aa5874

You are yet to provide evidence that Athenagoras was consistent with any orthodox position.

If your orthodox position is that Jesus was born of a virgin, then there is no evidence in the writings of Athenagoras that Jesus was born or was born of a virgin.

If your orthodox position is that the Word became flesh, then there is no evidence in the writings of Athenagoras that the Word became flesh.

If your orthodox position is that Jesus was crucified, then there is no evidence in the writings of Athenagoras that Jesus existed or was crucified.

If your orthodox position is that Jesus died after crucifixion, then there is no evidence in the writings of Athenagoras that Jesus did die.


If your orthodox position is that Jesus was raised from the dead, then there is no evidence in the writings of Athenagoras that Jesus was resurrected.

Jesus Christ is not mentioned at all in the writings of Athenagoras.

There is virtually nothing in the writings of Athenagoras to indicate any orthodoxy with respect to belief in Jesus Christ.

It is of very little use to include writings attributed to writers who had already mentioned Jesus Christ in other writings, like Tertullian, Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Ignatius, and Tatian.

The author of 2nd Clement is not known. 2nd Clement is regarded as spurious.

If Minicius Felix did not make his beliefs clear in Octavius then it will be futile to try and establish his beliefs without any details.

There is no evidence that Theophilus of Antioch believed in Jesus Christ, in his three books To Autolycus he showed no knowlegde of Jesus Christ.

Athenagoras did not believe in Jesus Christ, in his two books he showed no knowledge or gave any information about Jesus Christ.

spamandham

I'm missing how any of these points act as circumstantial evidence for a HJ. They are equally compatible with a mythical Jesus, a mystical Jesus, a metaphorical Jesus, or a deliberate invention by Rome to undermine Judaism.

steve_bnk

Given the lack of objective evidence, knowing a bit about pscyholgy and relgious phenomena from obesreving the last 40 year especialy the last 4 years or so,
and knowing human nature hasn't changed much in 2k years, and looking at patterns that would have resulted from a core of intial faithful, the overal story to me is plausible.

The lack of objective evidence is not a disproof.

I still don't see your specifc references, if you are piecing together odd bits of facts and haven't read any of the source materials, then you are guilty of what yoou accuse the believers of, which is my pooint.

I was living in Portland IOregon in the 80s when the millionaire guru, 'The Bafgwan' from India brought a ranch in Antelope Oregon. He brought in his mostly Europoean followers to work the ranch. He moved a bunch of them into Antelope proper just prior to elections to essentaily vote his followers into all the offices. The city tried to disincorparate as I recall but it was too late, They didn't have a min resisedecy requiremnt. They took over the schools and the police. That gave them a license to buy full auto weapns with which they partolled the ranch.

After bickering with locals The Bagwan's #2. Shiiela somethimg or other, sneaked off the ranch and poisened a local buffet restaurant. I think she crawled through a drainage pipe to avoid being seen leaving the ranch. I knew through second hand that locals had armed themselves and were patroling the ranch perimeter with permision of the property owners. I believe she was eventualy extradited a back to the USA.

The Bagwan was deported back to India where he had fled tax evasionn charges. He had a fleet of Rolls donated by the wealthy faithful which he'd be driven around in.

His followers were in Portland dressed in red with pictures of the Bagwan hanging from theri necks.

The most creative writer in the world could not have written a fiction like that.

So, a real JC and all that seems to be generaly infered by the NT and the times is very plausible to me.

Watching Perry Mason as a kid paid off...

GakuseiDon

No, no reason.

No, I can't show that he is not the sole surviving representative of a Christianity constructed around a heavenly Logos.

If they were being persecuted for something they didn't do, then quite far. In this case, Athenagoras is clearly NOT differentiating himself from the Christians of his time.

I was trying to make a point, and thought I was being obvious. My apologies.

I don't see how that refutes my point. What does Paul say about the early church? About the first founders?

I don't know.

It's certainly one possibility.

Because a number of those letters were written by people who thought that Jesus was historical, but didn't include any historical details about Jesus. How can it help the mythicist position if there are a number of examples of such letters?

To be clear: It isn't that early Christian writers writing "occasional" letters didn't give many historical details about Jesus, it is that they didn't give many historical details about anything -- even the ones that were historicists. THAT is the pattern that exists between the First and Second Century writings. The continual focus on historical details about Jesus misses that larger point. You just need to sit down and read through the writings from the first couple of centuries on the earlychristianwritings website, and you see that pattern fairly clearly.

aa5874

Absolutely nonsense.

People have created and wrote about Hinduism, Mormonism, Paganism, Shintoism and probably hundreds of other creative stories that are believed to be true by billions of people for thousands of years.

Read Against Heresies and see the many creative stories about Gods.

As early as around 150 CE, the Jesus story was considered a joke.



I don't know what version of the Bible you read but the NT does not infer a real Jesus but an implausible or unreal creature.

Correct me if I am wrong.

The NT infers that Jesus was born of a virgin without sexual union.

Am I wrong?

The NT infers that Jesus brought a man to life after being dead for four days and prophets to life after being dead for hundred of years.

Am I wrong?

The NT infers that Jesus could change his appearance at will, he transfigured himself in the presence of some characters.

Am I wrong yet?

The NT infers that Jesus could walk on water.

Am I wrong?

The NT infers that Jesus raised himself from the dead as he predicted?

Where am I wrong?

The NT infers that Jesus was seen going through the clouds witnessed by some characters.

The NT infers that Jesus was an implausible creature.

You are wrong.

Do you recall any episode where Perry Mason brought a ghost to justice?

Toto

This still makes no sense. Jews did not eat babies - why would an Ashkenazi Jew defend himself against such a charge by admitting it might be true against some other Jews? It was just a blood libel.

He does tell us that there were other preachers, other authorities. We know some of their names. We see the personal details that were in his life. As for Jesus - we learn that he communicated through appearances.


But you are the one who claims that they thought Jesus was historical. I say that the historical Jesus was invented after the Enlightenment, and these early letters were written by people for whom Jesus was a God who walked on earth. They affirmed that he was born of a woman and crucified under Pontius Pilate as a matter of theology, not historical memory, because there was no historical memory, because there was no history.

I'm getting tired of repeating myself. You are trying to prove that a history existed by showing that no one talked about it. Good luck.

No Robots

There are those who imagine that a study of Jesus requires chiefly a knowledge of languages and exegesis. Thus they set about interpreting and disentangling the gospels. But what is needed even more than Greek and hermeneutics is psychology — the sort of knowledge, sympathy, and imagination that help one to understand a soul. For that reason, a sympathetic and imaginative student like Renan and a novelist like Mr. Moore, despite their errors, are apt to get closer to the true story of Jesus than many a man whose chief aim is not the reading of a soul but the amassing of theological and linguistic footnotes.--A Jewish View of Jesus / Hyman Gerson Enelow, p. 46-47.

show_no_mercy

Actually, didn't Tertullian become a "heretic" later on in his life?

aa5874

But, Tertullian wrote about Jesus Christ in Against Marcion.

And in the second book Against Marcion, Tertullian mentioned Christ over ten times.

Tertullian used the words Jesus, Jesus Christ and Christ to refer to the same character.

razlyubleno

My examples are fairly terrible, I'm sure, since I'm not as widely read as I should be. But it should be clear that it's possible for a Christian to write something without talking about Jesus. It's not always necessary to mention him. I'm unpersuaded that we can be meaningful about Athenagora's beliefs, just by noticing that he never mentions Jesus at all and drawing conclusions from that. If he truly didn't believe in Jesus, then there must surely be other evidence for it. I'd rather see those evidences, than hear speculation about why he never said the name of his lord and savior.