Zhavric

No. He doesn't. Orthodox writers don't go out of their way to explain that Jesus isn't a person. He has elements of orthodoxy in his writings, but this gaping issue isn't something that can be swept under the rug.

Toto

My guess is that Athenagoras was a good Platonist (or middle Platonist) who did not think the issue of any importance. If there had been a historical founder of Christianity, he lived 150 years in the past. That might as well have been legendary-mythical time.

Zhavric

I hearby revoke your metaphor privelages.

gentleexit

You're right and such a Jesus isn't interesting per se. "He" is at most a piece of a much larger meal. And what were its ingredients? I think just saying "take Josephus Jesi', flavor with Septuagint prophesy and voila" sells it short. There are "Paul's" letters, there's Alexandrian Christ-theory, on and on and contradictions abound.

Only one thing is clear - how Judaism (big J) ended up. In two. One turned back to Hebrew, away from the Septuagint. One took all the Greek. The end was two orthodoxies, born of accepting or emphasizing different strands of a tradition made creative by crisis.

As Orson Welles said "in Italy for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace—and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock." Out of strife comes much and in this case, much more than a simple synopsis of Josephus and Isaiah.

gentleexit

Right, Marcus was a Stoic. Hence the emphasis on "Logos". Saying "this crucified guy" said ya and da would not be sell. All apology or polemic sells and the good focuses. Athenagoras reduces and uses words familiar to his audience just like the OP did above. Neither piece mandates that someone doesn't know or believe more than he's saying.

GakuseiDon

So, Athenagoras may very well have believed in Jesus Christ as the Logos who lived 150 years earlier, but for some reason, decided to talk about the Logos without even mentioning the words "Jesus" and "Christ". Right?

If so, can we assume that the same reason may have been in effect for those other Second Century writers whom also give no details of Jesus as someone who lived 150 years earlier?

GakuseiDon

I agree 100%! It shouldn't be swept under the rug. This gaping issue is part of the "elephant in the room".

Regarding what he did write, where is Athenagoras non-orthodox?

The orthodox had no problems with his writings, even praising them apparently. And Athenagoras appears to be writing on behalf of all Christians. A sample from the link earlier:

Names are not deserving of hatred: it is the unjust act that calls for penalty and punishment... But for us who are called Christians you have not in like manner cared; but although we commit no wrong--nay, as will appear in the sequel of this discourse, are of all men most piously and righteously disposed towards the Deity and towards your government--you allow us to be harassed, plundered, and persecuted, the multitude making war upon us for our name alone.

aa5874

But, we have a similar plea for fair treatment of Christians made by Justin Martyr to a pagan Emperor in "First Apology".

And Justin like Athenagoras did write an article "On the Resurrection".

But, a vast difference emerges. Athenagoras did not mention one single time any information that referred to a character called Jesus Christ.

Athenagoras, based on the extant writings, did not believe in Jesus Christ.

Look at a word check of "First Apology" (FA) by Justin and "A plea for the Christians" (PC) by Athenagoras.

Saviour........FA 5 times PC 0 times
Jesus...........FA 30 PC 0
Christ.. ........FA 79 PC 0
Pilate.......... FA 7 PC 0
Crucified.......FA 23 PC 0
Born of a
Virgin...........FA 3 PC 0

Look at a word check for On the Resurrection by Justin (JR) and Athenagoras (AR).

Jesus.....JR 5 times AR 0
Christ.....JR 4 AR 0
Saviour...JR 9 AR 0
Crucified..JR 1 AR 0
Born of a
virgin......JR 1 AR 0

It is evident when both writings are compared that Athenagoras showed no belief in the Jesus Christ of Justin Martyr.

Athenagoras' son of God is the Logos and is not known by the name Jesus Christ, and appears to be completely philosophical.

Toto

Wrong. If Jesus Christ was the Logos, he was pre-existent, beyond mere existence at a particular time and place.

I see no logic to this.

I think we already had this debate, and I thought you lost.

GakuseiDon

My bolding:
Let me rephrase, to make sure I understand what you are saying:

You seem to be suggesting that Athenagoras, EVEN IF believing that there was a historical Jesus who lived 150 years ago, may have thought that this was not important, since it might as well be part of legendary-mythical time.

My response is: IF this is the case, there might well be a reason for why Athenagoras didn't mention "Jesus" and "Christ", even though thinking that the Logos came as Jesus 150 years earlier.

Your response: I am wrong.

Is that what you are saying? Or you are denying that Athenagoras could have believed in a historical Jesus who died 150 years before? Or you are saying something else?

Since this relates to the elephant in the room, it would be good if you can clarify this. Thanks.

Unless you can quote me, I can only suspect that you were debating the phantom GakuseiDon at that time.