show_no_mercy

Maybe I misinterpreted what you wrote, but ben Stada and ben Pandira are Talmudic characters. I can't seem to find them anywhere in Josephus. Not only that, but ben Stada was stoned in Lydda by Jews according to the Talmud.

aa5874

Your arguments are extremely weak.

1. Even if it is assumed that the Jesus stories as found in the gospels were orthodox, Athenagoras' writings did not reflect such orthodoxy. He wrote nothing about Jesus Christ and did not even claim the Logos became flesh or human.

2. It is absurd to think that, in antiquity or 177 CE, a person was called a Christian ONLY if their beliefs were consistent with your assumed orthodoxy.

See Against Heresies by Irenaeus or First Apolgy by Justin Martyr. The followers of Valentinius or Marcion believed in a Christ not found in the gospels.

3. It cannot be concluded that Athenagoras was familiar with the Gospels when he did NOT write anything about any of the characters or events in the Jesus stories, including Jesus, the disciples, Paul, the conception, birth, crucifixion, death, resurrection and ascencion of Jesus.

4. It is illogical to assume that believing in Christ is an admission that Christ was human. Such a view is completely erroneous. See the writings of Irenaeus in Against Heresies.

5. Now, there is a writing titled "Apology" by the name of Tertullian written to "Rulers of the Roman Empire" and Tertullian did mention Christ about thirty times, he mentioned that Christ was born of a virgin, was crucified and was resurrected on the third day.

Athenagoras wrote no such things in his "Plea" to the Roman Emperor. Nothing about Jesus Christ.

Tertullian is claimed to have written a work called "On the resurrection of the Flesh", and in the writing he mentioned Jesus about 30 times, Christ over 100 times and did write that Jesus was resurrected.

Athenagoras wrote nothing about Jesus Christ or that the Logos was resurected in his "On the resurrection".

Now, Justin Martyr's First Apology and Tertullian's Apology are consistent. They both mention Jesus Christ.

Justin Martyr's "On the Resurrection" and Tertullian's "On the resurrection of the flesh" are also consistent. They both mention that Jesus Christ was resurrected.

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

razlyubleno

This pretty much goes for Paul as well.

Is it hot in here? Or just reductio ad absurdum?

GakuseiDon

It's enough that you acknowledge that Athenagoras doesn't appear to state any heretical statements. Remember, we are looking at which case appears the stronger.

Sure, that's possible. The dog ate Athenagoras's homework. (Unless you are arguing that they also removed references to "Jesus" and "Christ", then we still have a mystery here.)

No, but remember his audience. Athenagoras was writing in 177 CE, at a time when "Jesus Christ" appears to have been known to his pagan audience. If he was calling himself a "Christian" in 177 CE, then it is reasonable that Athenagoras almost certainly had to have known that Christianity was associated with a Jesus Christ to this audience. He appears to know the Gospels and some epistles from the NT. Yet he doesn't mention the name "Jesus Christ", even to disassociate himself with that Christianity.

I don't see the relevance. Athenagoras doesn't mention the names "Jesus" and "Christ". Do we have any examples of Christians who didn't believe in any kind of "Jesus Christ"?

I don't understand your point, I'm afraid. My point is this: Accusations against Christians by pagans included atheism, cannibalism and love feasts. The charge of "cannibalism" is commonly thought to be due to the Eucharist. When charged with cannibalism, Athenagoras doesn't say that "other Christians did that". He seems to be talking about Christians as a group, and invites the Emperor to investigate "our life, our opinions, our loyalty."

I don't think it requires him to believe everything that later orthodox Christians defined as orthodoxy. I'm going by what he did write, which appears to be entirely consistent with orthodoxy.

We don't really know FOR SURE () what Athenagoras might have thought about a putatively historical Jesus. However, he seems to know of the Gospels and some epistles in the NT. He talks about persecutions of Christians in terms used by the other apologists of the time. He almost certainly would have heard of a "Jesus Christ", regardless of what he thought that figure represented. So "the elephant in the room" is why he didn't refer to this figure.

I think it is very relevant. As Zhavric wrote, this gaping issue isn't something that can be swept under the rug. So let's not do that.

Clivedurdle

It feels like we have several xianities - all based on an annointer doing various magical things with words, virgins, wine and death. How would you define Paul's Christ?

These have got muddled and merged with a good dose of the heresy stick. we need to define the 57 varities and which one any author may be using. we probably have a very biased sample and claims that someone is in one camp should be looked at suspiciously.

It is common that authors do not reference a real person. A logical response to that fact is they are working with an idea of an annointer and then develop various types to fit fashions tastes and political realities.

But the godman Jesus of the current creed looks like a later version. The Historical Jesus may be an invention of the enlightenment with our fetish for definitions!

Maybe myth is a later development - the starting point is the idea of the annointer.

bacht

This is the one that interests me. I understood that there were some stories in the Talmud about this era. Also Jannaeus had open conflict with the Pharisees, crucifying many. I read somewhere that this was considered to be the first use of crucifixion by a Jewish ruler (?)

Toto

What do you mean "we"? I feel no need to reach a conclusion in the absense of evidence.

Not the dog, the orthodox selected which parts of Athengoras' work to preserve.

But who was Jesus Christ? A spirit or a man or some other creature?

We have no surviving evidence.

I don't know why you don't understand my point. Of course, if he is being persecuted as a Christian, he is going to stick up for Christians. That doesn't mean that he agrees with other Christians on every point of doctrine.

And why on earth would you think that Athenagoras would want to say that there are some other Christians who are atheists and practice cannibalism? :huh:

This is exactly my point. We don't know that he follows the orthdox line on the existence of a historical Jesus.

Did you get forget that long thread you started? Do you even understand what the elephant in the room refers to? It is generally a metaphor for some embarrassing fact that people don't discuss. But this has been discussed to the point of exhaustion and you still don't have a case.

Athenagoras probably didn't mention "Jesus Christ" because he believed in a spiritual Jesus who was really the Logos, and he was addressing the emperor in terms that the emperor would best understand. I would take that as the most probable explanation.

Justin Martyr did mention Jesus Christ because he was addressing a different emperor.

Your agenda has always been to say that the second century apologists must have believed in a historical Jesus but included few biographical details; and this means that it should not be surprising that Paul and other early Christians write little or nothing about a historical Jesus, and there is no silence that needs to be explained. I pointed out in the other thread that this is not a valid conclusion, and you had no response there. Now you are trying it again. It won't wash.

steve_bnk

From what historical sources did you use for al this?

There were a number of people claiming to be the prohesied Jewish messiah at the time JC was alleged to live,ostly militaristic and some were bandits.

It is not out of the question that there was an historical JC. It is an old idea that JC may never have existed or was a comnoosite charater as recorded in the NT.

I'd argue there was an historical JC althlugh as is obvious the infernce is largely circumstantial.

1. At the time the time the gospels and Pauls's documents were written there appears to a number of Chriaian communities spread over a large geographical area(at least for ithe times). There had to be an initial core movement.

2. The Romans considered the Christians as heretic Jews and as such were not bothered much outside Judea until Chritianity assumed its own identity and split from Judaism..

3. For the general education level of the day for one or a group of people to invent it as fiction might be a stretch.

4. As evidenced by Paul's writings there was divergence and bickering early on, along with people taking on and modifing the doctrine to gain a following with no real connection to Christianity.

To me it all makes general sense as things might be expected to progress.

aa5874

Well, lets do a comparison.

The writer Paul mentioned Jesus over 200 times.
Athenagoras 0.

The writer Paul mentioned Christ over 300 times.
Athenagoras 0

The writer Paul claimed Jesus was betrayed, crucified, died and was resurrected.

Athenagoras nothing.

Paul did write about Jesus Christ. Athenagoras did not.

razlyubleno

I'm not saying you don't have a point. But your numbers are fudged. You say that Paul mentioned Jesus over 200 times? But you are measuring that across his entire corpus. In Romans, his longest letter, he only mentions Jesus 25 times. In 1 Thessalonians, only 15 times. You are engaged in mathematical trickery and it would do you well to be more honest.

razly