Ted Hoffman

No. First of all, a non HJ Christian is not equal "a mythicist". Marcion also believed that gods do not die yet he was a Christian. And Marcion was not a "mythicist".
You have therefore missed Doherty's argument. This renders the rest of your post irrelevant. Get your terminology right.
Try again.

Rejection of godmen, a la Minucius Felix simply means rejection of a soteriology based on crucifixion. Look at my saving agency criterion.

GakuseiDon

Can you explain a little more what you mean, Ted? My point was that Aristides and Tertullian were certainly historicists. The passage that Doherty highlights in M. Felix can also be found in historicists' writings. I'm not sure how Marcion is related to my point, but I'd be interested in your view.

GakuseiDon

Ted has complained in the "Response to GakuseiDon" thread that I went silent to his reponse over here. Since I didn't think so, I've revisited his response and will go through it step-by-step.

Hey! Where is that flattering attention??? Who's been holding out!?

I apologise for that. That certainly isn't intentional. I've tried to confine my comments to the facts.

OK.

Addressed to Jakejones, so I won't cover it.

I said that just to let people know that I would need to repeat myself, more out of necessity than anything else. But fair point.

I'm ambivalent on this one. On the one hand, I certainly wasn't trying to be complimentary, since I feel that this lack of comparison with other writings of the period is a big flaw in his analysis, and I do try to back it up with evidence. On the other hand, you have a point, and I should have been kinder in my conclusions.
In the Second Century, large numbers of pagan converts, trained in the schools of pagan philosophy, began to influence how Christianity viewed itself. Christianity HAD started to become a philosophy school, they weren't pretending it was. This proved useful to the Christians at that era, since the pagans of the time still regarded Christianity as a superstitious cult.

Yes, that's correct. I was trying to focus on the fact that HJ writers also presented the same idea as the MJer on this matter.

How is that relevant? HJ writers also didn't include earthly details.
How is that relevant? HJ writers also didn't include such details.
How is that relevant? HJ writers also didn't include such details.
To cut a long story short: How is those points relevant? HJ writers also didn't include such details.
Heh? I know the answer to the question I'm asking. The MJ statement is the one by M. Felix.

Or am I missing something?

Exclude him from what? From any kind of analysis?

So: Tertullian is excluded because he is after the 180 CE mark. Aristides who wrote in the 140s is excluded because his "literary quality is very limited". OK. In that case, my OP has been refuted, since only the MJer is left. :angel:

I've defined an "MJ" writer as those writers identified by Doherty as not believing in a historical Christ.
I don't understand the logic behind that answer, I'm afraid. I was refuting a very specific point made by Doherty: "How could a HJ writer make that manner of presentation?"

Didn't adoptionists believe that Christ was pre-existing also? Christ merged with a human Jesus at his baptism. Or am I missing something?

Could you explain that? I don't understand, I'm afraid. Are you saying that Marcion thought that Christ didn't exist before he appeared on earth? I was under the impression that Marcion did think that.

Yes, thanks for the correction.

Since Doherty is claiming that there are NO mangoes, I think finding one is pretty good.

How many mangoes does Doherty say there are, Ted?
I thought that this was reasonably non-controversial. I got this from Armstrong. But you are right. If I'm not right about this, my arguments lose some force. Still, Justin's "mango" comments do show this, so I have evidence on my side.
No, they weren't "co-opting" pagan concepts deliberately. It was part of an on-going process in the Second Century, when numbers of philosophically trained pagans were converting to Christianity.
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?

What date would you put on it? This is a key point as far as I'm concerned, since it would influence how the pagans viewed apologetic works like Theophilus's (written after 180 CE).
Thanks for your comments, Ted.

I'm looking forward to it.

Clivedurdle

Toto, that feels like an excellent summary of what was going on. All the stuff about born of a virgin, died under Pilate etc does feel like dogma grafted on to a spiritual Christ. My understanding of medieval mystics, and the new testament fits with this. The Church hasn't been that interested in a historical Jesus until the Protestants! This disinterest can still be seen today in ritual with phrases like "Christ is Risen".

Maybe the progression is actually gnostic, historical for dogmatic and philosophical reasons with continuing outbursts of gnosticism, and then only historic with the scientific revolution!

An interesting case study might be St Francis of Asissi!

Ted Hoffman

By Tertullians writings, Jesus was a pre-existent being who incarnated. IOW, Tertullian harmonizes his anti-godmen statements to accomodate a HJ.
Minucius Telix does not do that. He only rejects the concept of godmen. The two cannot therefore be said to be the same.

GakuseiDon

Even if that were true, this thread looks at Doherty's "how can a historicist say that?" question. At the end of the day, the answer is: they DID say that. M. Felix's statement is not out-of-place if taken in context with the writings of the Christians of the period.

Also, you didn't say how Marcion was relevant. Are you saying that he didn't think Christ was pre-existing?

Ted Hoffman

For the 20th time, what was Christianity before "large numbers of pagan converts" came trooping in?
Wait, "large numbers of pagan converts" who were non-superstitious began trooping into a superstitious cult to make it non-superstitious?
That does not sound plausible. They would have shredded it to peices instead of enrolling in.
Then those who know where to gamble can safely ignore the questions.
Read my criteria.
Your knowledge is not derived through a method you can impart to users to reliably apply and obtain the same results accross several texts. As such, it is obtained through an unrefined, unstructured process.
Search me.
Any useful analysis
If you want to use fragments as evidence, its your choice. It looks desperate though.
That was bracketed. My primary point stands.
Without a mitigating qualification as per Tertullian, it is a rejection of a HJ. Thats why you are wrong to compate MF and Tertullian.
A whole galaxy I am afraid.
No, to Marcion, incarnation was antithetical to divinity or the true God. So the true God always existed, except he was never part of this world.
You are welcome.
Doherty finds one and shows us that the rest are oranges. The one you find(Justin), is the same one Doherty found. He showed it was an exception. You are arguing it is the norm.
one.
Armstrong is clearly wrong if that is his argument.
You argued that the logos concept would have been co-opted because it would have been useful. This implies purposeful action.
You are shifting your argument.
You are pulling this out of a hat. Please support your case.
key point? hmmmm. Let me respond to that when I am back.

GakuseiDon

Less philosophical, as there doesn't appear to be much emphasis on the Logos in the first few decades of the Second Century.

The pagans generally regarded Christianity as a superstitious cult. Those that converted didn't. Justin Martyr, for example, stresses that he found Christianity "alone" as philosophically valid.

My method is, "Read ALL the literature of the period". Don't rely on someone who excludes people based on when they wrote, or on the opinion of their literary worth. Otherwise you are analysing only one side of the argument.

Where is Tertullian's mitigating qualification in Ad nationes? That's why I choose it. There is none.

"She", actually. Since she is a respected scholar (and an atheist, FWIW) in the field, I think I'm pretty safe here.

OK, thank you.

Toto

GDon - Which of Karen Armstrong's books are you relying on?

Ben C Smith

Quite true. But if you go back through my post you will notice that mythicism and historicism have only to be incompatible in order for my argument to work. They do not have to be the only options.

True. Which does nothing to change the fact that Tertullian and Aristides were nonmythicists, yet said things that sound like what Doherty would label as mythicist.

I was expressing his argument only as I perceived GDon to have been understanding it. If GDon misread it, then I probably misread it too. If GDon nailed it, then I probably nailed it too.

I have reread my post looking for what I may have written to provoke such hostility, and could not find anything. Perhaps you could point out what it was that so offended you, and I will do my utmost to make it right.

Regards.

Ben.