Ted Hoffman

krosero writes regarding the argument about MF invoking sets:
Good. We can now move onto other things.

I asked:
krosero responded:
This line of argument is unimportant because you agreed earlier, If I remember correctly, that the "good man" expression appeared when MF was talking about Egyptian Gods. But your position is contrary to GDon's, who claims that the "good man" referred to Jesus. I see no point of pursuing it, unless you insist.

I asked:
krosero responded:
Do we have examples of such beings in history? Are they considered historical people?
I wrote:
krosero responded:
Historical figures are mortal men. Is your pre-existent Jesus a mortal man?

More Unfounded Distinctions

This is another unfounded distinction. You admit that Felix rejected the deification of earthly beings, but that he did not reject the deification of any earthly being. This means that there is a certain type of earthly beings whose deification Felix sanctioned.

Your argument assumes that there are sets and subsets of earthly beings. You have since dropped the set argument and I therefore assume that you have consequently dropped this argument, is this correct? Just clarify this.

This passage is unclear - it seems contradictory.
Another unfounded disticntion, you are attempting to differentiate that which is mortal, from that which is fully mortal. Do you have examples of beings that were partially mortal? If not, what is the meaning of fully mortal? What added meaning does the word "fully" add to the expression?
I hope you agree that these distinctions are unreasonable and unfounded and that you will drop them since Felix does not make them.
Ebionite beliefs were theocentric like Judaism so you are wroing to say "Christ was at the center of their cult". You dont know that Felix was by himself. Was Mark by himself? Matt and Luke removed traces of adoptionist Christology in their gospels. MF belonged to a community of believers. If he openly rejected deification of a historical man, he is likely to have had people who either shared his beliefs or were influenced by whatever influenced him. This is a reasonable assumption, but I would rather we stuck to what MF did not believe. Because that is what he talks about.

Ted Hoffman

He rejects the deification of men. Period. He does not state that the wickedness or goodness of such men is a factor that influences the deificability of earthly beings.
Because of this, your "expecially the wicked ones" is an unfounded qualification derived from your imagination, not from the text.

You have smuggled in deification criteria.

This is correct.

Even pot-smokers feel they have hit the bedrock when they are intoxicated. Feelings dont matter here: it is how you argue your case that matters.

He has not created any new category - you can say he has identified: it is about making sense of the documentary record.
I find your creation of a new group of Christians called Minucians ridiculous. If your entry is accepted in whichever -paedia you send it to, I shall deem that -paedia very unfortunate. But that is just my opinion.

He used the expression "a criminal deserved" and "a criminal and his cross". "His" cross means that to MF, criminals and crosses belonged together. It is like the expression "a king and his queen". If he regarded them as separate, he could have said "a criminal and a cross". But he lumps them together. He regarded the worshippers as "miserable". Because such worshippers place their hopes on a mortal.

Wake up. Ebionites did not worship or venerate Christ. Marcionites did not recognize or venerale a historical Jesus. Logos-centric Christians like Theophilus never even knew there was a man called Christ.

Find out Theophilus' definition of the expression "Christians". I can see that you've got a lot to learn.

Good question. See Theophilus. There are many more like Didache, Athenagoras, Epistle to Diognetus, Shepherd of Hermas etc. But start with Theophilus in ECW site.

TedM

I knew that Earl. I was just having some fun. Take care, and I look forward to your responses when you are able to address them.

ted

EarlDoherty

Yes, I should have picked up on that. I guess all the literalism around here is rubbing off on me!

EarlDoherty

Yes, this represents a huge misunderstanding by Krosero. There are many "Christs" that appear in the record that have no link or understanding to the Jesus Christ of the Gospels, or even the Christ of Paul or Revelation. Try the "Messiah" (the original is in Syriac) of the Odes of Solomon, or the (largely Jewish) "Messiah" of the Similitudes of Enoch, or the "Christ" as one of the emanative aeons of the Pleroma in one of the gnostic documents, can't recall which one right at the moment.

This was a term that had widespread currency in various quarters, and not used with any common meaning, let alone that it was a reference to Jesus of Nazareth. On the other side of the coin, the term is notably missing from several other documents of the early "Christian" record. (It's also missing from Q--uh oh, I shouldn't have brought that up. I am serving notice that one thing I will not get into here is any discussion on the existence of Q.) Krosero really needs to familiarize himself with the program before basing arguments on a narrowly orthodox view of things. Hopefully, this will be a learning experience for him, as well as others.

TedM

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I think Krosero's point is that we don't have a record of a group calling themselves "Christians" doesnt' worship a being named Christ--as I think is being alleged with MF. I'm not sure we have one that doesn't worship a being they thought walked this earth either. Paul doesn't count as a good enough example because we can't say with certainty that he didn't believe Jesus walked the earth. To that extent, it does sound like MF is being put in a category without precedent since he would obviously refer to himself as a Christian.

ted

krosero

I agree, this issue has never been a point of disagreement with us, and has become unimportant.

The example I meant was Christ, alone; I was not speaking of anyone else, although there are Hindu gods, for example Vishnu, who incarnated into flesh, and to my mind could therefore not be considered essentially, as earthly beings, by those who revered them. But let's please not get lost on the specifics of other faiths. We're talking about Christ. You ask if such heavenly beings were considered historical people. Sure. I think you're asking because Felix mentions rejecting earthly beings, and since Christ was a historical being, then Felix rejected him. Well, we know your position, your opinion. I said that Christians would not describe him as a man, but some of those who were not gnostic might have done so, if asked directly, "Did he become a man like one of us?" If asked directly whether he appeared within history, both gnostic and orthodox Christians might have given their assent. But Christians would otherwise just refer to Christ with one of their many ways of describing heavenly beings. Pagans and Jews would have gone out of their way to say that Christ was just a man, or just a historical figure.

Both orthodox and gnostic Christianity regarded Christ as either more than a mortal man or not a man at all.

You are responding here to my statement, "We have no permission from Felix's text to say that he rejected any instance of worshipping a crucified man." After I made that statement, I suggested that when one side of this debate spoke about Felix not rejecting all instances of crucified men, it might be confusing to the other side, who certainly would see "crucified man", or "crucified men," as coming under, "earthly beings," which Felix rejected. So I started talking instead of Felix not rejecting a crucifixion of God, or of the Son, or whatever description he had for the non-earthly being he regarded as Christ (in line with orthodox, gnostic, and docetist Christianity). I just don't think that Felix would have said, "I don't worship earthly beings. But there's one earthly being, Christ, whom I do worship." For him, Christ was not an earthly being. I don't think there was much confusion in the pagan world on the fact that Christians believed their Christ to be a deity and not a mere mortal; or that they believed him to be a half-deity at least, and not a fully mortal man (this may answer your question about why I used the phrase "fully mortal," but I'll try to deal with that separately).

You think that I was having Felix say, "I don't worship earthly beings, except one," and that I was using my arguments about subsets of earthly beings to push that? You have badly misunderstood both what I suggested for Felix and what I was using my subset argument for.

I am glad you asked for clarification here. You should ask for clarification more often, rather than constantly playing your game of "Gotcha, you're guilty of a false argument." Asking for clarification will get us somewhere, and you will even get more concessions that way on points being debated.

I meant that if I charged Doherty with creating a new category out of assumptions rather than upon evidence, I would be charged with doing the same when I make the positive claim that Felix is a historicist of some kind. I then proceeded to say why this wasn't the case. It was not that unclear, Ted.

I said that in Doherty's theory, Felix was saying, "I can't worship that which is fully mortal." You're right that Felix does not make this distinction. My use of "fully mortal" was as a synonym for "earthly being" -- I was trying to say that in Felix's mind, an earthly being is someone who is fully like you and me, without any other attributes that might bring him closer to divinity (like a half-god). But I have no trouble with withdrawing such phrases; you make a good point that novel phrases should be explained or not used at all.

I have been told I'm literal, but sometimes you jump on the secondary aspects of what I say as if the whole point were rebutted. Like when I said that gnostics would regard Christ as "much more than a good man". I meant that they did not regard him as a man at all. You jumped and said that my argument was "blatantly false," that gnostics did not see him as a man at all. You just supported my argument, that they saw him as so much more than what could ever be described as "a good man." Here you jump at my placing Christ, rather than God, at the "center" of the Ebionite cult. If "center" was too strong a word, I stand corrected. Here's a revision: Ebionites followed Christ in some way. Felix did not, per Doherty's theory. That's the contradiction I wanted answered (and Doherty has since offered an answer, which I will get to).

Again, are you taking me literally here? I did not mean that Felix was the only person in his sect. I did paint it that way, sarcastically, in my Wikipedia article. I said Felix was by himself in that he was the only KNOWN adherent of his sect -- something I did state in my Wikipedia article. My point was that if the only way we can account for Felix is by giving him his own category without explicit evidence that he didn't fit in known categories, there is a problem. Your counter-responses I will deal with below.

Yes, I agree that Felix rejects the deification of men, or of "earthly beings." I wrote the phrase, "especially the wicked ones," as a nod to Felix's own objection that someone who was mortal could not attain deification, and that someone who was a criminal did not deserve it. These are paraphrases, Ted, which we've all been using. Why are you reaching so hard for little things in my arguments that can be thrown down? In this case, you are clearly incorrect when you say my phrase is an unfounded qualification: "especially" is not a qualification, it's a support; it is a nod to something that Felix explicitly says.

I see no point to belaboring this issue; we both agree that Felix rejected deification of all earthly beings.

And what would those be? The ones that Felix himself mentions, wickedness and earthliness? Come off it.

I am very sorry that after pages and pages of trying to present arguments without feelings, I confided in an opponent, because I did not think he would thrash it, my conviction that I'd reached the bedrock of the argument. I placed it there as an invitation for him or anyone else to dispute whether it was the bedrock. You do not do that; you just chastise me for bringing in emotions in any form. I'm sorry, for you, that my conviction offends you, and that you feel a confession of conviction has no place in a lengthy discussion.

I hope it was clear to all that I was presenting the impossibility of such an article being accepted. I'm glad you agree it's impossible. You or Doherty should write your own, if you feel you've identified a new category.

We've been through this. By using the word "venerate" I was tacitly acknowledging the Ebionites, and trying to cover them. The definition of venerate is to "to regard with respect, reverence, or heartfelt deference". Tell the board, if you wish, that the Ebionites did not do any of these things with respect to Christ.

You say you stick to what's in the text. How do you know that Theophilus never heard of Christ? Don't tell me that you were just referring to what was in his text. You believe that he never heard of a man called Christ, and you use the absence of a man called Christ in his text to prove it. I'm not ignorant of your arguments; I just do not accept them. None of this sounds any different to me than when it is asserted that Paul never heard of a man called Christ.

You have confirmed, then, what I suggested about Doherty's theory: that Doherty does see himself as placing Felix alone in an unattested category, and rather sees himself as making Felix just one of my Church Fathers or ancient writers who did not worship, or did not hear, of a historical Christ. I said that I would have to leave any statements about non-Felix writers unchallenged, and I will, but I am responding here to your idea that I was not aware of writers who don't mention a historical Christ. Of course I'm aware of them; there's been a long-running debate about them. But you're asking me to take it as fact that these men never heard of Christ? How can you seriously ask that?

In my lifetime, when asked to explain why I call myself a Christian, I have had numerous ways of answering the question, and none ever involve saying that a certain Jesus of Nazareth existed whom I follow. If asked a purely technical question about what a Christian is (which I'm never asked, since there's a widespread assumption that a Christian is a spiritual follower of Christ), I might say that I belonged to a faith begun by a Jesus of Nazareth. Otherwise I'll talk about theological concepts like the Trinity, or monotheism, or faith, or turning the other cheek. Or I'll give a purely personal answer. You think that because Theophilus says Christians are called their name because they are annointed with the oil of God, that this means he never heard of Christ. And you expect me to take this argument seriously.

I suggest you next read my reply to Doherty, which will be up shortly, before replying.

krosero

And you're telling me that these texts did not ever hear of a historical Christ, and that they were not just speaking of what spiritual categories this historical Christ incarnated or represented, or symbolized, but that they never heard of this historical Christ at all? You're telling me this, as if I have not heard you telling everyone who will listen these precise claims over and over?

I will shortly have a response to your last reply.

krosero

Ted, that's a correct understanding of my point. But Doherty has posted some things about Felix never having rejected Christ, so let's see what that means.

krosero

Your analogy about Dohertys doesn't fit. All Christians had in common a worship of God, which you're trying to say kept Felix from sticking out as a sore thumb among the Christian world. You've offered an analogy about people who share the same name. Christians shared it too. Where in the analogy is the thing that the Dohertys have in common? Where is that faith in something which they might have seen very differently, and caused them to come to disagreements or blows?

You say that Felix did not reject Christ. We've been hearing a lot in these debates about how Felix is a sterling example of a Christian who rejected the idea that salvation could be brought throught the crucifixion of a historical being. That looks to me like a rejection of a historical Christ. What other categories have been proposed for Christ? Well, there's Paul's heavenly Christ. But we were told that Felix did not believe in this one, either. So what other spiritual categories could Felix have believed in, and called Christ? The Logos has been proposed. So this was his Christ? This was what made him Christian, and kept him inside Christianity, or at least kept him from being a marginal category? This was enough for other Christians to say, "Well, you're with us on the Logos, and you reject the worship of the historical Christ, so we'll call you a Christian anyway," and enough for Felix to say, "Even though I reject the man called Christ, I am still a Christian, because the Logos was the real Christ." Was the Logos called Christ by people who did not accept Jesus Christ? Has it been established that Christians did not accept Jesus Christ? Of course not; it's been suspected, with Occam's Razor thrown to the wind.

I did say that in your mind, Felix was not alone, because a whole host of other ancient authors did not accept a historical Christ. I said that there was no explicit evidence for this, and that Felix was called the smoking gun because all the other evidence is circumstantial. In other words, I said that if you didn't regard Felix as alone, this was just as much a conjecture, or multiplication of entities, as making Felix unorthodox. It is no surprise to me that you don't regard Felix as alone, or your other non-HJers as speculative. That does not change my objection in the least.

Your excuses have been various. You won't meet my challenges for lack of time. I am stuck in orthodox views. I write unclearly. I can't understand sophisticated questions. I'm too literal. I present trick questions.

What this amounts to is that you've refused to look at a clear and short piece that I presented as an important part of my argument, and you've refused to answer what I thought were my most important, and clearest, questions about Felix. You've engaged only my weakest points, and kept turning my strongest challenges aside instead of meeting them directly. If you presented sharp questions to a Christian, and he responded by saying that you were just too stuck in your categories to see the Christian arguments, the bellowing for the Christian to answer your questions directly would be a din. His refusal to do so would be pronounced a dodge.

Your objection just amounts to this: "I will consider the subject on my own premises only. I will not answer questions based on other premises." This close-mindedness, and such hollow excuses, I honestly never expected from you.

Yet you call me close-minded within orthodoxy, even though I have disagreed with Don twice about finding Christ where I did not think he could be found in the text, and once also with TedM about the same thing. Amaleq and I just had a brief exchange in which he saw something about the traditional reading which made it less problematic for him, and I saw something about your position that made it less problematic for me (on top of which, I also agreed with your reading of the passage on crosses). Yet you say I can't debate imaginatively or effectively.

I am not done debating with you. But I am done with this debate.