GakuseiDon

That is one of the most remarkable, mind-boggling statements I've seen from you, Earl. You honestly don't see the significance of a god born by sexual intercourse? You call it "obscure and minute hair-splitting"? Not only does this go against what we've debated about for the last two years (on corruptible flesh vs the incorruptible), it goes against topics raised in this very thread.

When I pointed out that the HJer Aristides criticized the pagan gods for believing in gods that could be mutilated and killed by violence without offering any excuses for why this didn't apply to Christ, you suggested that "Aristides was simply oblivious to any contradictions"(!) I can't see why you are forgetting the "Middle Platonist" background against which we have been debating for ages. From the time of Paul (whether HJ or MJ), Christ was regarded as an eternal spirit, and the conceptual thread going through the Christian attacks on pagan gods was that beings that had their origins with their births or demise at their deaths could not be considered gods. Why else would Tertullian write the below and not have to explain why it didn't apply to Christ?:

"But when you say that they only make men into gods after their death, do you not admit that before death the said gods were merely human?"

If you read the Second Century apologists with this conceptual framework in mind (that Christ was the eternal Logos while the pagan gods had a beginning and/or end) then statements like M Felix's are suddenly understandable and look orthodox, and we can see why M Felix, Tertullian and Aristides didn't need to point out that this didn't apply to THEIR Christ.

It is that kind of analysis -- comparing the so-called "MJ" writers against the "HJ" ones -- that you just don't appear to have done. And since those people who are convinced by you also haven't done it, they tend to take you at your word.

For those interested, this is the comment that Doherty believes M Felix would not have written without clarification if he was "orthodox". Keep in mind the above (esp the quote from Tertullian) when you read it:

"Therefore neither are gods made from dead people, since a god cannot die; nor of people that are born, since everything which is born dies."

Now, consider whether the question of gods being born by sexual intercourse is relevent or not, and whether Doherty's comment that it is "obscure and minute hair-splitting considerations that no normal person would even think of (only desperate apologists who are searching for anything that could remotely be used as a counter)" is in anyway justified.

EarlDoherty

I made a medium-size response to some of Kevin's objections, specifically ones in which he had misread what I said in regard to certain 2nd century apologists, mainly Diognetus. I was logged on and composed in the Reply box, the connection was somehow broken. I was asked to log in, I did so, and in the process what I had composed was lost.

That has happened to me more than once, and I'm tired of it happening. I'm not going to try to recompose my post. I'm bowing out of this thread, and I'm taking a respite in general from IIDB.

Earl Doherty

spamandham

Ugh! I can't tell you how many times this has happened to me, not only here, but on other boards as well. The school of hard knocks has taught me to copy my posts to the clipboard (select everything and press CTRL-C) before submitting.

Ted Hoffman

No worries guys. Good efforts from both sides. Too bad positions havent shifted.

gurugeorge

I even do that at intervals while composing the post if it's a really long one.

Second what Ted said. These kinds of occasional deeply intense debates are what make IIDB what it is. It's fantastic for an interested amateur to see these kinds of titanic intellectual tennis matches between clever, learned people ("Ha, how's he going to deal with that serve? OMG what a return!" ), and I always learn a hell of a lot from them and have my own thinking inspired, challenged, and expanded in scope, so I hope nobody involved thinks that any of this has been wasted time. I for one really appreciate the time and effort everyone involved has put in.

Ted Hoffman

If both Kevin and Doherty are up to it, I would still propose a formal debate. Give it three months or so - each party has three or weeks to make each instalment. Topic: Were all the early Christian writers aware of a Historical Jesus? A Case of Second Century Christian Apologists
Doherty opens by presenting two or three apologists who are non-HJ and reasons why they are non HJ.
Kevin presents his Objections.
First rebuttal by Doherty/ response to Kevin's objections
Second rebuttal by Kevin.
Closing remarks by both.
If they want, they can have judges who can make remarks on the debate.
End of story.

krosero

Well my thoughts on a formal debate are complex – no surprise there. So I hope you’ll bear with me just a little here.

My thoughts keep returning to what I proposed above, namely that Earl and I wait for a manageable topic of debate to emerge naturally, the way it did for him and Don. I was not around then, but this is what I gather happened: Don constructed an essay about the Second Century Apologists on his website, Earl responded to it; Don put up a counter-reply, and Earl put up his second response.

I have an essay addressing Earl’s theory, “Earl Doherty’s Christianities.” It covers a wide scope, and it’s somewhat uneven it what it covers: the first-century epistles are not treated in the same way, or as comprehensively, as the apologists. (It just turned out that way, not by design). Now, while it would be interesting to do a formal debate about a smaller topic, like two or three apologists (or even all the apologists), I think that that topic has already been given a formal debate (and Don mentioned putting up a third essay, so perhaps their debate is not even finished). And such a limited scope would not interest me greatly, as you can probably tell from my unwieldy essay. I am more interested in common themes running throughout Earl’s treatment of the early Christian record. But just for that reason, a manageable topic is going to be hard to find. The main question in my essay is whether Earl’s proposed theologies existed, from Paul all the way through Felix – and if that were to be the topic, it would produce a huge debate and require a tremendous amount of time and energy from both of us (and I would feel that I’d already done it in my essay). That is why I proposed that if we’re going to do a more formal debate, it should simply be an exchange in which we challenge/defend our work (as Earl and Don did) rather than look for a topic in order to have a debate.

There’s also not a lot about the apologists that I could say that would not be repeating work I’ve already done. I am not currently doing anything on the apologists; I am researching other topics entirely and would like to just keep working, and, as I say, to defend work I’ve already done if and when a debate emerges naturally.

All of this is not, by the way, merely to leave it up to Earl. I’d be interested to hear his own thoughts on this. I’d just like to let him know here that I myself would not have challenged him to a formal debate on the apologists, since I know he’s debated that topic before and it’s not particularly where I’m at either.

Kevin Rosero

EarlDoherty

(Ben, please note query at end)

I usually do compose in Word, then transfer it into the Reply to Topic box, but since recently getting onto Wireless Cable, it seemed that the possibility of being cut off while composing directly in the box had been eliminated. Apparently not.

I am not about to embark on a “start-from-scratch” debate on the 2nd century apologists, with Kevin or anyone else. Too much material has already been covered. For a review of my own position, I suggest my two website articles in debate with Don, and the appended material taken from subsequent IIDB exchanges. There are many points raised there which Don neither before nor since has offered any rebuttal to, let alone an effective rebuttal.

And in my experience, whether it’s Don ignoring my counter-arguments to his claims, such as most recently any alleged intended distinction between ‘begetting by human intercourse’ and ‘begetting through spiritual impregnation’ being lost on Theophilus’ pagan readers without something more than a one-word 'allusion', or Kevin’s misreading of which parts of Diognetus have reference to the Logos/Word or not (they both do), the whole exercise becomes too frustrating. (And yes, I can be guilty of my own bloopers, too.) My idea of hell would be engaging in such debates for eternity on IIDB. Fortunately, even my sins don’t deserve that kind of punishment!

I’m also at a disadvantage in not having Greek texts at hand of most of those apologists. Ben, you supplied Greek passages from Theophilus recently, but you neglected to tell us where you got them. Do you have an online source for these works? Please supply links!

Thanks,
Earl Doherty

Ted Hoffman

I understand. You've done a tremendous amount of work - even in this thread alone. And these debates can be very draining and thankless.

GakuseiDon

You are right, I didn't. I had wanted to move on to other topics, and to be honest didn't think there was much there to rebut without going over the same ground again. But I will work on creating a rebuttal now, using material from this thread.

If there are any other responses of yours I've ignored, please let me know, and I will have a look. It's not my habit to ignore responses, though I do bow out of threads eventually.

Interesting emphasis of words. So, what about Theophilus's Christian readers then? Are you no longer concerned about them? This is what you wrote on page 9 after Kevin was critical of you leaving out the words "[gods begotten] from intercourse" (my emphasis):

"I can't believe this. Where is the icon for tearing one's hair out?

Do you really believe that this is a "saving qualification" on Theophilus' part? That he deliberately put in "from intercourse" in order to signal to the Christian reader that this rules out Jesus (or rather, rules him in)? That he would have relied on such readers to recognize such subtlety?"

So, do you now think that "from intercourse" is a "saving qualification" on Theophilus's part? Or do you think you were still justified in leaving those two words out?

Theophilus arguably wrote around 180 CE (more on this below), and appears to have knowledge about the Gospels of Matthew and John. Now, let's imagine that he was a "MJ Logos" Christian. Why on earth would a Gospel-aware MJer give a free-kick to HJ Christians by disparaging gods "begotten from intercourse"? Is he unaware that HJ Christians believed that Jesus was also not "begotten from intercourse"? Or is he "oblivious" to his orthodox sounding statements? Theophilus as a "MJ Logos" appears to create more problems than it solves. Theophilus being a "HJ Logos" Christian (i.e. with a focus on the philosophical aspects of Christianity) is more in line with what the literature of the day tells us.

On when Theophilus wrote: Earl suggests an earlier date for Theophilus, but he hasn't presented any evidence for it AFAICS. I would like to know when he thinks that Theophilus wrote his letters, and what evidence he has for it. I think that Theophilus writing around 180 CE, given that Christians had been promoting Christ as the Logos for quite a few years by that time, is damaging to Earl's theory.

Now Earl claims that I am his ignoring his claims about Theophilus's pagan readership, but didn't I cover this in my last post? The "Middle Platonic" mindset regarded flesh as corruptible and temporary (hasn't Earl himself emphasized this point???) In a world where many of the pagan gods were "begotten from intercourse", what does Earl think the pagans would have made of this? Celsus, writing around the same time, is aware of the story that Jesus was born of a virgin. Perhaps Theophilus should have assumed that his pagan audience were "oblivious" to Christians believing that Jesus was the Logos (promoted at least a generation earlier by Justin Martyr) and virgin-born? I mean, WHO ELSE would the pagans of that time assumed that Theophilus was talking about? :huh: A SECOND Logos?

Let me repeat how Earl responded to Kevin pointing out that he'd left out the words "from intercourse" from the phrase "gods begotten from intercourse":

"It is this kind of thing, this appeal to, if not invention of, obscure and minute hair-splitting considerations that no normal person would even think of (only desperate apologists who are searching for anything that could remotely be used as a counter), which renders debates like this fruitless, because it shows that people like me will never be allowed any headway, that our arguments will never be allowed to make any impact.

Implying that Kevin is a "desperate apologist" for pointing out that Earl had left out what appears to be an important qualification on Theophilus's part is not reasonable IMHO. Can I invite those mythicists here to read over the last few pages and say whether Earl's rather dramatic words were justified?

(ETA) I'll repeat my request for Earl to give his reasons why he thinks that Tertullian didn't use the words "Jesus" and "Christ" in Ad nationes, and the implications that this has for other writers around the time (like Theophilus) who also didn't mention "Jesus" or "Christ". If he has done so elsewhere, can I ask someone to post the link please?