andrewcriddle

There is really no doubt that Ignatius links his sufferings to the sufferings of Christ. Eg 'To the Ephesians' Chapter 1 'To the Magnesians chapter 5 etc. In the case of Polycarp 'in the cup of thy Christ' is an allusion to Mark 19:38-40 and the synoptic parallels, plus Mark 13:36 Christ's cup means in this context Christ's suffering and death.
What I said was a 'collective committal to be martyrs rather than worship Caesar' (or similar words). Christians were members of a tight knit group from which they knew they would be automatically expelled if they worshipped Caesar. That is what I meant. I'm not sure if we're in substantive disagreement or whether you're just objecting to the way I put it.
I said that if he regarded himself as a Christian without venerating Christ then either his views were weird in the sense of extremely idiosyncratic or they were part of a much wider movement. This seems true by definition. And the second possibility although possible lacks any evidence whatever. (As I keep saying evidence of widely varying views about Christ is irrelevant here.).

I said as clearly as I could that the problem is about dying for a Christianity without any Jesus at all. The fact that (some) docetic groups were prepared to die for their Christ is beside the point


Theophilus says 'Wherefore we are called Christians on this account because we are anointed with the oil of God' There is a possibly similar passage in 1 John 2:20 'But you have been anointed by the Holy One' which is most unlikely to be talking about physical oil.
Theophilus wrote after 180 CE he cannot really be evidence for 1st century CE liturgical practice. Similarly by his time it is much more likely that he knew our John than something radically different.

(Evidence for Theophilus and John Book 2 chapter 22 The problem is that on your interpretation of MF it does not seem to make sense of him.


The Octavius gives the impression that MF is defending Christianity in general from pagan attacks.

It is I suppose possible that MF agrees with many of the criticisms by pagans of much of what passed for Christianity in his day but wasn't bothered because they were not applicable to his brand of enlightened non-superstitious Christianity.

However it is not at all the impression that the work gives.

Andrew Criddle

Ted Hoffman

GDon,
I dont think we will agree on the passages we have been discussing. I think I have made my point sufficiently. You have had your piece too. I rest my case.
Doherty should be posting soon to illuminate some points. As for Criddle, I will respond later. Am swamped with work now.

GakuseiDon

Ted, on the significance of the crucified man part, I think we should agree to disagree.

But not on the significance of the cross. You said:

Felix's own circles may dismiss both the man and his cross, but the topics were relevant to the audience that Felix is addressing, and thus he has to deal with them. GDon says that he "spends some time discussing their importance" (of crosses), but this is GDon's own "black is white" spin on it. What he discusses is their UN-importance--since they are found everywhere and even attached to pagan gods, which Felix derides. (my emphasis)

Since you think that I am giving a "black is white" spin on this, I'd like you to clear this up. You are saying that M Felix dismisses the man and also his cross; the latter because it is unimportant.

M Felix writes, "We assuredly see the sign of a cross, naturally, in the ship when it is carried along with swelling sails, when it glides forward with expanded oars"

He also compares the sign of the cross to "when a man adores God with a pure mind, with handsoutstretched"

And also that "the sign of the cross either is sustained by a natural reason, or your own religion is formed with respect to it".

These are certainly positive statements, are they not? Esp the "adores God with a pure mind".

Is M Felix really saying "they are found everywhere, therefore they are unimportant"? I suggest that he is saying "they are found everywhere, therefore they are natural and not to be condemned". And the only reason that M Felix would do this is because he is defending something that was part of his own religion.

I don't see this as calling "black is white" at all, but the most reasonable reading of the text.

EarlDoherty

Hello all,

My last visit to IIDB was in 2001, for that infamous "debate" with Brian Trafford which turned out to be a fiasco. Recently, I've had a much more civilized and rational exchange of views with GakuseiDon via our respective websites on the subject of the second century apologists, and I've been following the present thread here on everyone's favorite smoking gun, Minucius Felix. I hope you're not all Felix-ed out yet, because I'd like to make another attempt to persuade Don (which I'm going to call him) that his interpretation of things is more wishful thinking than anything else. If I can't accomplish that, then perhaps I'll win over a few undecided bystanders.

This is just an introductory post, mostly to see how things look and if I've managed to master the posting techniques. (Technical aspects of anything to do with computers and the Internet are still not my forte.) I'll start by trying out a quote from one of Don's recent postings on this thread:

(I see that I haven’t managed the Quote within a Quote properly.)

I don't know what there is to argue here, as this is simply one layer of meaning within another. The basic accusation is that Christians worship a man who was crucified. That's the irreducible minimum. Because Caecilius regards this as reprehensible, then, yes, he is saying that Christians are bad to do so, especially since he has listed it with a lot of other things which are clearly "bad", such as sacrificing children. The fine-point distinction (if that's what Don is referring to) about 'worshiping a wicked man' as opposed to 'a crucified man' is misplaced and ultimately inconsequential.

Anyway, for now, my observation is rhetorical. I simply want to say that if things have been reduced to this kind of woolly, semantic argument, the discussion is clearly floundering. I'd like to take a fresh run at it. I'll be back later tomorrow with a more substantial opening gambit.

In the meantime, anyone interested can check out my first response article to Don’s original critique here, and my subsequent rebuttal to his rebuttal here. (That was just an excuse to try out the link codes, which point to both Jesus Puzzle sites.)

mata leao

I worship a risen savior. My cousin worships his new Boston Whaler boat. My friend in Manhattan worships his new blond trophy wife. Life is choices. Choose wisely.

EarlDoherty

By all means choose wisely. Not by unsubstantiated revelation, not by indoctrination, not by wishful thinking. Choose by a rational consideration of the evidence. One of those pieces of evidence is the nature of Minucius Felix's faith according to his own words, and what that says for the existence of a Jesus or a risen savior.

At least the cousin has his boat to sail, and the Manhattan friend his trophy wife to make love to, both concrete and legitimate pleasures which enrich their lives. All Mata may have is a fantasy. I know which one I would choose.

GakuseiDon

Hi Earl, and welcome to the board! It's good to see you here. I hope we can continue our exchanges here in the same good will as well.

I have a bit of a history with Ted Hoffman on this board. In this post, he blatantly misrepresents my position, and I didn't want the same thing to happen here. It's a problem that occurs when someone doesn't debate fairly, which I've never had with you.
Perhaps we can agree that it is 'worshipping a crucified man who was wicked'? I want to keep the distinction clear between someone dying as a criminal (whether they were an actual criminal or not), and someone dying because they were a criminal. I make the distinction more out of fears that Ted Hoffman will misrepresent my position on Octavius's reply down the track.

But, for now: you say, the irreducible minimum is the basic accusation is that Christians worship a man who was crucified. That's fair enough, especially if the emphasis is on "man", which M Felix is clearly doing. Can we also say that Christians like Tertullian and Justin Martyr, who believed that the historical Christ was also a god, would have had no problems with Octavius's following statement:

For in that you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the neighbourhood of the truth, in thinking either that a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God. Miserable indeed is that man whose whole hope is dependent on mortal man, for all his help is put an end to with the extinction of the man.

I'll look forward to your comments!

EarlDoherty

Thanks for the welcome, Don. I'll be going over and then posting some extended comments in a few hours from now after I've grabbed a bit of sleep I missed last night. Because it's to be my first major post, I wanted to prepare it carefully, which I've been doing for a couple of days. After that, things can be a little more free-wheeling, I'm sure. It also addresses you in the third person, and I won't re-edit to change that now, but in future I've no objection to direct address, and I'm sure we can keep things on a good-will level. It's already clear you're no Brian Trafford, aka "Nomad" (whatever happened to him anyway?) Compared to him, you're a fitting candidate for the Jesus Seminar!

You asked if Justin or Tertullian would have had any problem with Minucius Felix's smoking gun passage. Perhaps that's hard to say, although Tertullian (in both our views in regard to dating) would seem to have reworked a lot of Felix without blowing his top over what he said. Justin? Well, I have a feeling he (and Tertullian) probably would have done what you've done yourself, along with so many others: read orthodox implications into it. On the other hand, perhaps in the dark quiet of the night, he would have sat and scratched his head and asked, why in the heck didn't Felix spell it out, go out on a limb like I did and say clearly what he believed and defend his crucified man in no uncertain terms?... At least, I'd like to think he would have.

In my opening message I haven't directly addressed the "fine-point distinction" we've touched on above, and I have a feeling that it may turn out to be rendered moot, but if you want to address it again (and I've noted you bringing it up in the past), do so and we'll see if we can cast more light on it.

Until later...

andrewcriddle

Hi Earl

Did you notice my suggestion earlier in this thread (based on the Martyrdom of Pionius) that the reason why Minucius Felix sees the idea of worshipping 'a criminal and his cross', as being comparable to sacrificing children, is that in context this is an allegation of practising black magic ?

Andrew Criddle

mata leao

Earl, you say "all mata may (my emphasis on may) have is a fantasy....... Your use of the word "may" is telling. p.s. earl, I have a boat (its not a boston whaler) and I have a wife (I wouldnt trade her for a trophy blond ) AND I worhsip a risen Savior! LIfe is Good!