Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ted Hoffman · 09-25-2005, 10:43 PM

The work is ponderous and wooden and heavy: like a lump of concrete sitting in place.
Chinua Achebe

My response to GDon's critique of Doherty's treatement of second century apologists is up. Since Doherty rebutted just about every argument GDon raised in his(GDon's) critique, I had little else to add. I focus on GDon's attempts at explaining the silence plus a few other related sections. Ultimately, I conclude that GDon's arguments are poorly thought-out and based on an incorrect understanding of the issues. I also suggest some criteria for identifyting Christianities that are devoid of a historical Jesus.
Doherty will be providing a detailed rebuttal to GDon's "follow up" article in a couple of weeks.

Here is an excerpt of my response to GDon:

Quote:

Preliminary Remarks

GDon’s critique marks a turning point in the type of criticisms that the Jesus Myth hypothesis has received since Earl Doherty reformulated it with the publication of The Jesus Puzzle. Most critics denied that there was any silence on earthly details about a historical Jesus in the writings of the second century Christian apologists. The typical argument advanced by such critics asserted that since everyone knew there was a historical Jesus, there was no need to keep mentioning historical details about Jesus’ life when speaking about him. Others maintained that the entire hypothesis is invalid because it relies on an allegedly illegitimate ‘argument from silence’. Still other critics argued that the silence was deliberate due to political considerations, and thus needs no further examination.

In a marked departure from such denials, GDon admits that the sound of silence in the second century Christian texts is loud and requires an explanation, which he proceeds to provide. The last part of this section is a critical evaluation of GDon’s attempt to explain the Conspiracy of Silence (to borrow one of Doherty’s favorite phrases—used ironically).

GDon’s critique is a relatively well-written piece with fairly clear ideas and expressions. At least on the face of it. Compared to recent critiques of the Jesus Myth Hypothesis, it is focused, rational and scholarly. The ideas in it are organized logically and the presentation is good, though he tends to repeat himself a few times. GDon’s approach is however, fundamentally conservative even as he agrees with Doherty on several points. Like one trying to figure out the intricacies of Byzantine history, GDon carefully looks at the difficulties he perceives in the Jesus Myth hypothesis through a microscope. But we encounter similar problems to those we find in critics who try to look at the theory using a telescope: GDon loses perspective, argues out of context and ends up presenting a befuddled, obverse, upside-down interpretation of the most obvious of issues.

Stylistically, the article is bare and the reader has to struggle not to go to sleep even though it is only 31 pages long. The language is neither engaging nor entertaining. No metaphors, no artistic expressions, no catchy phrases. Chinua Achebe would complain that the work is ponderous and wooden and heavy. But we are more interested in the substantive points GDon makes, and so we now shift focus to the substance of it.

Evaluating the Logos as an Asset to Christianity

GDon argues that there was no “logos-based Christianity separate from the historical stream�? and “the logos would have been a useful concept for Christians trying to re-image Christianity as a philosophical tool.�? The conclusion he is trying to draw is that the second century apologists speak in terms of a logos because they have chosen to apply to the historical Jesus a concept they consider to be useful in gaining pagan sympathy; and that they were the first to create such a logos type Christianity.

First of all, the two premises in his argument are not related as GDon seems to think. He would have to demonstrate both of them individually, and he has not done so for either one. Even if the latter were true, that the logos would have been a useful concept in winning over pagans to the Christian "son", this does not show that there was no logos Christianity separate from the historical stream prior to the second century apologists. In fact, GDon has engaged in a somewhat garbled circular argument here, in that his first statement is used as both a premise and a conclusion.

Second, we have no clear method for determining what was or was not useful for the “historical stream of Christianity.�?
Third, the argument takes for granted a disputed issue, which is that the second century Christian apologists previously held a Christianity that was different from what they presented in their writings. Fourth, we have no reason to believe that the early Christians: (a) wanted to re-image Christianity, or (b) co-opted every concept they perceived as useful in the achievement of that goal. GDon’s argument is actually a conclusion framed as an argument. And lastly, its very construction is problematic: how does GDon know that an ‘historical stream of Christianity’ could have absorbed a ‘logos-based Christianity’ if he doesn’t believe there was a ‘logos-based Christianity’ in the first place?

In any case, how does he rule out the possibility that the ‘logos-based Christianity’ could have been the one that absorbed the ‘historical stream of Christianity’?

The conjecture “the logos would have been a useful concept�? is challenged by ecclesiastical writers like Tertullian who attempted to distance Christianity from pagan religions by saying that it is the devil that set up the similarities between Christianity and pagan religions. Tertullian’s ‘diabolical mimicry’ argument is an example that serves to make GDon’s claim unlikely. Another example is Theophilus’ To Autolycus, where the apologist exposes the insufficiency and infantile quality of the pagan teachings. This means that apologists did not absorb pagan concepts unidirectionally as GDon would have us believe: they also derided and ridiculed them.

This is not to deny that paganism was popular in the first three centuries. The issue here is that GDon must demonstrate his point, and not just conclude it.

The article is here..

GakuseiDon · 09-26-2005, 06:27 AM

Hi Ted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

The conclusion he is trying to draw is that the second century apologists speak in terms of a logos because they have chosen to apply to the historical Jesus a concept they consider to be useful in gaining pagan sympathy; and that they were the first to create such a logos type Christianity.

I haven't tried to make any of those points AFAIK. Association of the "Logos" to Christ can be found in Ignatius, and was probably an outgrowth of the Wisdom theology of the first century. But it was a useful concept to push to the pagans, since it would have been familiar to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Third, the argument takes for granted a disputed issue, which is that the second century Christian apologists previously held a Christianity that was different from what they presented in their writings.

I've deliberately avoided trying to speculate on first century Christian beliefs in my articles. The Christian apologists who wrote in the second century used the Logos when writing to pagans. Whether first century Christians were mythicists or not is irrelevent to my point, which is that there is no evidence that second century Christians were mythicists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Fourth, we have no reason to believe that the early Christians: (a) wanted to re-image Christianity, or (b) co-opted every concept they perceived as useful in the achievement of that goal. GDon’s argument is actually a conclusion framed as an argument.

They weren't "co-opting" concepts. They already had the idea of the Logos.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

And lastly, its very construction is problematic: how does GDon know that an ‘historical stream of Christianity’ could have absorbed a ‘logos-based Christianity’ if he doesn’t believe there was a ‘logos-based Christianity’ in the first place?

I don't know that. It is irrelevant to my review. My point is that there is no evidence that second century Christians were mythicists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

The conjecture “the logos would have been a useful concept�? is challenged by ecclesiastical writers like Tertullian who attempted to distance Christianity from pagan religions by saying that it is the devil that set up the similarities between Christianity and pagan religions.

You're wrong. You're so wrong that I can't believe it.
Tertullian's Apology:

Quote:

But the Son of God has no mother in any sense which involves impurity; she, whom men suppose to be His mother in the ordinary way, had never entered into the marriage bond. But, first, I shall discuss His essential nature, and so the nature of His birth will be understood. We have already asserted that God made the world, and all which it contains, by His Word, and Reason, and Power. It is abundantly plain that your philosophers, too, regard the Logos--that is, the Word and Reason--as the Creator of the universe.

It took me all of one minute to find that passage, Ted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Another example is Theophilus’ To Autolycus, where the apologist exposes the insufficiency and infantile quality of the pagan teachings. This means that apologists did not absorb pagan concepts unidirectionally as GDon would have us believe: they also derided and ridiculed them.

:huh: You mean, like when Christian philosophers attacked the nature of the Roman gods, like in my article?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Beyond GDon’s assumption that the logos would have helped in re-imaging Christianity appears a lack of appreciation of the idea that the logos and Jesus of Nazareth are, at least operationally, mutually exclusive – the existence of one means the absence of the other.

Tell the writer of the Gospel of John that, please. Or am I missing your point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

“Would have been a useful concept�? appears to mean that the logos would have been used to sex up the image of Jesus of Nazareth. GDon is like one arguing that monotheism would have been a useful concept for re-imaging a polytheistic religion.

I'm saying that Second Century Christianity already had the concept of Christ as the Logos by the time they started pushing this to the pagans. It was a "re-imaging" of Christianity, not a "re-construction". See my example of Creationism and Intelligent Design, where I suggest we see a parallel situation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Consider this: Justin writes in Apology, 5 that the logos “took shape, became man, and was called Jesus Christ�?. The gospel of John also says that the “the word became flesh.�? This means that, per John, the word was in the past and the rest of the “work�? was done by Jesus, not the logos. The same applies to Justin. GDon fails to explain how adding a logos to the figure of Jesus would have styled up Jesus.

I do, where I quote Marcus Aurelius, who describes the Logos in terms that Christians would have found sympathetic (see my original article). There would have been good reasons to stress the "Logos"ness of Christianity at that time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Tatian writes in Address to the Greeks that the pagans were devoted to their gods who had human forms yet these gods did not have logos antecedents. How exactly was having a logos a good thing? GDon does not explain.

You are wrong. Again, you are just so wrong that I am amazed. Ideas of the Logos permeated that period:
http://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~fun...nal/logos.html

See also my quote from Tertullian given above. Are you REALLY sure you want to say that associating Christ with the Logos wouldn't have been a good thing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

It is important to note that we encounter in works like Epistle to Diognetus and Athenagoras’ A Plea for the Christians Christianities devoid of any allusions to a historical personage as a central savior figure. Even in the face of these examples, GDon would still like us to believe that the earliest Christians had a historical Jesus at the core of their religion, then they saw that the pagans loved the logos concept and so these early apologists falsely presented Christianity to the pagans as logos-centered without a historical Jesus, then, after the pagans had accepted Christianity, the Christians brought back a historical Jesus to the fore and relegated the logos to an ineffectual role.

What do you think of my parallel with Creationism and the Intelligent Design 'theory'?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

We find no evidence that these apologists had made a conscious choice to slant their presentations to exclude a historical Jesus.

What about Justin's comments about presenting "secular" arguments to pagans, and "faith-based" arguments to believers? What about Tertullian's Ad nationes, where he doesn't mention any details of Christ's life, not even Christ's name? What about Clement of Alexandria (182-202 CE): "Exhortation to the Heathen" (Use of 'Jesus' and 'Christ', but no historical details)? Or Commodianus (240 CE): “Instructions of Commodianus�? (No historical details)? I think there is plenty of evidence. I think the evidence is, in fact, overwhelming.

I won't cover the rest of your article at this time. I just have to say that that is one terrible critique. Ted, to correct one mistake that you made throughout your critique: I'm not saying that Christians adopted the Logos to appeal to pagans. That belief had already existed. They pushed the concept of the Logos to pagans since this was a concept already familiar to them, just as they pushed other beliefs like the antiquity of Hebrew scriptures, prophets as philosophers, relationships between pagan philosopher and Hebrew beliefs (e.g Plato as the so-called "Attic Moses").

Ted Hoffman · 09-26-2005, 06:51 AM

Quote:

What do you think of my parallel with Creationism and the Intelligent Design 'theory'?

It is a false analogy because of the following reasons:

1. Unlike the early Christian apologists, there is evidence that the creationists are intentionally pushing ID. Take the Wedge for instance. There is purposeful misrepresentation and abstruse obfuscation by IDers like Dembski and Behe. OTOH, you can find no evidence that the Christians purposefully slanted their presentations. As I showed in the other thread, your example of Justin is not apt.

2. The pro-ID scientists and non-scientists are working in concert - Dembski, Behe etc. But the early Christians were split and fighting each other. Marcionites, Orthodox Christians, Ebionites etc.

3. We know what creation is and we know what ID is. But we have no evidence that the Christian apologists held a different Christianity than the one we actually see in their writings.

4. We know why pro-IDiots need to camouflage their theory as science. We do not know that importing pagan philosophical concepts like the logos was thought by the early Christian apologists to be a good idea.

Your analogy is therefore false.

The rest of your responses and void denials are clearly rushed and poorly thought out. It would be unfair for me to take them apart in their undeveloped, poorly presented form. I think you are feeling a little besieged and are feeling the need to salvage something to hold on to. I will await your thoughtful response.

GakuseiDon · 09-26-2005, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

3. We know what creation is and we know what ID is. But we have no evidence that the Christian apologists held a different Christianity than the one we actually see in their writings.

That's because I'm not saying they held a different view of Christianity than the one we actually see in their writings. The belief about the Logos already existed before Justin started writing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

4. We know why pro-IDiots need to camouflage their theory as science. We do not know that importing pagan philosophical concepts like the logos was thought by the early Christian apologists to be a good idea.

I'm not saying that Christians imported concepts like the Logos to appeal to pagans. That belief had already existed. Ignatius wrote about the Logos, and we first see Justin later pushing the Logos idea to pagans. Apologists pushed the concept of the Logos to pagans since this was a concept already familiar to them. But that belief already existed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

The rest of your responses and void denials are clearly rushed and poorly thought out. It would be unfair for me to take them apart in their undeveloped, poorly presented form.

How about your statement that "The conjecture “the logos would have been a useful concept�? is challenged by ecclesiastical writers like Tertullian"? I give a quote from Tertullian that I think shows you are wrong. Was the concept of the Logos useful to Tertullian, do you think?

Johnny Skeptic · 09-26-2005, 08:25 AM

The following excerpts are from an article by Marshall Gauvin at
http://www.infidels.org/library/hist...lly_live.html:

There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died. Christian scholars, having no reliable means by which to fix the date of their composition, assign them to as early an age as their calculations and their guesses will allow; but the dates thus arrived at are far removed from the age of Christ or his apostles. We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. Let me impress upon you that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made as early as possible. The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D.

There is absolutely nothing to show that these Gospels -- the only sources of authority as to the existence of Christ -- were written until a hundred and fifty years after the events they pretend to describe. Walter R. Cassels, the learned author of "Supernatural Religion," one of the greatest works ever written on the origins of Christianity, says: "After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during the first century and a half after the death of Christ." How can Gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after Christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he really lived? History must be founded upon genuine documents or on living proof. Were a man of to-day to attempt to write the life of a supposed character of a hundred and fifty years ago, without any historical documents upon which to base his narrative, his work would not be a history, it would be a romance. Not a single statement in it could be relied upon.

Christ is supposed to have been a Jew, and his disciples are said to have been Jewish fishermen. His language, and the language of his followers must, therefore, have been Aramaic -- the popular language of Palestine in that age. But the Gospels are written in Greek -- every one of them. Nor were they translated from some other language. Every leading Christian scholar since Erasmus, four hundred years ago, has maintained that they were originally written in Greek. This proves that they were not written by Christ's disciples, or by any of the early Christians. Foreign Gospels, written by unknown men, in a foreign tongue, several generations after the death of those who are supposed to have known the facts -- such is the evidence relied upon to prove that Jesus lived.

But while the Gospels were written several generations too late to be of authority, the original documents, such as they were, were not preserved. The Gospels that were written in the second century no longer exist. They have been lost or destroyed. The oldest Gospels that we have are supposed to be copies of copies of copies that were made from those Gospels. We do not know who made these copies; we do not know when they were made; nor do we know whether they were honestly made. Between the earliest Gospels and the oldest existing manuscripts of the New Testament, there is a blank gulf of three hundred years. It is, therefore, impossible to say what the original Gospels contained.

There were many Gospels in circulation in the early centuries, and a large number of them were forgeries. Among these were the "Gospel of Paul," the Gospel of Bartholomew," the "Gospel of Judas Iscariot," the "Gospel of the Egyptians," the "Gospel or Recollections of Peter," the "Oracles or Sayings of Christ," and scores of other pious productions, a collection of which may still be read in "The Apocryphal New Testament." Obscure men wrote Gospels and attached the names of prominent Christian characters to them, to give them the appearance of importance. Works were forged in the names of the apostles, and even in the name of Christ. The greatest Christian teachers taught that it was a virtue to deceive and lie for the glory of the faith. Dean Milman, the standard Christian historian, says: "Pious fraud was admitted and avowed." The Rev. Dr. Giles writes: "There can be no doubt that great numbers of books were then written with no other view than to deceive." Professor Robertson Smith says: "There was an enormous floating mass of spurious literature created to suit party views." The early church was flooded with spurious religious writings. From this mass of literature, our Gospels were selected by priests and called the inspired word of God. Were these Gospels also forged? There is no certainty that they were not. But let me ask: If Christ was an historical character, why was it necessary to forge documents to prove his existence? Did anybody ever think of forging documents to prove the existence of any person who was really known to have lived? The early Christian forgeries are a tremendous testimony to the weakness of the Christian cause.

Zeichman · 09-26-2005, 12:48 PM

I'd like to see a more indepth response from GDon, but I'm baffled as to why this was included in the response:

Quote:

The Hebrew word ‘Yehoshua’ or Jesus simply means savior (or ‘Yahweh saves’). And ‘Christ’ is Greek for Hebrew ‘Mashiach’ which means ‘the anointed one’. So, simply put, ‘Jesus Christ’ means the ‘anointed savior’. As such, it is not really a name as much as it is a title. A name would be more like Jesus of Nazareth. Thus, finding an entity being referred to as Jesus or Jesus Christ in the early Christian documents should not necessarily be regarded as a reference to Jesus of Nazareth. Most of the early proto-Christian sects were offshoots of Judaism and they had concepts that we find in the Jewish writings combined with Greek philosophical concepts.

This argument is reminiscent of the arbitrarily-switching-languages stuff from the "Jesus was Caesar" thread. Is there any evidence that "Ihsous" meant the same thing to Hellenistic Jews as "Yehoshua" did to their more Hebraic counterparts? Otherwise, the linking of the two terms requires an explanation rather than telling us that it is the obvious conclusion.

GakuseiDon · 09-26-2005, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

The following excerpts are from an article by Marshall Gauvin at
http://www.infidels.org/library/hist...lly_live.html:

There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died.

Johnny, I'm less concerned about when the Gospels were in existence than when we can say that the pagans generally understood what Christians were saying about their origins. Doherty places this date in the 160s (which I think is a little late). So when Theophilus, who wrote in the 180s CE, states that he is a Christian and talks about the "Word", which Justin Martyr associated with Christ around 30 years before, the pagans would have understood the reference to have been to the historical Jesus.

GakuseiDon · 09-26-2005, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

I'd like to see a more indepth response from GDon, but I'm baffled as to why this was included in the response:

This argument is reminiscent of the arbitrarily-switching-languages stuff from the "Jesus was Caesar" thread. Is there any evidence that "Ihsous" meant the same thing to Hellenistic Jews as "Yehoshua" did to their more Hebraic counterparts? Otherwise, the linking of the two terms requires an explanation rather than telling us that it is the obvious conclusion.

Hi Zeichman. It's an interesting question, but my focus is on the beliefs of Second Century writers, so I'm afraid I'll bow out of any discussion on this point at this time.

Zeichman · 09-26-2005, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Hi Zeichman. It's an interesting question, but my focus is on the beliefs of Second Century writers, so I'm afraid I'll bow out of any discussion on this point at this time.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. My question was for Ted. I was just saying I'd like to see a full response from you from Ted's rebuttal.

Ted Hoffman · 09-26-2005, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

I'd like to see a more indepth response from GDon, but I'm baffled as to why this was included in the response:

This argument is reminiscent of the arbitrarily-switching-languages stuff from the "Jesus was Caesar" thread. Is there any evidence that "Ihsous" meant the same thing to Hellenistic Jews as "Yehoshua" did to their more Hebraic counterparts? Otherwise, the linking of the two terms requires an explanation rather than telling us that it is the obvious conclusion.

What I have stated above is not an argument but a statement of fact. You can challenge them on linguistic/philological grounds if you like.
Jesus Christ means 'anointed saviour'. Which is a title. That is all I am stating. What is arbitrary about that?

09-26-2005, 08:25 AM	#5
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Response to Gakusei Don The following excerpts are from an article by Marshall Gauvin at http://www.infidels.org/library/hist...lly_live.html: There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died. Christian scholars, having no reliable means by which to fix the date of their composition, assign them to as early an age as their calculations and their guesses will allow; but the dates thus arrived at are far removed from the age of Christ or his apostles. We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. Let me impress upon you that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made as early as possible. The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D. There is absolutely nothing to show that these Gospels -- the only sources of authority as to the existence of Christ -- were written until a hundred and fifty years after the events they pretend to describe. Walter R. Cassels, the learned author of "Supernatural Religion," one of the greatest works ever written on the origins of Christianity, says: "After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during the first century and a half after the death of Christ." How can Gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after Christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he really lived? History must be founded upon genuine documents or on living proof. Were a man of to-day to attempt to write the life of a supposed character of a hundred and fifty years ago, without any historical documents upon which to base his narrative, his work would not be a history, it would be a romance. Not a single statement in it could be relied upon. Christ is supposed to have been a Jew, and his disciples are said to have been Jewish fishermen. His language, and the language of his followers must, therefore, have been Aramaic -- the popular language of Palestine in that age. But the Gospels are written in Greek -- every one of them. Nor were they translated from some other language. Every leading Christian scholar since Erasmus, four hundred years ago, has maintained that they were originally written in Greek. This proves that they were not written by Christ's disciples, or by any of the early Christians. Foreign Gospels, written by unknown men, in a foreign tongue, several generations after the death of those who are supposed to have known the facts -- such is the evidence relied upon to prove that Jesus lived. But while the Gospels were written several generations too late to be of authority, the original documents, such as they were, were not preserved. The Gospels that were written in the second century no longer exist. They have been lost or destroyed. The oldest Gospels that we have are supposed to be copies of copies of copies that were made from those Gospels. We do not know who made these copies; we do not know when they were made; nor do we know whether they were honestly made. Between the earliest Gospels and the oldest existing manuscripts of the New Testament, there is a blank gulf of three hundred years. It is, therefore, impossible to say what the original Gospels contained. There were many Gospels in circulation in the early centuries, and a large number of them were forgeries. Among these were the "Gospel of Paul," the Gospel of Bartholomew," the "Gospel of Judas Iscariot," the "Gospel of the Egyptians," the "Gospel or Recollections of Peter," the "Oracles or Sayings of Christ," and scores of other pious productions, a collection of which may still be read in "The Apocryphal New Testament." Obscure men wrote Gospels and attached the names of prominent Christian characters to them, to give them the appearance of importance. Works were forged in the names of the apostles, and even in the name of Christ. The greatest Christian teachers taught that it was a virtue to deceive and lie for the glory of the faith. Dean Milman, the standard Christian historian, says: "Pious fraud was admitted and avowed." The Rev. Dr. Giles writes: "There can be no doubt that great numbers of books were then written with no other view than to deceive." Professor Robertson Smith says: "There was an enormous floating mass of spurious literature created to suit party views." The early church was flooded with spurious religious writings. From this mass of literature, our Gospels were selected by priests and called the inspired word of God. Were these Gospels also forged? There is no certainty that they were not. But let me ask: If Christ was an historical character, why was it necessary to forge documents to prove his existence? Did anybody ever think of forging documents to prove the existence of any person who was really known to have lived? The early Christian forgeries are a tremendous testimony to the weakness of the Christian cause.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.