Ted Hoffman

This has been the whole point: Christianity lacked a logos concept! the concept came from the pagans or with the pagans. Whether new pagan converts encouraged it, or subconsciously imported it as opposed to the Jewish converts finding it attractive really is something you cannot prove.

The important thing is that Christianity adopted the concept from the pagans. adding the word "earlier" to converts does not change the fact that they adopted it. The Hellenistic era only had Judaism and paganism from whose interaction Christianity was born.
But I can cut you loose on this one. I think you have enough problems as it is.

You are crystal clear.
[And please get rid of the word "adopt" and explain that when you write "re-imaging", you mean internal recycling of Christian concepts and shifts in emphasis alone without co-optation of any non-Christian concepts into Christianity]

Now, lets look at your new theory.
So, you are arguing that, way back, way way back, non-superstitious pagans converted to a superstitious Christianity and inadvertently imported the logos concept into Christianity. Then, later pagan converts decided to re-image Christianity into a non-superstitious religion and chose to do so by agressively marketing the idea that Christianity had the logos concept?

How do you rule out the idea that these pagans converted to a Christianity that lacked a HJ? Marcion's beliefs, for example, lacked a HJ - to him, God could never incarnate and could only be manifested. Ebionites did not recognize Jesus as the messiah. Philo and others believed in a heavenly man. How do you eliminate this riotous diversity and pin these "converts" to have only converted to what later became orthodox Christianity?

How was the logos concept a useful concept? How do you determine a useful concept in the tapestry that was early Christianity? Was the trinity a useful concept? And adoptionism? What about the perpetual virginity of Mary? And was the crucifiction a useful concept?

Lets not just throw words around.

Was this logos concept only useful for pagan converts? Does Paul use it? Why? Why didn't the author of GMark use it?
What was the role of this logos in Pauline Christology?

Answering these questions will make your position clear. Give it a shot.

TedM

TedH, this is blatant misrepresentation on your part. Here what what Don actually said: Why didn't you quote the whole passage? In addition, I already addressed this in an earlier post to you yesterday. This is not a contradiction, and your attempt to CONTINUE to claim such is baffling to me if you are trying to be honest here.

How does saying that the pagans were familiar with the concept negate the possibility that the pagans created the concept? It doesn't.

I now see why Gdon is frustrated with discussing his positions with you. You misread and misunderstand them and then claim contradiction. There is no contradiction.

Edit: I see Don has addressed some of this, I'll keep this post since a second point of view might be necessary.

ted

TedM

TedH, I am going to attempt to butt in one more time and then let it go. I hope Gdon will correct any misrepresentation I might make of his position.

It seems to me that this is your point. Christianity in the 2nd century didn't lack a logos concept, which is what matters to Don's point. It is irrelevant to Gdon's point against Doherty whether logos was part of the very early years of Christianity, I think.

Who cares? How is that relevant at all to Gdon's point?

It's good you are cutting him loose from an irrelevant point that YOU are bringing up. :wave:


Where does Gdon say it was inadvertent? You appear to be putting different words into his mouth

Where do you see Gdon ruling that idea out in his reply to Doherty?

Why does it matter if WE know how as long as there is evidence that the 2nd cent apologists thought that it was seen as such?

No, his position is quite clear. You are looking for answers that clarify another position that he doesn't need for his reply to Doherty.

ted

GakuseiDon

Hi TedM, thanks for that! You are correct, Ted Hoffman's questions are largely irrelevent to the issue being addressed in my original article. That's not to say that some of them aren't good and interesting questions, but I can't see their relevence to my position. And I must admit to being disgusted by his blatant misrepresentation anyway.

I'll reproduce that section of my article so that people can see what the fuss is about, and then it is probably time for me to let it go too.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakus...%20The%20LOGOS

Ted Hoffman

TedM,
I like your coming to GDon's defense. You sympathize with his frustrations and understand him.
So you say that my objections are irrelevant to GDon's criticism of Doherty and that I employ blatant misrepresentation to fabricate a contradiction where there is none?
Hmmm....Thats a good defense. You have done a good job.
Now, lets move on to other issues.

Johnny Skeptic

Ted Hoffman, Ted M is a Deist. He has often argued against my posts in some threads much more than Christians have. He seems to be their defender, even though he rejects the Resurrection, and even though Christians believe that he deserves to go to hell. Strange bedfellows, eh? I don't get it. Do you?

By the way, you are doing an excellent job of refuting Gakusei Don's arguments. I hope that Doherty reads some of your posts. Maybe you can ask him to do so.

Johnny Skeptic

Like his claim that Jesus bodily rose from the dead, and his claim that you deserve to go to hell if you do not become a Christian?

Roger Pearse

The Octavius is a dialogue; so to understand the meaning of the comments in defence of the Christians, it is necessary to look at the corresponding passage in accusation (so the French edition I looked at recently). Here they are:

[Caecilius:] IX. "...I hear that they adore the head of an ass, ... that they worship the virilia of their pontiff and priest,... I know not whether these things are false ...; and he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men, that they may worship what they deserve."

[Felix:] XXVIII. "...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,..." ANF

This does not seem to be the same as perhaps it has been understood. The accusation is that Christians worship a crucified criminal whom they have deified (in accordance with pagan practise). Felix evades the issue of crucifixion (i.e. that Jesus died in a degraded way) and just denies that any man can become a god.

It requires something more than the words say to treat this defence against accusation as a confession of disbelief, IMHO.

Carl Becker, "Der Octavius des Minucius Felix", SBBayer, hft. 2 (Munich, 1967), seems to have established to the satisfaction of almost all scholars that MF made use of Tertullian, however. This he did on philological grounds, by comparison with how MF also used Cicero and other authors. I regret that this 100 page tome in German is beyond my time and ability to translate and place online, or I would have done so. It's fairly diffuse too, so has no 'juicy bits' to grab either.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

jakejonesiv

The importance of the Alexandrian Jews' (esp. Philo) use of Logos concepts to Hellenistic Judaism, the nature of Middle Platonism, and New Testament studies are vital. (If Philo is deemed to be a pagan, I will voice my objection here).

Here are some examples where Philo's conception of the Logos as divine mediator anticipate (or evolve into!) the Christian.

"And the same is the case with regard to the soul, the good things, namely food, he gives to men by his power alone, but those which contain in them a deliverance from evil, he gives by means of his angels and his Logos." Philo, Allegorical Interpretaion III (178)

"This rock, Moses, in another place, using a synonymous expression, calls manna the most ancient Logos of God..." The Worse Attacks the Better (118).

"... In this way in truth, it is that the Logos of God irrigates the virtues; for that is the beginning and the fountain of all good actions." The Posterity and Exile of Cain, (127).

"And these spring from the word of God as from one root, which he compares to a river, on account of the unceasing and everlasting flow of salutary words and doctrines, by which it increases and nourishes the sould that love God." ibid, (129).

"And the divine Logos, like a river, flows forth from wisdom as from a spring, in order to irrigate and fertilize the celestial and heavenly shoots and plants of such souls as love virtue, as if they were a paradise." On Dreams. Book 2, (242)

"For in good, the continual stream of the divine Logos, being borne incessantly with rapidity and regularity, is diffused universally over everything, giving joy to all." ibid (247).

In On Dreams - Book 1, (227-230), Philo argues that seemingly polytheistic apperances in the books of Moses are actually appeances of the Logos (e.g. Genesis 31:12-13 LXX). On this account, Philoe wrote, "...what he here calls God is his most ancient Logos...".

This is made crystal clear in _Questions and and Answers on Genesis , II, question 62.
Why is it that he speaks of some other god, saying that he made man after the image of God, and not that he made him after his own image? (Genesis 9:6).

Very appropriately and without any falsehood was this oracular sentence uttered by God, for no mortal thing could have formed on the similitude of the supreme Father of the universe, but only after the pattern of the second diety, who is the Word (Logos) of the supreme Being ... "

Jake Jones IV

GakuseiDon

Wow. Johnny, I have never claimed either of those things. I don't know if the first is true, and I DEFINITELY don't believe the second is true. You should know by now that I'm one of those horrible liberal Christians who believe what they want to believe.

Ted Hoffman and Johnny Skeptic, I can't believe that you need to misrepresent me like this. Please stop it. You both should feel ashamed of yourselves.