Minimalist wrote:
But once again, Ish, Humphreys is not "at war" with the gnostics. He is refuting the Historical Jesus crowd and the gnostics are merely cannon fodder in that struggle. What they believed or why they believed it is inconsequential to Humphrey's need to show that they did exist and that they pre-dated the Historical Jesus idea.
I didn’t say he was at war with the Gnostics. He is at war with the Literalist Christians. But because he doesn’t understand the wellspring of Christianity (i.e Gnosticism) he fails to understand Christianity’s true nature.
It’s like when you’re gardening. If you have a weed you want to get rid of, what do you do? Do you lop off its head? No, that wouldn’t work, would it? The weed would grow back again. And you could chop off its head a million times, and each time it would grow back. That is because you are not attacking it at its core – its root. You have to pull a weed out by its roots.
Christianity is not based on anything reasonable or rational – so attacking it with reasoned arguments won’t work, as Richard Dawkins readily admits. In the case of the Gnostics, who Celsus was referring to, neither was there any blind faith in a flesh and blood Jesus. Yet Celsus is using reason to attack them over their what he describes, wrongly, as blind faith.
It is obvious from the way Celsus describes these Christians that he is attacking that they are Gnostics, and not Literalists.
He didn’t know his enemy. He didn’t know what made them tick, so anything he had to say to them was like water off a duck’s back. Of course, in political terms then, it didn't matter. But it matters today. If Ken wants to win his battle against Christians, he needs to understand them or at least know what they think - that John the Baptist thing was appalling, and I'm sure you must know it.
Minimalist wrote:
As noted above, it is simply irrelevant to his point. What the gnostics believed is of interest to you, not him. All he needs to show is that they existed prior to the literalists and that their doctrines were different. He did that. Perhaps you should write your own book on the subject?
See above.
Minimalist wrote:
See, I don't. Usually all Origen does is trot out some xtian doctrine and repeat it as if that answers the question. It is a failing of believers that their beliefs are sufficient in and of themselves.
He answers as a Gnostic and not as a Literalist, as the extract I posted shows and that’s my point. He’s actually in a difficult position because Celsus is erecting straw men, and it’s always a total bore to have to deal with them.
Look at this one. It is Origen’s first point:
The first point which Celsus brings forward, in his desire to throw discredit upon Christianity, is, that the Christians entered into secret associations with each other contrary to law, saying, that of associations some are public, and that these are in accordance with the laws; others, again, secret, and maintained in violation of the laws.
Well, for one thing, it’s hardly the Christians fault that some Roman emperor (probably Trajan) had decided to make their religion illegal. And I’ve always thought it particularly odd that Roman emperors in the second century did make Christianity illegal, when they allowed every other cult (and some had some quite unsavoury practises) to survive – it was only Christianity they made illegal. Why?
But anyway, this is really where Celsus is coming from. He is criticising them for being illegal and being secret. They were secret for two reasons. Because they were illegal (not their fault) and because there was an inner group who gave secret teachings, for all the same reasons that the Mystery rites did at that time, which Celsus should have known about.
Minimalist wrote:
Then you haven't read it closely enough because Celsus is a Platonist with the attendant beliefs (he was a man of his times) of a perfect god and intermediaries. Celsus notes in one of his more famous quotes that a truly perfect 'god' would not have to destroy the earth like an inept workman because he would have gotten it right the first time.
I haven’t read every single word .. but I’ve read enough of it to get the drift of where Celsus is coming from.
Minimalist wrote:
Celsus notes in one of his more famous quotes that a truly perfect 'god' would not have to destroy the earth like an inept workman because he would have gotten it right the first time.
That would only be a famous quote among Literalist Atheists, because it shows what a Literalist he is. That’s like Dawkins saying that God doesn’t exist because the fossil record shows that Genesis is wrong. We all know that God didn’t destroy the earth ... so Celsus’s argument does the same belly flop.
Much of Gnosticism was based upon Platonic ideas, but not all Platonists were Gnostics. Plato, 500 years before Celsus’s time, taught an oral, secret doctrine, but they may not have survived until Celsus’s time – and it’s obvious from this idea of God as a man in the sky (which no Gnostic or true Platonist believed he was) that Celsus hasn’t been taught the Secret Mysteries, or doesn’t even appear to know about them. So then, all he is left with is the dry bones of Plato’s teachings – the logic and the rationale, which is about as satisfying as a Jacobs Cream Cracker with no butter on it.
Minimalist wrote:
I suspect that Celsus sees the Judaeo-christian god as something of a shlub. I completely disagree with your assertion that the literalists do not think the story should hang together on a rational level. That is precisely what they think and the fact is that they have convinced a lot of people that it is LITERALLY true.
Min, you have misread me again. My whole point has been that the Literalists DO expect the story to hang together in a rational way, and that’s been the whole thrust of my argument, which you have completely missed because you haven’t read my post carefully enough.
Here’s what I said:
Ishtar wrote:
From this letter, Celsus appears to be a Literalist Atheist who attacks Jesus on the same grounds that Humphries would - mainly that the story doesn't hang together, or make sense, therefore, 'it cannot be true'.
Celsus appears to be ridiculing Christians over their blind faith versus his reason, but he has completely missed the point of true Gnostic Christianity which avoids that dichotomy. In other words, there is no blind faith in a literal flesh-and-blood Jesus within Gnosticism; neither is there any reliance on reason.
I hope you’re clear on that now. If you’re not, we cannot proceed because most of my argument is based upon it.
Minimalist wrote:
Correct about the faith thing but Celsus did not have the luxury of knowing which variant of this superstition would win out, if any. He notes, on a couple of occasions, that there are numerous xtian sects and that the only thing they seem to have in common is the word "xtian." He is thus entitled to be confused by what they are putting out as truth since they had so many versions of it at the time he was writing.
Well, I think if he was gong to attack them, he needed first to do a little research. It’s not much to ask – otherwise, he didn’t know his enemy.
Minimalist wrote:
The issue about xtian meetings is well taken and in Book I, 1 Origen states"
For as those persons would do well who should enter into a secret association in order to put to death a tyrant who had seized upon the liberties of a state, so Christians also, when tyrannized over by him who is called the devil, and by falsehood, form leagues contrary to the laws of the devil, against his power, and for the safety of those others whom they may succeed in persuading to revolt from a government which is, as it were, "Scythian," and despotic.
This, frankly, is the essence of apologetics. He admits the charge and claims that they have a right to oppose the government and its laws. In such an instance, expect the government to fight back. It is what governments do.
The only way they are opposing the government is by meeting. Hardly a capital crime, is it? And please see my earlier point about why was it illegal? What harm where they doing?
What was the government fighting back against? People who want to meet in a house?
Minimalist wrote:
In a historical sense did what the gnostics think matter any more than what the Old Kingdom Egyptians thought in the 4th century? Those holding the swords set out to crush all opposition. They were successful in doing so.
It’s matters if you want to understand your enemy.
.