Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Zhavric · 03-24-2009, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

The idea that Mark sat down with a copy of Josephus in one hand and the Septuagint in the other and cooked up a great story seems plausible to me, but I'm just another layman.

It is becoming clearer to me that the gospels as presented do not represent the true history of the Jesus story or the true history of Jesus believers.

If it is assumed Jesus of the NT did not exist, then it will be realised that all the so-called words of Jesus may have been written by other writers not at all associated with the authors of the gospels as claimed by the church.

In reading the writings of Athenagoras, I came across passages that appear similar to words of Jesus as found in the gospels, but Athenagoras claimed those words were said by the Logos, the philosophical son of God.

Now, I was tempted to think that Athenagoras was simply copying passages from the gospels until he claimed the Logos made a statement not found in any of the gospels.

Athengoras called himself a Christian yet did not at any time use the words Jesus, Jesus Christ, Christ, the crucifixion or the resurrection of any character who died for the remission of sins.

Athenagoras did not mention any writer named Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul or disciples of any character called Jesus Christ.

Excerpts from Athenagoras A plea for the Christians XXXII

The words of the Logos.

The first passage of the Logos is similar to the words of (the non-existent) Jesus as found in gMatthew. The second is missing.

Mt 5:28 -

Quote:

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

So, it would appear that the gospel writers of the NT may have used Josephus to place their character in Judaea, but did they also get the words of their non-existent Jesus from some other source?

Well said.

Zhavric · 03-24-2009, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sy2502

I have no problem with the idea that some itinerant preacher called Jesus got a few people to follow him. I get the impression that preachers were pretty common around that time, that they stole followers from each other by performing tricks and preaching whatever people wanted to hear. And because of the problems with the Romans you mentioned, Jews were very open to the idea of the coming Messiah, so their wishful thinking would convince them some charismatic preacher was the one. It is quite obvious that in time his story was embellished, he went from preacher to son of god, from being killed for stirring the pot to dying for our sins, from performing tricks to raising the dead, etc etc.
I don't see the actual existence of a real Jesus preacher a problem to atheism. It doesn't make a difference either way.

*facepalm*

So... the basis for the dominant religion of Western culture makes no difference to atheists? You must be kidding me. This is exactly why I have this thread going. Moreso even than Christians, this is the mind we need to change. Most atheists are blithely unconcerned with the personhood of Jesus. They're content to believe that there were no miralces, but there was some guy named Jesus. But history tells us a far different story. It tells us there were several people who were the loose basis for the myth, but no actual individual who fits the bill.

Now, I've had some luck getting Christians to come around to agnsoticism over this issue.

I'm really not sure how you can look at such a valuable intellectual weapon and pass it by. "You're working on a machine gun? No thanks. I'll stick to my sword."

Whatsupwiththat?

Toto · 03-24-2009, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhavric

In the early second century Athenagoras, a Christian philosopher, wrote an explanation of Christianity to the Alexandrian church and for the sitting Roman emperor.

Actually, Athenagoras is more late than early Second Century. Richard Carrier, in his article on the NT canon, writes (my bolding):

In 177 A.D. Athenagoras of Athens composed a lengthy philosophical Defense of the Christians addressed to the emperor Marcus Aurelius in which the first articulation of a theory of the Trinity appears. He quotes the OT and NT several times, but does not name his sources from the NT. The quotes or paraphrases that he uses happen to come from a few Epistles of Paul, and from all the Gospels in a mishmash (M 125), suggesting a harmonic source like the Diatessaron. But the respect that this defense, and others like it, earned among orthodox Christians contributed to forming decisions on canonicity based on whether they accorded with works like it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhavric

In his 37 chapter essay "A plea for the Christians" he makes no mention of Jesus as an actual person. None whatsoever. The closest he comes is to imply that god has a son, but in this same sentiment he also intertwines this son with the logos or word of god.

"No mention of Jesus". I think that this is interesting, and in another thread I called it "the elephant in the room". WHY would a Christian writing around 177 CE, and who knew about the Gospels and the letters of Paul, not mention anything about Jesus?

We don't have everything that Athenagoras wrote, but it appears that this particular work was addressed to a pagan Emperor as a plea for the fair treatment of Christians. From newadvent

Quote:

His writings bear witness to his erudition and culture, his power as a philosopher and rhetorician, his keen appreciation of the intellectual temper of his age, and his tact and delicacy in dealing with the powerful opponents of his religion. The "Apology", the date of which is fixed by internal evidence as late in 176 or 177, was not, as the title "Embassy" (presbeia) has suggested, an oral defence of Christianity but a carefully written plea for justice to the Christians made by a philosopher, on philosophical grounds, to the Emperors Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus, conquerors, "but above all, philosophers". . . .

So this might mean that Athenagoras tailored his message to his audience, or equally might imply that as late as 177 Christianity was still a matter of philosophy and did not depend on a historical founder. After all, Athenagoras was converted to Christianity by philosophical arguments, not by stories of a first century Jewish sage.

GakuseiDon · 03-24-2009, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhavric

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Actually, Athenagoras is more late than early Second Century. Richard Carrier, in his article on the NT canon, writes (my bolding):

In 177 A.D. Athenagoras of Athens composed a lengthy philosophical Defense of the Christians addressed to the emperor Marcus Aurelius in which the first articulation of a theory of the Trinity appears. He quotes the OT and NT several times, but does not name his sources from the NT. The quotes or paraphrases that he uses happen to come from a few Epistles of Paul, and from all the Gospels in a mishmash (M 125), suggesting a harmonic source like the Diatessaron. But the respect that this defense, and others like it, earned among orthodox Christians contributed to forming decisions on canonicity based on whether they accorded with works like it.

Right. He was writing at a time before orthodoxy silenced the other forms of Christianity and branded them as "heresies". It's not so uncommon. We see Paul with several gnostic leanings, for example. What's important, though, is how specific Athenagoras is about how Jesus isn't a person.

But what do you draw from that? Paul has no problem talking about "Jesus Christ", regardless of whether he thought that Christ was a person or not.

Are you saying that Athenagoras didn't know the name "Jesus Christ"? Or that he knew the name, but decided not to mention it for some reason?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhavric

Quote:

"No mention of Jesus". I think that this is interesting, and in another thread I called it "the elephant in the room". WHY would a Christian writing around 177 CE, and who knew about the Gospels and the letters of Paul, not mention anything about Jesus?

Like I said, the idea that there was one story of Christianity which branched off into gnosticism later is BS. It's a fiction contrived by the church. The fact is that orthodoxy was simply the loudest, most violent, and most politically connected version of Christianity. However, before the council of Nicea, it's not uncommon to see this sort of mixed writing that expresses mostly gnostic, but some orthodox ideals.

Athenagoras appears orthodox, and not gnostic. For example, he writes that God is the God of this world, and that there is no room for any other:

If there were from the beginning two or more gods, they were either in one and the same place, or each of them separately in his own...

For if the world, being made spherical, is confined within the circles of heaven, and the Creator of the world is above the things created, managing that by His providential care of these, what place is there for the second god, or for the other gods?

Where do you see Athenagoras as being gnostic? As Carrier points out, his letter and similar works "earned among orthodox Christians contributed to forming decisions on canonicity based on whether they accorded with works like it."

Toto · 03-24-2009, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhavric

...

So... the basis for the dominant religion of Western culture makes no difference to atheists? You must be kidding me. This is exactly why I have this thread going. Moreso even than Christians, this is the mind we need to change. Most atheists are blithely unconcerned with the personhood of Jesus. They're content to believe that there were no miralces, but there was some guy named Jesus. But history tells us a far different story. It tells us there were several people who were the loose basis for the myth, but no actual individual who fits the bill.

I think that most atheists would still be atheists if it were proven that a historical Jesus of Nazareth from the first century actually sparked the Christian religion.

The problem, you will find, is that the issue of Jesus' existence is an explosive one for Christians. Sometimes it gets their hackles up to the point where they can't hear anything you are saying.

And if you get into a debate on the subject, you have to have all of your claims documented and completely supportable, because they have people checking everything, ready to crucify you for a misplaced comma.

Quote:

Now, I've had some luck getting Christians to come around to agnsoticism over this issue.

That's surprising, but encouraging.

Quote:

I'm really not sure how you can look at such a valuable intellectual weapon and pass it by. "You're working on a machine gun? No thanks. I'll stick to my sword."

Whatsupwiththat?

If the machine gun backfires on you, you might wish you had stuck to your sword, especially if your opponent only has a penknife.

Toto · 03-24-2009, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

...

Athenagoras appears orthodox, and not gnostic. For example, he writes that God is the God of this world, and that there is no room for any other:

If there were from the beginning two or more gods, they were either in one and the same place, or each of them separately in his own...

For if the world, being made spherical, is confined within the circles of heaven, and the Creator of the world is above the things created, managing that by His providential care of these, what place is there for the second god, or for the other gods?

Where do you see Athenagoras as being gnostic? As Carrier points out, his letter and similar works "earned among orthodox Christians contributed to forming decisions on canonicity based on whether they accorded with works like it."

This appears to be anti-Marcionite. I don't know if that is enough to make it orthodox.

GakuseiDon · 03-24-2009, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

So this might mean that Athenagoras tailored his message to his audience, or equally might imply that as late as 177 Christianity was still a matter of philosophy and did not depend on a historical founder. After all, Athenagoras was converted to Christianity by philosophical arguments, not by stories of a first century Jewish sage.

Which is it then, Toto? Did Athenagoras believe in a historical founder, who was crucified in Jerusalem, or not?

Here is what Athenagoras writes (my bolding):
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...oras-plea.html

That we are not atheists, therefore, seeing that we acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, illimitable, who is apprehended by the understanding only and the reason, who is encompassed by light, and beauty, and spirit, and power ineffable, by whom the universe has been created through His Logos, and set in order, and is kept in being--I have sufficiently demonstrated. [I say "His Logos"], for we acknowledge also a Son of God. Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have a Son. For though the poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no better than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as theirs, concerning either God the Father or the Son. But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason (nous kai logos) of the Father is the Son of God. But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind [nous], had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos [logikos]; but inasmuch as He came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all material things, which lay like a nature without attributes, and an inactive earth, the grosser particles being mixed up with the lighter. The prophetic Spirit also agrees with our statements. "The Lord," it says, "made me, the beginning of His ways to His works." The Holy Spirit Himself also, which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an effluence of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun.

Why not mention that Jesus actually existed 150 years earlier, had performed miracles and shown himself to be the Son of God? Surely you have to rule out that Athenagoras had any such concept of Jesus in mind, otherwise he would have used it as proof?

Clivedurdle · 03-24-2009, 04:22 PM

Might the gospels have used Athenagoras as a source?

sy2502 · 03-24-2009, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhavric

Quote:

Originally Posted by sy2502

I have no problem with the idea that some itinerant preacher called Jesus got a few people to follow him. I get the impression that preachers were pretty common around that time, that they stole followers from each other by performing tricks and preaching whatever people wanted to hear. And because of the problems with the Romans you mentioned, Jews were very open to the idea of the coming Messiah, so their wishful thinking would convince them some charismatic preacher was the one. It is quite obvious that in time his story was embellished, he went from preacher to son of god, from being killed for stirring the pot to dying for our sins, from performing tricks to raising the dead, etc etc.
I don't see the actual existence of a real Jesus preacher a problem to atheism. It doesn't make a difference either way.

*facepalm*

So... the basis for the dominant religion of Western culture makes no difference to atheists?

The biblical Jesus has so many problems with it that whether some preacher on which the biblical Jesus is supposedly based actually existed is the least of his problems. As I said, many preachers were going around at those times. What difference does it make whether any of them were called John the Baptist or Jesus or whatever else? It is the biblical Jesus that is the basis for Christianity, and that character is fictional, regardless of whether it is loosely based on a real person or not.

Quote:

Most atheists are blithely unconcerned with the personhood of Jesus. They're content to believe that there were no miralces, but there was some guy named Jesus. But history tells us a far different story. It tells us there were several people who were the loose basis for the myth, but no actual individual who fits the bill.

Obviously no real person could fit that bill.

Quote:

Now, I've had some luck getting Christians to come around to agnsoticism over this issue.

Good for you. I didn't know atheists were into proselytism.

Quote:

I'm really not sure how you can look at such a valuable intellectual weapon and pass it by. "You're working on a machine gun? No thanks. I'll stick to my sword."

Because I don't feel the need to proselytize. I leave that meddlesome and irritating business to the religious people.

Zhavric · 03-24-2009, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Actually, Athenagoras is more late than early Second Century. Richard Carrier, in his article on the NT canon, writes (my bolding):

In 177 A.D. Athenagoras of Athens composed a lengthy philosophical Defense of the Christians addressed to the emperor Marcus Aurelius in which the first articulation of a theory of the Trinity appears. He quotes the OT and NT several times, but does not name his sources from the NT. The quotes or paraphrases that he uses happen to come from a few Epistles of Paul, and from all the Gospels in a mishmash (M 125), suggesting a harmonic source like the Diatessaron. But the respect that this defense, and others like it, earned among orthodox Christians contributed to forming decisions on canonicity based on whether they accorded with works like it.

"No mention of Jesus". I think that this is interesting, and in another thread I called it "the elephant in the room". WHY would a Christian writing around 177 CE, and who knew about the Gospels and the letters of Paul, not mention anything about Jesus?

We don't have everything that Athenagoras wrote, but it appears that this particular work was addressed to a pagan Emperor as a plea for the fair treatment of Christians. From newadvent

Quote:

His writings bear witness to his erudition and culture, his power as a philosopher and rhetorician, his keen appreciation of the intellectual temper of his age, and his tact and delicacy in dealing with the powerful opponents of his religion. The "Apology", the date of which is fixed by internal evidence as late in 176 or 177, was not, as the title "Embassy" (presbeia) has suggested, an oral defence of Christianity but a carefully written plea for justice to the Christians made by a philosopher, on philosophical grounds, to the Emperors Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus, conquerors, "but above all, philosophers". . . .

So this might mean that Athenagoras tailored his message to his audience, or equally might imply that as late as 177 Christianity was still a matter of philosophy and did not depend on a historical founder. After all, Athenagoras was converted to Christianity by philosophical arguments, not by stories of a first century Jewish sage.

While I agree that he was definately playing to his audience, there's no reason for him to leave out the personhood of Jesus unless he thought Jesus wasn't a person.

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

03-24-2009, 04:22 PM	#18
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Might the gospels have used Athenagoras as a source?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.