razlyubleno

In Tertullian's second book against Marcion, he doesn't mention Jesus at all. What will you deduce from this fact? That Tertullian's beliefs changed from the first book to the second? And then reverted again when he got to the third? Counting words is a useless exercise. It means nothing. Athenagoras didn't feel the need to mention Jesus in his extant works. So what? As I said, your comparison with Paul is vastly overstated, and you never considered the example of other writings that don't mention Jesus.

razly

aa5874

This is incredible.

You implied that Paul said nothing about Jesus.

I have showed that you are completely wrong.

Now, you claim I am engaged in mathematical trickery.

Well, let's see who is engaged in maths tricks.

You have claimed the word Jesus is found 25 times in Romans but the word Jesus is found more than 35 times.

Did you honestly try to trick me with your maths?

Now, do you have any tricks to make the word Jesus appear in the writings of Athenagoras?

Romans 1:1 -
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

Ro 1:3 -
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Ro 1:6 -
Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:

Ro 1:7 -
To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Ro 1:8 -
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

Ro 2:16 -
In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Ro 3:22 -
Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Ro 3:24 -
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Ro 3:26 -
To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Ro 4:24 -
But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

Ro 5:1 -
Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Ro 5:11 -
And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

Ro 5:15 -
But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

Ro 5:17 -
For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

Ro 5:21 -
That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Ro 6:3 -
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Ro 6:11 -
Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Ro 6:23 -
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Ro 7:25 -
I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Ro 8:1 -
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Ro 8:2 -
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Ro 8:11 -
But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Ro 8:39 -
Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Ro 10:9 -
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Ro 13:14 -
But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

Ro 14:14 -
I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Ro 15:5 -
Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus:

Ro 15:6 -
That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Ro 15:8 -
Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

Ro 15:16 -
That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

Ro 15:17 -
I have therefore whereof I may glory through Jesus Christ in those things which pertain to God.

Ro 15:30 -
Now I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me;

Ro 16:3 -
Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:

Ro 16:18 -
For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

Ro 16:20 -
And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

Ro 16:24 -
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

Ro 16:25 -
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

Ro 16:27 -
To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.

razlyubleno

I implied nothing of the sort. Read what I said. If you have trouble grappling with such a short sentence, you perhaps shouldn't bother.

That was my fault. I was counting only once for each verse. But my point still stands. Why were you comparing the entire Pauline corpus to the letter by Athenagoras? You can compare two letters of comparable length, but anything else is silly.

And you should know that subject matter dictates word usage. On this forum, we use many terms that would be out of place when talking about, let's say, politics or medicine. To not use them in those places, doesn't mean we don't know the words, or haven't used them, just that they weren't appropriate in our judgment, for the context.

I've got better things to do than try to trick you.

razly

steve_bnk

Amazing how uttery ridiculous the arguments can become, arguing over how many times Paul invokes Jesus.

Much more interesting to argue the number of angels that fit on the head of a pin.

razlyubleno

It's relevant. Even if a tad dull.

razly

aa5874

But, in the first book he mentioned Jesus Christ.

What do you deduce from that fact?

I think some people who can't count say that counting is useless.

Now, who told you that Athenagoras did not feel the need to mention Jesus in his extant works. From what source did you derive such information?

Is your imagination playing tricks on you?

razlyubleno

I deduce that he felt like it.

This may be true. But I honestly don't see the point of yelling "ZERO" at the top one's lungs, as if this explains why something wasn't mentioned. Yes, Jesus' name is conspicuously absent from the work of Athenagoras, but your interpretation of this datum is contradicted by vast swaths of Christian literature that also do not mention that name.

Uhm... I derived it from his extant works, in which he didn't feel the need to mention Jesus, as evidenced by him not mentioning Jesus.

Assuredly. Cut back on the crack cocaine, me will.

razly

GakuseiDon

But there is evidence, Toto, as I have given above. Granted, we can't KNOW that Athenagoras was orthodox, and we can't conclude FOR SURE that he knew of a Jesus Christ.

Sure, it's possible.

Well, I would suggest that it was based on some form of a Gospel Jesus. For evidence, I point to his apparent use of the Gospels and epistles from the NT.

From what we know of the Christian sects of that time, what are the alternatives? Either a flesh-and-blood Jesus, or a docetic Jesus. Anything else? Any evidence for a Christianity that lacked a "Jesus Christ" altogether?

Yes, we have no surviving evidence that there were any Christians who didn't believe in any kind of "Jesus Christ". And therefore... what exactly?

Athenagoras is identifying himself with the Christians of his time. If he believed something different to the majority group of Christians of his time in any significant way related to the persecution, the easiest thing for him to do would be to point out that other Christians are like that, but not him.

Honestly, you Jesus Mythicists who think that Mithras and Krishna were crucified, and that Acharya can do no wrong are no different to creationists!

How would you respond to that?

I agree, we don't KNOW that he follows the orthodox line. His writings are consistent with orthodoxy, he apparently knows the Gospels and some of the NT epistles, he seems to identify himself with the Christians of his time. So, while we don't KNOW that he was orthodox, there is evidence supporting that he was, or something like it.

What is the evidence that he was NOT orthodox?

What do you mean by "spiritual"? Did he think that Jesus came to earth only as a phantom?

From memory, I DID have a response -- I agreed with you.

Let me agree with you again: The Second Century silence amongst "occasional" letter writers doesn't necessarily explain the First Century silence.

But that's just one part of the issue. To paraphrase from my "elephant in the room" thread:

Paul's lack of historical details regarding Jesus is well known, and probably plays a major part in convincing many that there is something to the ahistoricist position. It's a good point, and I can only guess at reasons why Paul wrote this way. It isn't something I can readily explain away.

But Paul not only doesn't give details about a historical Jesus, he gives few historical details about anything. And not only Paul: we find the same situation for many other letters, stretching over the first few centuries. Why is it so hard to date many early letters? It is because beyond a few names, the "occasional" letter writers just don't give much in the way of historical details.

Earl Doherty wrote "Something extremely odd is going on here. If one leaves aside Justin, there is a silence in the second century apologists on the subject of the historical Jesus which is almost the equal to that in the first century letter writers."

Zhavric wrote something similar: that this is a gaping issue that shouldn't be swept under the rug.

Now, if Paul and the other early writers gave historical details about everything regarding the early church EXCEPT Jesus, that would be one thing. But they don't. Like Paul, those "occasional" letter writers give few historical details about anything.

And THAT is the elephant in the room.

You say that this has been discussed already. But other than my debates with Doherty on Second Century Christianity, there hasn't, at least on this board. In this thread, there has been no discussion, just you going "Deny, deny, deny. Maybe the orthodox removed all non-orthodox statements, etc."

Of course, anything is possible. But what does the evidence indicate? What versions of Christianity were around in 177 CE that we know about, and which one might Athenagoras have belonged to? Did he give any indications that he believed he was part of the mainstream?

I think the evidence suggests that Athenagoras was consistent with the orthodox position. I agree I don't KNOW that he was orthodox. But you have yet to produce any evidence that he wasn't.

FWIW, I'll repeat the list of letters that have no historical details about Jesus. I suggest that people interested in this read through them, to look for historical details relating to early Christianity. Then reread Paul's epistles (genuine and otherwise), and see how the writing style is consistent throughout:

· Clement of Alexandria (182-202 CE): "Exhortation to the Heathen"
· Ignatius (early 2nd C CE): "Philadelphians"
· Ignatius (early 2nd C CE): "Polycarp"
· Tertullian (200 CE): "Ad nationes"
· Tertullian (200 CE): "Against Hermogenes"
· Attributed to 'Justin Martyr' (late 2nd C or 3rd C): Horatory to the Greeks
· Polycarp to the Philippians (early 2nd C CE)
· 2 Clement (130-160)
· Tatian (160) "Oration to the Greeks"
· Minucius Felix (160-250) "Octavius"
· Theophilus of Antioch (180) "To Autolycus"
· Athenagoras of Athens (180) 3 letters
· Unknown (130 to 200) "The Epistle to Diognetus"

(Note that Paul in fact has more details about Jesus than many of those letters.)

spamandham

I think that's a fine hypothesis, but there are others that could also explain it. For example, Josephus might have based some of his tales on the Gospels. Or both might be based off common stories circulating at the time, or an unknown lost text.

Toto

Your "evidence" is inconclusive.

"Aparent" use, for moral precepts.

There was the Ebionite flesh and blood Jesus, the Arian divine Jesus, the more orthodox fully man and fully god Jesus; there was the Marcionite Jesus who was never born of woman; The Valentinians who thought Jesus was human, born of Mary and Christ a spirit who descended on him. And there are more. I can't keep up, and I've probably got some of those wrong. Is there any reason to think that we have a full catalogue of all of the varieties of Jesus' and Christs?

Can you show that Athenagoras is not the sole surviving representative of a Christianity constructed around a heavenly Logos? Don't think so.

This is a complete non sequitur. It makes absolutely no sense. The Romans were persecuting all Christians, and they didn't care about minor (or major, for that matter) theological differences between sects of Christians. When the Jews were being persecuted in Europe, did the Ashkenazi Jews claim that they never kidnapped Christian children to use their blood in passover matzohs, but the Sephardim did? How far would that have gotten them?

What brought that on? You seem to be trying to bait me. But it just lowers my opinion of you even further. You know well that no mythicist here thinks that Mithras or Krishna were crucified, or follows Acharya with any devotion.

Your evidence for his orthodoxy is too thin to require any counter evidence, for all of the reasons above.

This is another point that I recall refuting. Paul gives personal details about his travels, the people he meets. He traveled to Arabia; he went to Jerusalem and met with the pillars of the Jerusalem Church. He boasts about himself, his study of Judaism. But he has no similar personal details about Jesus. Why is this?

And Doherty draws the conclusion from this that even in the second century, Christianity was based on something other than a putative historical person. What other conclusion can one draw?

He also concludes that absense of evidence is evidence of absense.

We have discussed this. It's just that there isn't much to say. Your thesis is not convincing.

And it isn't a matter of general historical details that are lacking. The lack is any information about the founder of their religion.

<snip repetitious arguments>

And exactly how does this support anything but a mythicist position? You want to claim that Paul does not include details about the founder of his religion for a reason that you cannot explain, and later Christians also do not include details about the historical Jesus, also for reasons that you cannot explain, but you think that there is a pattern, which you are sure has nothing to do with the possibility that the Jesus of early Christianity was not viewed as a historical entity, in either the first or second centuries . . .