Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ted Hoffman · 10-22-2005, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Given the late date (160 CE or later) and the fact that M Felix refers to himself as a Christian, this can only be a reference to Christ.

OK.

So, are you retreating from the position you took in post #2823111 / #26 which was:

Quote:

Ted, as I pointed out to Doherty, the phrase in question is "a man who suffered death as a criminal for wicked crimes". This did not apply to Christ for, as M Felix points out, "love is more pleasantly given to a very good man".

Have you abandoned this position?

Ted Hoffman · 10-22-2005, 08:44 AM

By the way GDon, what do you mean when you write "Ok"?
In the past, you have used "Ok" to mean "I am tired of arguing with you and I still disagree".
I would appreciate it if you alert me when you start using codewords. Fair enough?

GakuseiDon · 10-22-2005, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

It will be interesting to see your argument.

It is likely that MF was just a pagan who converted. And he converted to a Christianity devoid of a HJ. Probably a logos-centric Christianity. Or a theocentric one which had the logos playing a minor role.

And what is the evidence that such a Christianity already existed? Which other of Doherty's Christ-mythers belonged to such a Christianity, for example?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

In any event, his brand of Christianity detested the idea of worshipping a chap who suffered at the cross. That is primary to the MJ hypothesis because he is a towering example of a Christian who rejected the idea that a man died and through that conferred salvation to those that remained.

To be clear: M Felix believes that the pagans are wrong in thinking either that a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God.

This appears to be consistent with the view that Christians regarded Christ to be divine and didn't commit wicked crimes. After all, "honour is more truly rendered to an illustrious man, and love is more pleasantly given to a very good man".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Yes, Carrier made that argument. But his argument entailed declaring Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, Ascencion of Isaiah, Epistle to Diognetus, MF etc as non-Christian documents.

You want to adopt his argument? go ahead. But you have a lot of revision to do.

Nah. My argument is that, if M Felix was a Christ Myther, then he made it up since there is no evidence that he was following earlier beliefs. Therefore he can't be used to provide evidence of First Century beliefs. Or was M Felix influenced by Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, Ascencion of Isaiah or Epistle to Diognetus, IYO? If so, what is the evidence?

Roger Pearse · 10-22-2005, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

As I understand it, it is the consensus of scholarship that MF copied Tertullian.

This is incorrect. There is no scholarly consensus on this matter.

I'm not sure on what you base your comment -- would you explain how you know what the consensus of scholarship is?

So, let me understand this: you have read the arguments and have the sources but will not share them with us? ... Start a new thread for that. What is relevant now is whether or not you will provide an outline of the alleged Philological arguments that prove that MF copied Tertullian, so that we can evaluate them... You gather? What does that mean? Could you please cite the relevant passages?...

Just to be clear: when you stated "There is no scholarly consensus on this matter", you in fact did not know whether this was so?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ted Hoffman · 10-22-2005, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Just to be clear: when you stated "There is no scholarly consensus on this matter", you in fact did not know whether this was so?
All the best,
Roger Pearse

I knew this was so. Feel free to admit your statement was a hyperbole. We are very forgiving.

GakuseiDon · 10-22-2005, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

By the way GDon, what do you mean when you write "Ok"?
In the past, you have used "Ok" to mean "I am tired of arguing with you and I still disagree".
I would appreciate it if you alert me when you start using codewords. Fair enough?

Yes, fair enough. I apologise for that. I use it to acknowledge that I have read the point rather than just ignored it though I may disagree. But I'll try to be less cryptic from now on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

So, are you retreating from the position you took in post #2823111 / #26 which was:

Quote:

Originally Posted by GDon

Ted, as I pointed out to Doherty, the phrase in question is "a man who suffered death as a criminal for wicked crimes". This did not apply to Christ for, as M Felix points out, "love is more pleasantly given to a very good man".

Have you abandoned this position?

Heh? I think you are confusing two ideas here.

1. The pagans accuse Christians of worshipping a crucified man who committed wicked crimes. Given the late date and M Felix's references to Christians, this can only be a reference to Christ IMO. This is the charge that the pagans are bringing against the Christians.

2. You said that "M Felix finds it contemptible to worship 'a man who suffered death as a criminal'." However, this is not quite accurate: I'm saying that M. Felix finds it contemptible to worship a wicked man who suffered death for committing actual crimes. IMO M. Felix rebutes the charge by saying that this doesn't apply to Christ since, as M Felix points out, "love is more pleasantly given to a very good man".

In short: the pagans are charging Christ as someone who was wicked. M Felix is saying: no, that charge doesn't apply to Christ.

Ted Hoffman · 10-22-2005, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

And what is the evidence that such a Christianity already existed?

Because MF feels no need to defend himself or soften his scornful criticism of the criminal who died on the cross. An intro to rhetorical criticism will help you here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Which other of Doherty's Christ-mythers belonged to such a Christianity, for example?

Go back and read what I wrote regarding how much MF lets out regarding what he believes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

To be clear: M Felix believes that the pagans are wrong in thinking either that a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God.

No. "M Felix believes that the pagans are wrong in thinking either Christians believed that a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God".
Read that again.
This is what MF writes.

Quote:

'please do not accuse us of worshiping a crucified man who was a criminal ("malefactor") and a mortal, for no criminal deserves to be so worshiped, nor could (such) a mortal manage to get himself regarded as a god. In fact, anyone who places that kind of hope in a mortal is pitiable, since his hope will perish with the mortal's death.'

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

This appears to be consistent with the view that Christians regarded Christ to be divine and didn't commit wicked crimes. After all, "honour is more truly rendered to an illustrious man, and love is more pleasantly given to a very good man".

Not correct. You have supplanted that "view" on MF.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Nah. My argument is that, if M Felix was a Christ Myther, then he made it up since there is no evidence that he was following earlier beliefs.

He was a Christian. It does not matter if he made up Medusa. We are looking at early Christian beliefs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Therefore he can't be used to provide evidence of First Century beliefs.

Like I said, lots of revision for you to do. I await to see your sparkling new theory. Those damn scholars never realized MF was not a Christian!
And Athenagoras too!

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Or was M Felix influenced by Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, Ascencion of Isaiah or Epistle to Diognetus, IYO? If so, what is the evidence?

You are getting carried away. Why dont you take a break. More later.

GakuseiDon · 10-22-2005, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Go back and read what I wrote regarding how much MF lets out regarding what he believes.

Well, I thought you yourself might have been interested in trying to tie the Christ Mythers together and work out influence, but since it doesn't appear possible, I don't think it is worth continuing that part of the analysis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

To be clear: M Felix believes that the pagans are wrong in thinking either that a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God.

No. "M Felix believes that the pagans are wrong in thinking either Christians believed that a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God".
Read that again.
This is what MF writes.
'please do not accuse us of worshiping a crucified man who was a criminal ("malefactor") and a mortal, for no criminal deserves to be so worshiped, nor could (such) a mortal manage to get himself regarded as a god. In fact, anyone who places that kind of hope in a mortal is pitiable, since his hope will perish with the mortal's death.'

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

This appears to be consistent with the view that Christians regarded Christ to be divine and didn't commit wicked crimes. After all, "honour is more truly rendered to an illustrious man, and love is more pleasantly given to a very good man".

Not correct. You have supplanted that "view" on MF.

Well, no I haven't. M Felix says that it is wrong to believe that a "criminal (malefactor) deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God". Did Christians believe that Christ was a malefactor or an earthly being?

Roger Pearse · 10-22-2005, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

I knew this was so. Feel free to admit your statement was a hyperbole. We are very forgiving.

This seems to require no comment from me, other than to say that I've added you to my 'ignore' list. Deliberate deceit is unacceptable.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

andrewcriddle · 10-22-2005, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Are you saying a Christianity without a HJ is not worth dying for? Dont we have 'heretics' and pagans who died/were killed for their beliefs? You are arguing that there is a certain threshold that (religious) beliefs must reach before people are willing to commit their lives. I have seen people die for football, political parties, marriages and ideals.
By what standard do you delineate what is and what is not worth to die for?
Without a criteria for arriving at that, your argument is arbitrary and indeed without basis.

The question here is not whether Christianity without a HJ is worth dying for.

The question is whether or not Christianity without any Jesus at all is worth dying for. Or for that matter whether Christianity without any Jesus at all is at any risk of death from the Roman authorities.

Persecution of Christianity by the Roman state generally involves the fact that Christians gave worship to Christ in a way that they refused it to the Emperor. See for example Pliny on the Christians or the Martyrdom of Polycarp.

If MF did not worship Christ in any sense, then either he was deeply misinformed as to what Christians killed by the state had been killed for, or he would probably have had to believe that they brought their deaths upon themselves.

This whole argument seems to involve the suggestion that the pagan spokesman Caecilius knows things about Christianity that the Christian spokesman Octavius doesn't. (And that MF writing up the debate a few years later shares the ignorance of Octavius.)

Andrew Criddle

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

10-22-2005, 08:44 AM	#42
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	By the way GDon, what do you mean when you write "Ok"? In the past, you have used "Ok" to mean "I am tired of arguing with you and I still disagree". I would appreciate it if you alert me when you start using codewords. Fair enough?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.