Amaleq13

And, on that note, does the following indicate that Felix considered Christ to have been an innocent sacrifice?:

"...Shall I offer victims and sacrifices to the Lord, such as He has produced for my use, that I should throw back to Him His own gift? It is ungrateful when the victim fit for sacrifice is a good disposition, and a pure mind, and a sincere judgment. Therefore he who cultivates innocence supplicates God;..." (Ch 32)

What other "victims" or "sacrifices" would the Lord have produced for Felix's use except Christ? Is it ungrateful to offer the described sacrifice because that also describes the Lord's gift ie Christ?

TedM

I read that the other night, thought it might be about Christ, and then talked myself into thinking it is too vague. Now, I'm not sure why. I don't understand the meaning of the second sentence. There is a VERY interesting connection between this and the words he uses about a man who represents the sign of the cross: "pure mind". Is this the missing link that seals the idea that Christ is the man he was talking about, AND therefore is NOT a criminal but entirely innocent, and that the "prayer stance"--cross connecction originated from the depiction of an innocent Christ on the cross?

ted

TedM

Even though we may move on now to your recent find, I want to address this one more time. Felix's reponse can be interpreted two different ways. I don't know if this addresses your comment or not about the presumption of guilt:

"you wander far from the truth in saying that a criminal is deserving..of being believed God (by us).". He is basically saying "you are wrong when you think we find a criminal worthy of worship". The meaning changes dramatically if you change "a criminal" to "the criminal". It again changes dramatically if you change "a criminal" to "any criminal". In the first case the implication is that Felix would not worship the particular criminal they have mentioned. In the second the implication is that Felix would not worship anyone who is a criminal. The first emphasizes and denies the particular man. The second emphasizes and denies the pagan idea that Christians are wicked, as is done in each of the 5 charges.



I'm sorry, but am not sure what I'm missing here. If Felix were a mythicist, I would think he would say "there never was any such man" to the first interpretation above, yet that is not said.

ted

TedM

Oops. I see that the correct word is "deserved", not "deserving". At least that's what the translation I"m seeing has. I don't think it changes the possibility for two interpretations, depending on whether the emphasis is on actual events concerning a particular man or on how a charge of worshiping a criminal relates to the character of Christians.

krosero

I think, Amaleq, that you're suggesting that Felix has Christ in mind when he speaks of innocent victims whom he does not offer as part of his religion, but correct me if I'm wrong. Ted, you're saying that the "victim fit for sacrifice is Christ", and that this victim's "pure mind" is the same as that of the man with arms outstretched as if in the sign of the cross.

They're both interesting interpretations; and I'm not sure what Felix is saying. But let me suggest by paraphrasing: "Why should I enclose God within a temple? Is it not better to give Him a home in my own mind and heart? Why should I offer sacrifices in a temple, when God has given me for my own use, as gifts, the things I would sacrifice there? It would be ungrateful to give up the gifts he has offered me, when the victim best fit for sacrifice is myself, or anyone of good disposition, pure mind (where God dwells), and a sincere judgment. Therefore he who cultivates innocence and justice, and abstains from fraudulent practices, makes offerings to God. He who snatches man from danger makes the most acceptable slaughterings to God."

krosero

The accusation does say that the wicked man is crucified, and I have no problem with saying "crucified criminal" when I'm referring to what the story is. But more often than not I've been referring to what Felix's objections are, and no matter where I look, I do not see him objecting to the idea that Christians worship someone outstretched and punished on a cross.

Let me put it this way. After several pages of debate, I think I've been able to focus on, and identify, what is explicitly in the text. Felix does not give us positive descriptions of his faith, so what I mean is that certain denials are explicitly in the text: Felix is denying that he worships such-and-such things. These things are: mortals, especially wicked ones; and crosses. This is a good foundation to stand on, IMO, and I am going to be skeptical about getting anything else smuggled in there. For instance, the phrase, "a criminal and his cross," sounds VERY much like Felix's way of merely identifying the story, and not his way of identifying his objections; when he goes on to object, he does not object to the mere fact of crucifixion. This is not one of the things he tells us that he finds offensive. He talks entirely about the character and the nature of the crucified victim that Caecilius has in mind (as well as the character and nature of men like the Pharaohs). He does find the worship of wicked mortals and crosses offensive.

Whether I have convinced anyone else of this bedrock, I don't know; and the question of convincing others may not be that important. I do feel I've hit the bedrock, though.

Above the bedrock, we're all working with inferred meanings and implications. The inference, for instance, that Felix regarded this crucifixion victim as wicked because he was crucified. That we don't see in the text. And that's just one example.

The reason I say that Doherty has created a new category of Christian who rejected Christ-worship, is that if Felix rejected the charge that he worshipped a crucified victim, then he must take a disapproving attitude toward the Christians he has heard of, who worship or venerate a crucified victim. I am seeing for the first time in the debate, because of your descriptions, that Doherty's position does not require Felix actually to think of the Christ-worshipping Christians as wicked. The calumny says so, but per Doherty, Felix is just rejecting the idea of worshipping a crucified victim, and therefore rejecting the idea that he counts himself or his brothers as wicked worshippers. He need not, per Doherty, condemn the Christ-worshipping Christians of his day as wicked. TedH has had a somewhat different argument; he has said a few times that Felix regarded Christ as wicked, and regarded the worshippers as wicked (if I have not misunderstood Ted). Your position I'm not sure of.

So I would draw a continuum: according to Doherty's model and its variations, Felix regarded the Christ of his day, and those who worshipped him (not the ones in Caecilius' mind, but the actual ones that Felix has heard of), as somewhere between misguided and wicked. He did not share their worship of the crucified being, and that is the bedrock minimum of Doherty's position.

But I never knew there were Christians who did not worship or at least venerate Christ. Nor did I know that people could call themselves after Christ's name but not worship him or venerate him. That's a huge problem for Doherty's interpretation, IMO. It's a question I'd like very much to see answered. Why, if Felix "had no truck" with Christians who worshipped Christ, does he call himself a Christian?

Felix is a new category. The name of "Christians" aside, is this new category legitimate? Can Doherty pull it off legitimately? I talked about Occam's Razor, and I'll put it somewhat differently here. Doherty's Number Two in his challenge, which you found strongest of the three, depends on a "pattern principle", which looks to me a lot like the criterion of coherence. He says that this principle "imposes" an "undeniable" meaning upon the smoking gun passage, which I think is an egregious misuse of the criterion. All sorts of things can be concluded if all we're looking at are the similarities and differences among Felix's arguments, and I've already shown once that looking at them in this way can produce a result 180 degrees opposite Doherty's conclusion. It's just too much to believe, when it is asserted that a general text must compel a certain meaning upon a specific phrase. Even a poem that repeated its stanzas in nearly identical fashion has some variations, and retains the prerogative to throw in something unexpected or different.

What's worse, the pattern does not hold: Doherty's theory requires that one of the calumnies contain a basis of thought that is close to Felix's own (i.e., that the criminal-worshippers are misguided, at the least), while the other calumnies are rejected in toto, or nearly in toto.

Apart from his Number Two argument, can Doherty pull off this new category by focusing just on the smoking gun passage and leaving coherence for a supporting role? Well, I don't think anyone here has denied that the passage is ambiguous -- although some have come close to saying that it has only one meaning, that it must include, among Felix's explicit objections noted above, the rejection of crucifixion as an item within the faith. Suffice it to say, nothing on this level, the microscopic focus on the passage itself, works for me either.

The deciding factor for me is that you should not create new entities without necessity. I have not been convinced of what's been presented as necessity -- least of all the coherence criterion.

TedM

I'm getting very lazy, but on a re-read it sounds like he is just saying that the best sacrifice is that of a pure heart and mind toward God--so there is no need to sacrifice animals and build temples. I don't see it as a reference to Christ, though I still see the purity-crucifiction connection, and now the crucifixion-purity-sacrifice connection as odd if Felix thought Christ had been a criminal.

ted

EarlDoherty

The difficulty in debating someone like yourself is that you are so thoroughly stuck in the old paradigms that you continually fashion your arguments—and your questions to me—in ways that have inbuilt assumptions, and so are unanswerable on that basis. It’s a little like the trick question, have you stopped beating your wife? My answer would be that I don’t have a wife.

Felix didn’t have a Christ. He didn’t stop believing in him. He didn’t one day decide to reject him. There were all sorts of what I have called “intermediary Son� sects and philosophies current in the first couple of centuries, who shared only that basic idea. Some did not use the term “Christ� in any connection. Some had a Logos entity regarded as an emanation of God that revealed God and knowledge of salvation. Some, like Paul, had a Christ figure who was regarded as a concrete spiritual figure in heaven, distinct from God, who had undergone sacrifice; others saw him only as a Revealer figure. For some, that spiritual figure was not so distinct as Paul’s, for example the Son of the Shepherd of Hermas, or the “Beloved� of the Odes of Solomon. You make it sound as though someone like Felix would have stood out like a sore thumb as a rejecter of Christ, or even more so as a rejecter of an historical Jesus.

Let’s try an analogy (surprise!). There are many people in the world today with the name Doherty. Suppose we all got together for a ‘clan’ gathering in some huge hotel. Some of us come in contact with others. I encounter a group on the third floor who are vegetarians. I hear about another group on the fifth floor who have taken to wearing green hats and wooden shoes. I myself am there with a family who practice yoga, something my extended family has done for at least a century. The outside world (it doesn’t matter the reason) has a very poor view of people named Doherty. I try to convince the media at the hotel that Dohertys are a very fine people, especially since we practice yoga. One reporter tells me he has heard that Dohertys wear green hats and wooden shoes. Nonsense, say I. Who would be so ridiculous as to wear a green hat and clump around in wooden shoes?

Am I betraying the Doherty clan? Do I stand out like a sore thumb as a rejecter of green hats and wooden shoes? Of course not. I am defending my good name, promoting that aspect of my beliefs (one among many, as it turns out) which I think is commendable, and instead of discussing with the reporter the fact that some Dohertys have been known to favor green hats and wooden shoes, I just condemn the very idea because I find the outfit so ridiculous, and I certainly don’t want to be associated with people who wear green hats and wooden shoes. After all, they are the Johnny-come-latelys. Their sartorial preferences are of recent vintage. Maybe they used to practice yoga but gave it up in favor of focusing on outfits they found appealing. Maybe they once had other, less gaudy costumes, but were converted by a fast-talking clothes salesman.

The point is, all we have in common is that we bear the same name. We come from different locales, different cultures, with different tastes and habits. No one stands out as the norm, no one can trace back to the original “Doherty� and say, ah hah! he was a vegetarian, or he practiced yoga, or he wore a green hat, and every group who has diverged from that is an aberration, a heretic, a “rejecter� of his true roots.

Hopefully, you get my point.

As for your questions, I find it hard to understand them, or your point. They are either trick questions, or they have been phrased with your own assumptions built in. You have read your own assumptions into them. I can’t answer them any more than I can answer the question, have you stopped beating your wife. What Felix is denying is that the Christians he is speaking for worship a crucified man and his cross (which he evidently thinks is the proper Christian stance), and he gives the reasons for that.

One difficulty I have no control over is your lack of ability to understand arguments that have a certain degree of complexity and sophistication, and this is not being ad hominem, it is simple fact. You failed to understand my discussion of the item I called “complementary linkage.� When I said that something was Felix’s own product, I was not referring to the entire calumny itself, but his presentation of it in the manner I described, that worshiped fitted worshiper, and one deserved the other. But perhaps I suffer from the same lack of ability, because I truly find it difficult to follow the line of reasoning in many of your postings. For that reason, it is difficult to respond to them.

I will not have much in the way of spare time to contribute here until the weekend, unless it be a quick response like this one. On a quick skim I can see that there have been some interesting things said on both sides that I wish I had the leisure to absorb and respond to, but I simply don’t. (One of the things demanding my time is those dastardly book orders for The Jesus Puzzle that keep coming in…)

Note to Ted: The “Irrefutable Trio� referred to the Three Observations I presented at length. Damn! Another unintended ambiguity! I guess we can’t fault Felix so much after all.

Ted Hoffman

Andrew, you (and Carlson) represent the informed, balanced and conservative/quasi-liberal position. Because of this, I have always found your views important for both sides of the debate.
Now, I am disapointed that you started this thread and have let all the important arguments pass by and have instead picked on a fairly innocuos issue to comment upon.

From the discussion, please attempt to answer the questions below as simply as you can:

a) Does MF reject the worship of men?
b) Does MF condemn the alleged Christian worship of a wicked man and his cross?
c) Do you think that from the impression we get from Octavius, MF could have believed that an earthly being died to save MF and other Christians from their sins?
d) If the answer to (c) is Yes, can we still hold that MF deified a historical Jesus?

Amaleq13

Actually, it was the parts that seemed to suggest a gift/victim/sacrifice from God but I think your paraphrase makes sense. However, now I'm wondering why Felix wouldn't mention the perfect sacrifice of Christ here. Who better to exemplify the self-sacrifice Felix advocates?

I'm sure you realize that this is an opinion I do not share. It is because the man is described as a crucified criminal that he is called wicked.

It occurs to me, however, that I've been attributing the wrong notion to orthodoxy. I've been operating under the assumption that orthodox beliefs would require an explanation that Christians actually worship an innocent crucifixion victim but that really isn't true, is it? Christians worship the Son of God who was resurrected. Holding that as the true central figure of Christian worship, I think would allow Felix to respond as he did without any need to explain Christ's innocence. While I'm still not sure he would consider this "far" from the truth, it does seem less problematic to me.