gentleexit

You're presuming some "pagan" monolith. Marcus was an exceptional emperor, truly philosophical, not just philosophical in his panegyrics. Perhaps only Julian matches him. This clear identity makes a pitch easier. Don't say "Jesus" or "Christ" (what does that mean?) said, say "Logos" which is clear for a Stoic. Begin with the familiar. That doesn't mean end with it. If you get a bite, go on. But there was no bite. And were Athenagoras a philosopher, he would have known that. He didn't. His pitch was a simple "we're not so different from you." But they were.

aa5874

It is plain to see that one is selling HULK.

The other is selling SPIDERMAN.

They are all COMICS to the audience.

You seem not to understand that Athenagoras does not have to believe in Jesus Christ to be called a Christian.

Justin Martyr's First Apology VII Theophilus of Antioch called himself Christian because he believed he was anointed with the oil of God.
Theophilus to Autolycus XII

gentleexit

Well you were agreeing with ...
This emphasizes more than coincidence. This says clear sourcing of "these" particular stories for the Christian tales, that Mark copied Josephus. Literally. That's way beyond coincidence of influence, milieu, circumstance.

aa5874

This is just total speculation.

You really have no information that Athenagoras did anything at all as you have just stated.

Now, if Athenagoras was selling the Logos, it would be expected that there would be information about the Logos in the writing of Athenagoras. Information about the Logos is found in the writing of Athenagoras.

Atenagoras was selling the Logos.

If Athenagoras was selling Jesus Christ, one would expect to see information about Jesus Christ. There is no information about Jesus Christ in Athenagoras.

Athenagoras was not selling Jesus Christ.

If Justin Martyr was selling Jesus Christ, it would be expected that information about Jesus Christ would be found in the writings of Justin Martyr. Information about Jesus Christ is found in the writings of Justin Martyr.

Justin Martyr was selling Jesus Christ.

gentleexit

Well we're both speculating (this whole forum is). You're presuming Justin and Athenagoras are the same sort of men appealing to the same sort people/person. If you're right, then omission of "Jesus" or "Christ" is telling. I'm saying the target audience is certainly different and perhaps the apologist is too.

Now (and this isn't rhetorical so I may be opening myself up here ...), in the numbers you give for how many times Justin or Athenagoras used this or that term, you don't give the number of times Justin used "logos". Was it a way he thought about his divinity?

To sell a stoic you don't go on about "Christ" et al. That's meaningless. You run with the logos. "In the beginning ..." Start at the beginning. If you know about that beginning. And just because you start there, doesn't mean your knowledge or belief ended there.

Toto

I don't think that there is sufficient information to say that Athenagoras had orthodox beliefs. It appears that he was a good philosopher; it might be more the case that the orthodox liked his persuasiveness and adopted him as one of their own. I think this is what Carrier says when he writes I see no evidence that he believed in an entity that walked in Galilee in the first century, that started his religion.

What is your basis for thinking that he was at all orthodox in his views? Are you assuming that, because he called himself Christian and quoted some Christian scripture, that he must have also agreed with orthodox Christian thinking and must have believed in a HJ? Are you not then assuming what you want to prove?

RussianM3_dude

Great OP. Clear and short. Straightforward too, so that regular people can understand it.

GakuseiDon

I look at that below. My question, both to you and Zhavric, is whether Athenagoras actually wrote anything in his extant letters that was NOT orthodox?

It would be good to see which makes for the stronger case. My case is based on the following:

1. His writings are consistent with orthodoxy.
2. He wrote around 177 CE, at a time when there are many Christians who apparently were orthodox, and appears to identify with Christians in general. **
3. He appears to be familiar with the Gospels and some epistles in the NT.
4. There don't appear to have been any heresies where people described themselves as "Christians" but were unaware of a "Christ".
5. We have other apologies from that time which do not use "Jesus" or "Christ" (Tertullian's "Ad nationes" and Tatian's "Address to the Greeks")

** Athenagoras is responding to the following charges (my bolding):

"Three things are alleged against us: atheism, Thyestean feasts, OEdipodean intercourse. But if these charges are true, spare no class: proceed at once against our crimes; destroy us root and branch, with our wives and children, if any Christian is found to live like the brutes."

The charges relate to atheism, cannibalism and incestuous "love feasts". Tertullians and others attest that early Christians were charged with eating human flesh, etc. How does Athenagoras respond? Does he say that it was those OTHER Christians who are atheists and cannibals, who eat the flesh of Christ? No. He writes as follows:

"And yet even the brutes do not touch the flesh of their own kind; and they pair by a law of nature, and only at the regular season, not from simple wantonness; they also recognise those from whom they receive benefits... it remains for you to make inquiry concerning our life, our opinions, our loyalty and obedience to you and your house and government, and thus at length to grant to us the same rights (we ask nothing more) as to those who persecute us."

IOW, he isn't separating the charges out from the same charges laid at the door of the orthodox Christians at the time. He writes in a manner consistent with orthodoxy, and appears to associate himself with the Christianity of his time.

What is the case against Athenagoras being orthodox?

aa5874

No. I am not speculating. I use the information supplied by the writings of Athenagoras.

You are speculating. You reject the information supplied in the writings of Athenagoras and proceed to guess.

Your speculation or guess about Athenagoras is a failure on several counts.

1. Athenagoras and Justin Martyr both wrote to pagan Emperors concerning the injustices carried out against Christians and also to dispel false allegations about Christian beliefs and practices.

2. Athenagoras in his "Plea" to the pagan Emperor clearly did not include any belief in Jesus Christ. He must state clearly what he believes as a Christian to dispel any false allegations.

Athenagoras is clear. He believed in the Logos, the philosophical son of God.

3. Justin Martyr must also be clear to the pagan Emperor, he must dispel any false allegations about his beliefs.

Justin Martyr is clear in his "Apology".

. Justin Martyr believed in Jesus Christ, born of a virgin, crucified, died, resurrected the third day and ascended to heaven.

4. Both Justin and Athenagoras wrote about the resurrection of the dead.

It is imperative to note that these writings are not addressed to pagan Emperors.

5.Athenagoras in "On the resurrection of the dead" did NOT ever mention Jesus had died or was resurrected or that the Logos died or was resurrected.

6. Justin Martyr in "On the resurrection" clearly wrote that Jesus was resurrected and is the ultimate proof that people can be raised from the dead.

"On the resurrection" by Justin Martyr.

It is extremely clear that Athenagoras did not believe in Jesus Christ. He wrote NOTHING about Jesus Christ.

Will you continue to speculate that Athenagoras believed in Jesus without any supporting evidence?

Toto

Why is this relevant? If Athenagoras had written anything that was NOT orthodox, I suspect that later Christians would not have preserved it.

You cannot assume that, just because what we have does not contain any heretical statements, that Athenagoras was orthodox in every single belief. Is that what you are doing?

But his writings omit anything that indicates that Jesus wrote on earth, and anything not consistent with orthodoxy might have been lost or suppressed.

He became a Christian before Irenaeus launched his heresy hunt.

Once again, you are assuming what you are trying to prove. Knowing some gospels does not mean that the gospels were always interpreted literally.

But were there heresies where people described themselves as Christian but did not believe in a human Jesus?

But we have other writings from Tertullian and Tatian.

What kind of bizarre reasoning is this? "Tertullians and others attest that early Christians were charged with eating human flesh, etc. How does Athenagoras respond? Does he say that it was those OTHER Christians who are atheists and cannibals, who eat the flesh of Christ?"

Did any Christian ever accuse other Christians, even heretics, of atheism or cannibalism? Where do you get this?

Besides, heresy was a matter of incorrect doctrine, not practices.

If the sociologists are religion are correct, the attraction of Christianity was its function as a social support group, and the particular beliefs associated with the group were not always relevant. Athenagoras here is speaking up for the social group called Christians. Why do you think this requires him to believe everything that later orthodox Christians defined as orthodoxy?

Why not just say that we can't really know for sure from the surviving documents what Athenagoras might have thought about a putatively historical Jesus?

I think that this conversation is starting to drag this thread off topic.