Johnny Skeptic

I am not ashamed of myself. Until now, I thought that you were a fundamentalist Christian. You contested some of my arguments at the Theology Web, and if I recall correctly, you attacked me as soon as I arrived at this forum and mentioned James Holding.

I DO NOT believe that liberal Christians are horrible. My only enemies are Christians who want to legislate religion, and fundamentalist Christians comprise a sizeable majority of that group. Now that I know more about you, I would be quite pleased if all Christians were like you.

Ted Hoffman

Hi Pearse,
Would you say from the above that Felix rejected the idea that a historical flesh-and-blood Jesus died to confer salvation to Christians?
Of course a signed statement from Minucius stating "I reject a historical Jesus" would be perfect. Unfortunately, Minucius was not a man given to such direct and flat forms of expression. Tixeront informs us that felix was "...an able writer who...treated his subject in classic literary form. The dialogue has artistic freshness and beauty; the life and emotion that pervade it are never expressed in terms that are too violent"
What "something more" do you have in mind? What criteria guides you in determining what qualifies as adequate IYO?
Or is it a purely subjective matter?
I am with you on that one.
GDon, please take some responsibility. I asked what you mean by "adopt". Of course you did not answer. You would rather cry foul and play victim of the evil and underhanded Ted Hoffman. You clearly wrote that the logos was "adopted by orthodox Christianity as well as by streams that were later declared heretical." It was adopted from who? Now you claim that Christians adopted it from within their congregation (among whom were pagan converts).
Just apologize for being unclear, if you are sure you are on solid ground, make your newfound position clear and move past this. Alternatively, stick to accusing others of blatantly misrepresenting you. If it works for you and enables you to occupy the moral highground after the argumentary ground is lost, fine. I really dont care either way. What is important to me is the arguments you advance, not how much of an aggravated wet-rag you want to be.
Since you are so much into "Doherty clearly has not done his homework", which dont strengthen your position in any way, let me give you a tip: You appear more mature as a respondent if you give your opponents the benefit of the doubt.
Instead of launching your response with "Jacob has blatantly misrepresented my statement and has purposefully butchered my meaning and has grotesquely distorted what I wrote...", write instead: "Jacob appears to have misunderstood what I meant when I wrote...to be sure, I meant..."

It works like magic. You earn respect, you keep your moral highground, potential noise is dissipated and readers are able to grasp your position clearly without being distracted. Jacob is not inflamed, smoldering flames die out. Everybody is happy. And Jacob would have to be a pu**y-a** di**head if he maintained that he has not misunderstood, in the wake of such a tactful manoeuvre.

You say that "There simply is no evidence for a "Logos" based Christianity separate from a historical stream"

GDon, If for arguments sake, we assumed that logos-based Christianities existed, how, in your opinion would a brand of Christianity need to be in order to meet your understanding of a Logos-based Christianity?

Before we declare they never existed, we must be clear about what they would be. Fair enough?

Answering the questions your sidekick claims are irrelevant will help you tighten your explanation. Your inability to answer questions that are directly related to your claims shows that you have not fully considered the propositions you are making, or that you are impervious to these related issues.
Whatever you write as a counterargument must be consistent with known data. Otherwise, one can simply ram your conjectures against available data and let you pick the pieces.

GakuseiDon

"Of course you did not answer"? TedH, where exactly did you ask me what I meant by "adopt"? I can't find it in this thread. And I couldn't find it in the other thread. Can you point out the post where you actually asked me what I meant by "adopt", please?

"Sidekick"? Charming.

TedH, I have no intention of trying to discuss my points on "Logos" Christianity with you again. I'm still seething on that score.

Maybe starting from scratch on a new topic would be better. I brought up several topics in my two articles. Is there another one you'd like to cover?

Ted Hoffman

I don't want to dilute Doherty's rebuttals. No, there is nothing I want to cover. Plus, am busy with other things. I addressed everything I thought needed addressing in my response to you. The ball is in your court.

Ted Hoffman

Sorry - I forgot this:
I had actually asked TedM at post #2760088.
You now want to convince us that "adopt" = "shift focus"/"shift emphasis"

By the way, you notice how deftly you duck questions?

Let me ask again:
What does "adopt" mean in the above statement?

Please, be nice and answer these questions. Then you can take your leave.

Ted Hoffman

This too is very interesting:
Seeth away. By all means. Then after seething and sulking to your satisfaction, explain what the word "adopt" means. Seething explains nothing and is not a practical reaction to challenges directed at your arguments.
Let me start the groundwork for you: Dictionary.com - the meaning I understood you to mean, and that is the meaning employed with respect to ideas is "To take up and make one's own: adopt a new idea."
Note that this is as opposed to "To cause to exist; bring into being" or " To produce through artistic or imaginative effort"

GakuseiDon

Well, it ain't there either. Why are you even PRETENDING that you asked this question, TedH?
:huh: :banghead:
:huh:

Why are you even PRETENDING that you asked this question in the first place?

The definition you gave looks fine: "To take up and make one's own: adopt a new idea."

Maybe we should start this topic from scratch as well? I do this out of no hope that things will improve, but out of sheer perversity. I just have to wonder what you'll write next.

OK. My statement is:

To summarise into general periods:
* In the first century, Christians were influenced by Jewish Wisdom theology.
* In the first half of the second century, pagans began converting to Christianity, bringing in pagan concepts such as the Logos.
* In the second half of the second century, Christians like Justin began using the Logos (with Christian characteristics) in their writings to the pagans, since it was a useful and familiar concept.

Christians adopted the concept of the Logos from the pagans, but they didn't adopt it as a cynical ploy to win over other pagans. It came in gradually, when Christians influenced by Hellenism started associating the Jewish Wisdom concepts with pagan ideas on the Logos. By the middle of the second century, pagan converts like Justin were writing to the Emperors of the day, associating the Logos with Christ. They did this because this would have been a familiar and useful concept.

The earliest examples of using the Logos were historicists like Ignatius and Justin. According to Doherty, the MJ Logos writers all wrote after Ignatius and Justin.

Now, if you have any questions, I'll try to answer them. But can you let me know what the topic is beforehand, please? I'm confused by what it is at the moment. If it is a general discussion on the use of the Logos in early Christianity, then fair enough.

Ted Hoffman

Do you mean "out of sheer perverseness"?
This is clear, however,
1. The word "useful" lacks any substantive meaning in this context. It is an arbitrarily applied word.
2. You have no evidence for your so-called general periods.
Please cite the page number.
Good.
GDon, If for arguments sake, we assumed that logos-based Christianities existed, how, in your opinion would a brand of Christianity need to be in order to meet your understanding of a Logos-based Christianity? [what characteristics should it have?]

GakuseiDon

I think these are reasonable assumptions drawn from the evidence, but if you disagree, fair enough.

Doherty gives dates in Ch 24 & 25. He dates Ignatius to 107 CE, which is before the dates that Doherty assigns to all his MJ writers. He also dates all bar 'Diognetus' also after Justin, though 'Diognetus' may be 180 CE as well.

It would be a Platonic Christianity lacking the figure of a historical Jesus, according to Doherty (Ch 25)

andrewcriddle

How do you relate the use of what seem to be 'Logos' ideas in the Gospel of John to this process ?

(IMHO the answer would be that John's gospel is an adoption of 'Logos' ideas c 100 CE by a marginal Christian group, which after Justin and others had, largely independently, adopted 'Logos' ideas c 150 CE, became part of mainstream Christianity.)

Andrew Criddle