aa5874

Well, you are arguing with Tertullian, Justin Martyr, and Theophilus of Antioch.

AD NATIONES
The Apology"First Apology" To Autolycus I don't need you to tell me anything. I have SOURCES, EVIDENCE from antiquity. You may be obsolete.

Maklelan

No I'm not.

Agreed, it refers to anointing, and specifically to the anointed one, and even more specifically, to those who follow the anointed one. How on earth could you read Tertullian to suggest it does not mean "followers of Christ"?

I've pointed out exactly how these texts actually support my argument, not yours. Just citing the texts I've already cited doesn't do the job. You'd have to be able to explain why the texts support your argument. You can't, though. As I've already explained, they unilaterally support mine.

No, you've just been misrepresenting the sources. Theophilus' discussion is utterly unique and can't at all be marshaled to support the notion that the term Christian didn't refer to Jesus Christ. It's quite clear from the preponderance of evidence that Christian meant "follower of Christ."

aa5874

Of course, you are. That is EXACTLY what you are doing right now. The passages that you disagree with are attributed Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch and Tertullian.


You have not pointed out any such thing because you have NOT produced a source of antiquity, A TEXT from antiquity, that show that people were called Christians only because of a character called Christ.

You have not shown that Simon Magus, Menander and their followers were called Christians because they were followers of a character called Christ.

You have NOT shown that Marcion and the Marcionites were called Christians because they followed a character called Christ.

I only deal with SOURCES of antiquity, the written Texts, the statements in the Texts of antiquity. Just sources, sources, texts, texts......of antiquity.

You must produce a text of antiquity that contradicts Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, and Tertullian or else you may be obsolete. I longer entertain unsubstantianted opinion.

Your claim is not valid at all. It is an argument from BLATANT SILENCE. Theophilus of Antioch did NOT write anything about a character called Jesus, Christ, or Jesus Christ of Nazareth or that he was a follower of Jesus, Christ, or Jesus Christ of Nazareth in "To Autolycus".

I don't deal with IMAGINATION and GUESS-WORK.

In "To Autolycus" Theophilus of Antioch wrote NOTHING of a character called Jesus, Christ, or Jesus Christ of Nazareth. ZERO. NIL, NONE

Maklelan

Here's your problem. My comment wasn't meant to challenge the attribution of those texts. My comment was meant to challenge the notion that I was disagreeing with them. That notion you presuppose in that asinine rebuttal of yours. You need to either quit being so dishonest and manipulative or you need to take some time to work on your reading comprehension.

I just quoted multiple comments from Martyr, Tertullian, and even Tacitus that state exactly that. You can't just bark "Nu-uh!" and expect me to defer. I renew my question about whether or not you're in middle school. This certainly isn't an adult conversation you're producing.

That has absolutely nothing to do with this.

I've already shown that you misunderstand Theophilus and have flat misrepresented Tertullian and Martyr, both of whom repeatedly explain that Christian means "follower of Christ," both explicitly and implicitly.

How can I be arguing from silence when I've been reproducing the very Greek words he's using for his plays on words? How can I be arguing from silence when I have explained that he didn't use the word Christ? None of what I've said is an argument from silence. Seriously, are you an adolescent? I'm not being rhetorical. I want to know how old you are.

I have already acknowledged this. I have explained how that fact bears on his etymology. The question is what that fact means. You presuppose one thing in your naivety and dogmatism, and I have shown, using the actual text and an informed approach to his literary conventions, that it means something entirely different.

I'm giving you one more chance to actually address my concerns AND show you can carry on an adult conversation, or else I'm putting you on ignore. I have given you numerous, numerous opportunities to engage the evidence from antiquity, and all I've seen you do is shout these utterly idiotic and irrelevant slogans at me.

aa5874

Of course, you argue from BLATANT SILENCE. Your post is recorded. You knew in advance that Theophilus did NOT ever mention anywhere in "To Autolycus that he was a follower of Jesus, Christ or Jesus Christ.

There is ABSOLUTE SILENCE in "To Autolycus" about Jesus, Christ and Jesus Christ.

"To Autolycus" does NOT support the notion that the term Christian refers to Jesus Christ.

"To Autolycus" I really don't care what you do. I did not even know that you did exist or that you could reply my post. I only PRESENT sources of antiquity, texts of antiquity, written statements from antiquity.

I can only tell you what I see in the Pauline writings.

Paul is a LIAR and the Pauline writings are chronologically and historically bogus. Paul claimed he WITNESSED the resurrected Jesus and that the resurrected Jesus told him about the Last Supper.

Paul is a Monstrous LIAR.

Duvduv

How does Christian apologetics explain the anomaly of Theophilus and Athenagoras not mentioning the Christ??

Maklelan

How can you really continue to misunderstand and misrepresent me? I've tried to explain to you in the minutest detail what I am and am not arguing and you continue to just completely ignore it. Honestly, how can someone reason with such astonishing obtuseness and cognitive dissonance? You're on ignore.

Duvduv

Which specific sources should I check among the Christian apologists of whatever generation on this subject?

aa5874

Nor do they mention the "indwelling Christ".

Duvduv

OK, but what do mainstream apologists say about them??