RyanS2

Greetings, I lost the other thread we were on, so I thought I'd start a new one. Hopefully no objections to that. Anyway, the Dicussion was on Minucius Felix and Tertullion. Minucius Felix is arguing with a pagan, and the pagan lays out the charges that Christians worship a crucified God, with the head of an ass, and murder children as part of their initiation, (apparently the pagan thought it was a mystery cult, some people do think christianity started off as a mystery cult). Minucius Felix responds with:

""Chapter XXIX.-Argument: Nor is It More True that a Man Fastened to a Cross on Account of His Crimes is Worshipped by Christians, for They Believe Not Only that He Was Innocent, But with Reason that He Was God. But, on the Other Hand, the Heathens Invoke the Divine Powers of Kings Raised into Gods by Themselves; They Pray to Images, and Beseech Their Genii.

"These, and such as these infamous things, we are not at liberty even to hear; it is even disgraceful with any more words to defend ourselves from such charges. For you pretend that those things are done by chaste and modest persons, which we should not believe to be done at all, unless you proved that they were true concerning yourselves. 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... Crosses, moreover, we neither worship nor wish for. You, indeed, who consecrate gods of wood, adore wooden crosses perhaps as parts of your gods. For your very standards, as well as your banners; and flags of your camp, what else are they but crosses gilded and adorned? Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it..."

That's at:

<a href="http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf04-34.htm#P5713_906729" target="_blank">http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf04-34.htm#P5713_906729</a>

In Tertullian, (I've also heard he was wishy-washy with his comments), I mistook his passage because he doesn't quote who he's refuting, (like Origen), nor is it in particular systematic order. (This is from Chapter 5: De carne Christi). You were correct here, he does believe in a human form of Christ, his references outside were to the Marcion idea of Christ. Any thoughts on Minucius?

Haran

Minucius? It is hard to say. In his work (which may be partly copied from Tertullian anyway), he is mainly defending Christianity against charges of indecent behavior, etc. Unfortunately, he seems to me to mainly talk about the morality of Christians in comparison to the Greeks.

As far as the quote you brought up, I would add the final part of what he says:

You may not like my explanation, but it seems to me that he is making a comparison between the Greeks and the Christians. The Greeks, he seems to imply, have need of physical, man-made objects to represent God, whereas the Christians see God in the very nature that surrounds them...the difference between "crosses gilded and adorned" and "sustained by a natural reason". Especially through this last comment, "Thus the cross is either sustained by a natural reason, or your own religion is formed with respect to it", I think Minucius' belief in Jesus' crucifixion is revealed.

Granted, "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...", sounds somewhat confusing, but I believe that he is simply trying to make the distinction between Jesus whom the Greeks are labeling with "the criminal and his cross", and Jesus whom the Christians believe to be God's perfect son (i.e. not a criminal).

Nice talking to ya. I appreciate your posts and can tell that you search for the facts.

Haran

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>

RyanS2

Greetings Haran. I must confess that sometimes I post just to see what people's responses are. I'm not a Biblical scholar, so I already know I'm going to be wrong sometimes, so it doesn't bother me too much. (Not like anyone here knows me in real life anyway

I think Lpetrich got the wrong idea about me for a long time because of that. Not exactly trolling, because I genuinely am interested in what the responses will be for educational purposes.

Anyway, I thought Felix was copying Tertullion because the two quotes sounded the same between what Tertullion says about Marcion. It is important to note though that at this time in the church, there were two popular symbols for Christianity, the fish and the pentagram. The fish obviously in connection with the ICYTHS, (though contention on what sect of Christianity used this symbol), and the pentagram, representing the five wounds of Jesus. Christians at this time seemed to be trying to forge a bridge between paganism and Christianity, such as icons displaying Jesus with the lamb, same as a statue of Mercury carrying a goat. The earliest known mosaic (240 CE) shows him with a disk or nimbus at the back of his head. This was the same as a representation of the sun. Justin Martyr also makes many allusions to pagan religions and Christianity, as if trying to build a bridge between the two. Some sects of Christianity formed a cross between paganism/Christianity, and they could also be the ones viewing it with a pagan perspective on it, while Felix is trying to change that perception.

Toto

I missed the earlier thread. What do you think of Earl Doherty's idea that Minucius Felix is the smoking gun that reveals that early Christianity was not based on a human Jesus?

His argument is <a href="http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/century2.htm" target="_blank">here</a>, about 3/4 down the page (search for the second instance of "Minucius":

He feels that Minucius should be dated before Tertullian, since it is more likely that a later author expanded on an earlier one.

Doherty expands on this argument at length on the page in the link above, and cites other commentators who have remarked on the problems in Minucius.

The paragraph cited by Haran talks about the sign of the cross, but not about crucifixion. Other religions in the second century used a cross as a sacred or mystical symbol.

RyanS2

Like most of Doherty's writings, it's very thought-provoking. However, let's be clear. I believe Justin Martyr was called a "heretic", (not sure if it was him or not), by later Christians, though his writings were still used, and I know Tertullion reverted to paganism, and likewise, his writings were still used.

(I say this on Martyr because he believed, having been a pagan before, that the pagan philosophers possessed the germ of the truth in their hearts, which germ of the truth was Christ Himself, the logos of John 1. And because these men possessed this germ of the truth, it was possible, Justin believed, that the best of them were saved without faith in Christ. This "Christ" came to expression in their philosophies. One of his students, Tatian, was condemned as a heretic.)

The Christians were so busy looking for defenders of the faith, (being a minority religion), that someone with a well-laid defense, like Municuis, would be used as a valuable asset to the early Church.

Minucuis writings parallel the phrasing used by Tertullion against Marcion and other doetic believers, it could be that he was a member of a heretical sect. I remember one historian did a look at the Christian sects in the first four centuries and noted about 90 different sects with different beliefs. There's a reason catholicism was formed, and that was because of the fighting amongst the bishops on what truly was Christian.

Hence my original question in the thread previous to this one was, "Did the original defenders of the faith truly know who Jesus was?"