Peter Kirby

Paul's letters loom large in our minds because they are what survive--according to some, all of what is extant before 70 CE. However, the historical Paul may not have been as important to his contemporaries as later legend and the dearth of other documentation would allow us to imagine. I particularly doubt that those letters of Paul were the primary source of information for first century Christians in Asia Minor.

best,
Peter Kirby

Iasion

Greetings Tercel,

In theory I would agree that Celsus' work counts as evidence against the idea that the Gospel's give an accurate portrayal of Jesus.

Indeed, its all theory here - Celsus specifically attacks the Gospels as fiction, at the time they come to light. This is the hardest possible evidence that the Gospels were not history - a contemporary who explicitly charges they are fake.

This is NOTHING to do with "accuracy" - its whether they are TRUE or FALSE - Celsus argues they are FALSE.


The idea that the Gospel accounts are inaccurate, or the subjects of later improvements, revisions etc, while damaging from a Conservative Christian point of view, is hardly support for Jesus' non-existence

Balderdash!
Celsus does not say "inaccurate" - he says "FICTION".

He attacks the very foundation documents for the Jesus "history" as FICTION. Without the Gospels, what would we know about the Jesus story from earlier writings? - almost NOTHING.

The Gospels are the very ESSENCE of the Jesus "history", and an educated contemporary dismisses them as FICTION in the very period they come to light.

This is clear and present evidence to support the MJ argument, regardless of any erroneous ASSUMPTIONS that Celsus MAY have also made.


Furthermore,
consider what Origen charges Celsus with:

Celsus argued that the appearances of Iesous were merely a "shadow" - how does that fit your claim that Celsus believed Iesous existed physically?


Rather, it shows that both sides of the debate - both anti-Christian and Christian- being agreed on one thing: That Jesus really existed.

I believe Iesous existed,
Paul believed Iesous existed,
Earl believes Iesous existed -
but not PHYSICALLY.

It appears you have still not grasped my argument.

I argue that the original Iesous Christos was some sort of spiritual being -
the issue is a PHYSICAL vs SPIRITUAL Iesous -
not whether he "existed".

This confusion between "existed" and existed PHYSICALLY serves only to muddy the waters - this false distinction between EXISTENCE and PHYSICAL existence wrongly excludes many early writers who also argued for a non-physical Iesous.

e.g. Marcion clearly argues for a SPIRITUAL Iesous, a non-physcial Iesous - exactly what I argue. Yet somehow, you claim that Marcion does not support my view?


If you have trouble understanding this, consider this interesting quote from Heracleon :

This shows that the name of an actual town can be seen as a spiritual allegory for the "farthest-out parts of the world", and that Iesous was a spiritual being who descended to our material dimension. A clear example of a spiritual view of Iesous.


Of course,
its hard to really know what a spiritual being actually is - and we see various writers taking different approaches to a SPIRITUAL Iesous :

2 John warns about those who do not believe in a physical Jesus (just as I argue).

Marcion explicitly argues for a non-physical Jesus (as I do).

Valentinus argued a spiritual Iesous (as I do).

Basilides argues a non-physical Iesous (like I do).

Bardesanes argues a non-physical Iesous (as I do).

Montanus and Mani argued a non-physical Iesous (like I argue).

Simon and Cleobus argue Ieosous was not physical (as I argue).

The Constitution of the Holy Apostles mentions those who deny his generation according to the flesh (as I do).

John Cassian and Socrates Scholasticus mention those who deny him a physical nature (as I do).


Yes, its true these writers take slightly different views on what the NON-PHYSICAL nature of Iesous is - yet the overall picture is one of many people arguing Iesous was not a PHYSICAL being.

So, how is it that so many could argue for a NON-PHYSICAL Iesous?

And why do these arguments for a NON-PHYSICAL Iesous precede and overlap the rise of the Gospels?

If Iesous had really existed PHYSICALLY and really walked the Earth - how did so many contemporary CHRISTIANS and Pagans argue he was NOT a PHYSICAL being?

All these various arguments for a NON-PHYSICAL Iesous serve to strengthen the argument that there was NO original physcial person in Iesous.


There is no reason to think that [Celsus'] belief in the historical Jesus

How do you reconcile this with Celsus' claim that "what appeared was a shadow" ?


nor is there any reason to think that his accusations of "myth" and "monstrous fiction" are based on anything more than his own anti-Christian feelings.

Poppycock!
Celsus bases his accusations on the fact that the Gospels can be clearly seen to be based on pagan MYTHS.
You seem to be dismissing Celsus merely because he is anti-Christian - i.e. all anti-Christians are wrong because Christians are always right?


If all Celsus did was attack the Gospels as being myth and fiction (and didn't elaborate on what he meant like he does) then yes that would clearly support the JM. But he doesn't, so it doesn't.

Pardon?
Where does Celsus elaborate that Iesous was actually physical?
I see him charge the Gospels as FICTION based on MYTH.
I see him claim Iesous appeared as merely a "shadow"
I really have no idea what you are claiming in that statement.


Hence I think the use of a pruned quote which just has Celsus saying "myth" and "fiction" is misleading.

Here is my pruned quote :

Here are the original(s) :

Here we see clear evidence that Celsus saw the Gospels as based on previous myth (and that he argued the Gospels were regularly redacted to meet criticisms of inconsistencies).

Can you explain why YOU think my version was misleading?

Quentin

Peter Kirby

Quentin: "Montanus and Mani argued a non-physical Iesous (like I argue)."

Can I get a reference on that?

Have you checked Origen's Greek for Contra Celsus? Hoffman's translation (the source of the internet tracts) is rather beautiful, which makes me wonder whether it is faithful. Compare Pearse's notes.

best,
Peter Kirby

Tercel

Well Iasion, if you're not going to agree with me, then your not going to agree with me, I suppose.

You're welcome to believe what you like about Celsus. But unless you can explain how Celsus' allegations that Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier and learnt magic in Egypt and was hence able to do "miracles" gel with the "there was no historical Jesus" theory, ambiguous statements about "shadows" aren't even worth considering, and I'm not even going to waste time looking it up.

By "really" existed, I meant really existed. ie had a historical, true, physical existence. It's not a difficult concept.

As I said, my understanding is that Marcion subscribed to Docetism. ie. the belief that Jesus really did appear in the physical realm at a certain historical time and was seen and taught like a historical person, but that this appearence was an illusion.
This is a mere theological distinction from standard Christian teaching: as opposed to support for the idea that Jesus never appeared on earth as historical figure at all.

If you think my understanding of Marcion is wrong, you are welcome to prove it.

It shows a writer using a non-literal method of interpretation. So? Many HJ believing Christians have done as much. I support such a method of interpretation.

Yeah it is: From what I've been reading of Doherty's articles spiritual beings can apparently be heaps of things I would have thought limited to physical beings. Apparently a spiritual being can have flesh and blood, be crucified, be a descendant of a human being, can have a human body etc.
If spiritual beings really can be and do everything that physical beings can, then yeah it is pretty hard to distinguish the two.

Believe what you like, just don't expect me to take it seriously.

Iasion

Greetings Peter,

Quentin: "Montanus and Mani argued a non-physical Iesous (like I argue)." Can I get a reference on that?

This came from Socrates Scholasticus Ch.32 :

I'll try and come up with some more refs - a quick search shows many uses of these names though.



Have you checked Origen's Greek for Contra Celsus? Hoffman's translation (the source of the internet tracts) is rather beautiful, which makes me wonder whether it is faithful. Compare Pearse's notes.

I haven't personally checked the Greek - but yes, I begin to doubt Hoffman a little.

Quentin

Iasion

Greetings Tercel,

You're welcome to believe what you like about Celsus. But unless you can explain how Celsus' allegations that Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier and learnt magic in Egypt and was hence able to do "miracles" gel with the "there was no historical Jesus" theory,

Indeed yes, Celsus did seem to assume in places that Jesus was historical, yes, this argues against the JM theory.

But this is a mere assumption he made, as did many others - its not a strong argument.

However,
Celsus' attack on the Gospels as FICTION is a major, detailed crticism - thus it is a STRONG argument.

Just because Celsus may assume Iesous existed physically should not stop us from considering what else Celsus has to say that might argue in another direction.

And his comments about Iesous being a "shadow" fly directly in the face of the claim he believed in a physical Iesous - hardly strong support for a historical Jesus.


By "really" existed, I meant really existed. ie had a historical, true, physical existence. It's not a difficult concept.

Yes,
I know exactly what you mean by "really" (physically) existed.

But that was not what I was talking about - the issue is that many believed Iesous existed NOT physically.

It is entirely possible for things, objects and beings to exist without being physical.


Yeah it is: From what I've been reading of Doherty's articles spiritual beings can apparently be heaps of things I would have thought limited to physical beings. Apparently a spiritual being can have flesh and blood, be crucified, be a descendant of a human being, can have a human body etc.
If spiritual beings really can be and do everything that physical beings can, then yeah it is pretty hard to distinguish the two.

Hmmm..
this comment suggests little understanding of the neo-Platonic multi-planar world view.

Attis's body was castrated - so therefore you must believe he existed physically and was castrated physically.

Hercules was born of woman - so therefore you must believe he existed physically and was born physically.

Adonis was gored by a boar (the god Mars in disguise) - so therefore you must believe that he physically existed and was really physically gored by a disguised God.

Osiris was dismembered - so therefore you must believe he existed physically and was dismembered physically.

Inanna was crucified - so therefore you must believe she existed physically and was crucified physically.


Seriously,
in the neo-Platonic multi-dimensional world view such events can, and did, happen non-physically.

Iesous and the crucifixion belong to this same category of non-physical beings and events - religious and spiritual allegories.


Quentin

lpetrich

Vorkosigan:
Were Christians persecuted for believing in Jesus? I thought they were persecuted for refusing to worship the Roman gods.

Radorth:
Yes, but it seems disingenuous to suggest that is the only reason ...

There is also the matter of Jews being rather rebellious...

The Roman authorities tolerated lots of different religions and sects as long as they recognized the Empire's official deities as worth worshipping. Look at Pliny the Younger's comments -- the only thing he cares about is whether they worship those deities.

And consider how the Roman authorities tolerated Attis worship -- even though his more dedicated male disciples had castrated themselves in his honor, thus giving the appearance of rejecting their manhood.

lpetrich

Some here have been using the "you know the story" defense of the Epistles' silence about many of the details of the Gospels -- especially details that would be very convenient for their purposes.

However, after they were written, the Gospels became a favorite item of discussion in Christendom; where are the clergypeople who announce in their sermons that

"I won't be saying anything about the Gospels this Sunday, since you people all know the story."

?

Vorkosigan

Rad, for once in your life, answer the question posed. Once again, how does persecutation confirm the historicist view? Please give us the logical link between the two.

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

Here is the quote as I found it here:

http://www.synaxis.org/ecf/volume25/ECF00008.htm

Origen also in the first volume of his Commentaries on the apostle's epistle to the Romans? gives an ample exposition of the sense in which the term Theotocos is used. It is therefore obvious that Nestorius had very little acquaintance with the treatises of the ancients, and for that reason, as I observed, objected to the word only: for that he does not assert Christ to be a mere man, as Photinus did or Paul of Samosata, his own published homilies fully demonstrate. In these discourses he nowhere destroys the proper personality (20) of the Word of God; but on the contrary invariably maintains that he has an essential and distinct personality and existence. Nor does he ever deny his subsistence as Photinus and the Samosatan did, and as the Manichaeans and followers of Montanus have also dared to do. Such in fact I find Nestorius, both from having myself read his own works, and from the assurances of his admirers. But this idle contention of his has produced no slight ferment in the religious world.

Whatever it means to deny the "subsistence" of Christ -- continued existence? -- it does not mean to assert the non-existence of a man Jesus, for according to this church writer these two, Photinus and the Samosatan, regarded Jesus as a mere man.

Of course, another thing is to be careful of the accuracy of the description of others' beliefs in a piece of polemic, but that consideration needn't enter the equation here.

best,
Peter Kirby