EarlDoherty

Because Tertullian in this document is not offering any description of the Christian faith, not defending the doctrine (not even mentioning it), not answering the query: "Show us thy God". He never says, "I've gone minutely into the features of our religion." I've pointed this out many times before. "Ad Nationes" is entirely concerned with complaining about pagan persecution of Christians and how it is unjustified from the moral point of view. In Book 2 he details the follies of pagan religion, making no comparison to the Christian. There is no reason for Tertullian to bring up the names "Jesus" and "Christ". How many times do I have to answer the same question, based on the same unfounded and invalid comparisons with the 2nd century apologists? The two categories are completely different. They shouldn't even be termed "categories" because Don's constant appeal to Tertullian is to ONE document (in which he clearly refers to a "founder" on which the name "Christian" is based--he is making the point that a 'name' is based on a 'founder', so even here he is not avoiding the name "Jesus"), versus an entire class of major writings of the earlier period which do not.

This is precisely what I mean. and why I refuse to debate Don any further. He is blind, perversely so, to any demonstration that his arguments are often wrongly conceived, and simply comes back with the same old stuff, again and again. On something like the crucified man passage in Felix, I have spent hundreds if not thousands of words showing how his forced interpretation of that passage is not logical, that his parsing of the chain of thought through it, and the succeeding verses about men and crosses, cannot be supported. It's like water off a duck's back. How many times am I to go over everything again? How long must I keep banging my head against the wall?

In his latest post he is still doing the same. How many times must I say that Theophilus is not writing to Christians? His readership is Autolycus, a pagan. That the point is not how some theoretical Christian reader would be expected to take the passing, one-word reference to birth of a god by "intercourse" as though this is to be readily distinguished and regarded as completely different from how Jesus was ‘conceived’? Why be so subtle? Why risk having his 'point' missed? If Theophilus wanted to make that distinction, why not spell it out, especially if he is writing to a pagan audience? Why is everything in these apologists so obscure in the meanings modern apologists try to draw from them and rescue them for orthodoxy? It is these obvious considerations which make Don’s and Kevin's appeal to these types of supposed hidden meanings a case of "hair-splitting" since no one in Theophilus' readership would be expected to recognize it.

But then we are supposed to accept their fallback position that, well, the pagans knew Christianity so well, in such intimate detail, that they understood all these alleged subtleties, all this "nudge-nudge, wink-wink". Well, if they did, why not spell it out, then? Why not defend it more openly and much more efficiently? What happens to the apologetic argument that they avoided speaking of the obvious because they wanted to put the best face on the Christian religion and keep Jesus in the closet if pagan knowledge was so thorough and widespread on that very subject? Even to the point of lying to the readers (including emperors) and saying, here's the whole picture? What is this supposed to do for the effectiveness and acceptability of their “apologies” in the eyes of the pagan? Is Don incapable of seeing the logical contradiction inherent in this type of argument he appeals to? I guess so.

How do I get these things across? How many times do I have to present them? Of course, the answer is one can never get them across to them. I could keep presenting them from now till Armaggedon, and I would have no success. And I think we all know why.

Earl Doherty

andrewcriddle

Hi Don

I posted earlier in the thread that Theophilus seems to know of the death of Marcus Aurelius (see book 3)

Theoretically Aurelius Verus could be either Marcus Aurelius (died 180) or
Lucius Verus (died 169) However the length of reign (19 year 10 days) requires that Marcus Aurelius be meant who reigned from March 7 161 to March 17 180.

Andrew Criddle

GakuseiDon

Thanks for that, Andrew, that's useful information.

I will be responding to points raised by Earl separately on my website.

Ben C Smith

Try my own links page for the Skeptik texts.

Ben.