

That little document is one of the most revealing of them all, and even Goodenough finds common ground between it and an apologist like Athenagoras. I think it reveals a lot about the Logos religion as the basis of those apologists' faith and derivation.

Is not repudiating them because he himself doesn't believe that type of Christianity?
Yes.

GDon, it appears that if two things are juxtaposed, then you simply insist that they must bear the relationship that you want them to. It is very difficult to have a debate with someone like that.

Of course there's a connection! Felix brings up the topic of the crucified man because the pagans were becoming aware of circles of Christianity that believed in such a figure as their savior (as in Justin). Felix's own circles may dismiss both the man and his cross, but the topics were relevant to the audience that Felix is addressing, and thus he has to deal with them. GDon says that he "spends some time discussing their importance" (of crosses), but this is GDon's own "black is white" spin on it. What he discusses is their UN-importance--since they are found everywhere and even attached to pagan gods, which Felix derides. GDon can't see that if Felix has a Christianity which lacks a man thought to be a god, then when someone suggests that he does, it is a perfectly relevant reaction and counter-argument to say "What a ridiculous idea! Anyone who would place hope for salvation on a mortal man would be miserable, since his hope would perish with the man's death." That is such an obvious and blatant condemnation of the whole idea of worshiping such a man, and yet GDon's mind simply refuses to see it, and tries to turn it inside out in true atomistic fashion with no support from the text at all!
Arguing with you is an exercise in futility, though I hope that others will see things properly.

It is very true that the part about the Egyptians is introduced by Felix to make some point of comparison to the part about the crucified man. No one is saying that the two are not related. But *how* are they related? What point is Felix trying to make? Just because Felix ends up by saying that good men and kings ought to be loved and honored, GDon is claiming that this remark is meant to be transferred back onto the crucified man, that he was good and should be loved. But that simply bypasses what comes in between and what the progression of thought is in those intervening sentences. Once again, GDon is being atomistic.

What is the basic accusation as stated by Caecilius? That Christians worship a crucified man. When Felix starts his response, he certainly sounds like he's denying it: "you wander far from the truth" and uses negative terms like "foolish" in connection with such a belief. Then he introduces the Egyptians to make his point. Yes, says Felix, *they* worship someone who is a man, but THEY ARE WRONG TO DO SO, just as it is wrong to turn princes and kings into gods. Men shouldn't be worshiped or regarded as gods, they should simply, when they deserve it, be given love and honor. So by making the point that the Egyptians are wrong, the comparison back onto crucified man accusation *has* to be that worshiping this particular crucified man, turning him into a god, is also wrong (regardless of whether he was a criminal or not). GDon simply can't get past his burning need to transfer the one good thing he can find in this whole passage, giving love and honor to good men and kings, and force it to be some kind of positive reference in Felix's mind to Jesus, even if every close analysis of the passage cannot justify doing that.

By quoting the lengthy analysis in Doherty's rebuttal argument, GDon seems to be implying that anything going on that long can't also be clear. This is not the case.

GakuseiDon

I sympathize, Ted! How dare I look at a passage in its context? :huh:

Ted. Please show me how Felix DERIDES the importance of the sign of the cross.

Is it when he says "We assuredly see the sign of a cross, naturally, in the ship when it is carried along with swelling sails, when it glides forward with expanded oars"?

Or when he compares it to "when a man adores God with a pure mind, with handsoutstretched"?

Or perhaps when he says that "the sign of the cross either is sustained by a natural reason"

Just point out where the derision is located, please. Or am I making it difficult for you to debate with me again?

I tried to clear this up earlier, by the questions I asked you, Ted.

IF Felix is condemning the idea of a crucified man, then WHY does he throw in the comment about "not an earthly being"? As I've pointed out, Christians of that time like Justin and Tertullian DIDN'T regard Christ as "an earthly being". EVEN IF the passage has the connotations that you give it, it would only be a dig at the Ebionites.

Ted, reread the passage again. Think about it in terms of, say, a Christian like Tertullian. Surely it is a wonderful coincidence that Tertullian would have agreed with M Felix, since Tertullian wouldn't have regarded Christ as a 'mortal man'. It is so obvious I wonder that you and Doherty try to deny it.

Here is the passage again. Think about it from the perspective of a Christian like Tertullian who didn't regard Christ as an earthly being:

"For in that you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the neighbourhood of the truth, in thinking either that a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God. Miserable indeed is that man whose whole hope is dependent on mortal man, for all his help is put an end to with the extinction of the man. "

As I've pointed out before, M Felix's "Octavius" was praised. No-one thought that he was denying Christ here. Isn't it amazing that no-one picked this up? Doherty even believes that M Felix inspired the heresiologist Tertullian.

And you deny, ignore and misrepresent. It's hard to take you seriously. Doherty debates fairly. You don't.

NO, IT ISN'T. It is that Christians are bad people because they worship a wicked man and his cross. Please, please understand this.

Complete the sentence please. It is not "you wander far from the truth", but "you wander far from the truth in thinking either that a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God".

Why on earth does M Felix care about throwing in that comment about an earthly man? If the purpose is to deny that Christians worshipped a crucified man, why is that qualification needed?

You have to admit that M Felix is using it to highlight something important to his beliefs. What else could it be other than that M Felix worshipped an "unearthly being"?

Hmmm... so let's get this straight. M Felix starts by implying that some Christians worship a man as a god, and this is wrong. He ends by saying that deserving men should be given love and honor, but not worship. Is that what you are saying?

Nah. The first couple of paragraphs are okay. Doherty seems to have problems stating his view after that. But I'll let anyone who wants to read through it to judge for themselves. Take an aspirin beforehand, though.

andrewcriddle

I'm replying separately to this point because I made a real error in my last post here.

What I quoted from was the probably 3rd century Cohortatio ad Graecos. online at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-49.htm

What Ted is talking about is the 2nd century Oratio ad Graecos online at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0135.htm

I'm sorry about getting mixed up here.

As to the substantive point about the doctrine of the Oratio ad Graecos. This is a short work perimarily attacking Greek religion. The only positive statement of the authors views is This is entirely compatible with a whole range of views about Christ and without further evidence we can't say which the author held.

FWIW it reminds me of The Hymn at the end of Clement of Alexandria's 'Instructor' Andrew Criddle