Why Is the Gospel So Bad at Proving Jesus is Son of God?

[Charles Wilson]

The constant repetition of the theme of the 'usefulness' of his death cannot be coincidence.

Which brings up "Philemon".
Any interest in it, SA?

[Secret Alias]

In the next place, since he reproaches us with the existence of heresies in Christianity as being a ground of accusation against it, saying that when Christians had greatly increased in numbers, they were divided and split up into factions, each individual desiring to have his own party; and further, that being thus separated through their numbers, they confute one another, still having, so to speak, one name in common, if indeed they still retain it. And this is the only thing which they are yet ashamed to abandon, while other matters are determined in different ways by the various sects. In reply to which, we say that heresies of different kinds have never originated from any matter in which the principle involved was not important and beneficial to human life (οὗ μὴ σπουδαία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τῷ βίῳ χρήσιμος). For since the science of medicine is useful (ἰατρικὴ χρήσιμος) and necessary to the human race, and many are the points of dispute in it respecting the manner of curing bodies, there are found, for this reason, numerous heresies confessedly prevailing in the science of medicine among the Greeks, and also, I suppose, among those barbarous nations who profess to employ medicine. [2.65]

But if he should assert this— and I do not think that he will maintain anything else— we shall reply that we have spoken in the preceding pages at greater length in defence of those charges affecting Jesus, showing that what appeared to have happened to Him in the capacity of His human nature, was fraught with benefit to all men, and with salvation to the whole world (κατ' ἄνθρωπον αὐτῷ συμβεβηκέναι χρησίμως γέγονεν τῷ παντὶ καὶ σωτηρίως τῷ ὅλῳ κόσμῳ). [3.17]

But as Celsus, by his statements, has declared that we do not do so, but that we call only the foolish, I would say to him, If you had charged us with withdrawing from the study of philosophy those who were already preoccupied with it, you would not have spoken the truth, and yet your charge would have had an appearance of probability; but when you now say that we draw away our adherents from good teachers, show who are those other teachers save the teachers of philosophy, or those who have been appointed to give instruction in some useful branch of study (τῶν χρησίμων πεπονημένους). [3.57]

And in his slanders he says that no wise man believes the Gospel, being driven away by the multitudes who adhere to it. And in this he acts like one who should say that owing to the multitude of those ignorant persons who are brought into subjection to the laws, no wise man would yield obedience to Solon, for example, or to Lycurgus, or Zaleucus, or any other legislator, and especially if by wise man he means one who is wise (by living) in conformity with virtue. For, as with regard to these ignorant persons, the legislators, according to their ideas of utility (χρήσιμον), caused them to be surrounded with appropriate guidance and laws, so God, legislating through Jesus Christ for men in all parts of the world, brings to Himself even those who are not wise in the way in which it is possible for such persons to be brought to a better life. [3.73]

How can temperance and sober-mindedness, or benevolence and liberality, be practised by a man of wicked mind? Nay, even the fear of God cannot be felt by such an one, with respect to which, because it is useful to the many (ἐφ' ὃν ὡς χρήσιμον τοῖς πολλοῖς), the Gospel encourages those who are not yet able to choose that which ought to be chosen for its own sake, to select it as the greatest blessing, and one above all promise; for this principle cannot be implanted in him who prefers to live in wickedness. [3.78]

For the doctrine of punishment is both attended with utility (χρήσιμον), and is agreeable to truth, and is stated in obscure terms with advantage. Moreover, as for the most part it is not the wicked whom the ambassadors of Christianity gain over, neither do we insult God. For we speak regarding Him both what is true, and what appears to be clear to the multitude, but not so clear to them as it is to those few who investigate the truths of the Gospel in a philosophical manner. [3.79]

[Secret Alias]

What about Philemon?

[Charles Wilson]

Philemon 1: 10 - 1 (RSV):

[10] I appeal to you for my child, Ones'imus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment.
[11] (Formerly he was useless to you, but now he is indeed useful to you and to me.)

Philemon is interesting for a number of reasons, too many to get into now. It's interesting precisely in this context because of the "useful" verse.

Suetonius, 12 Caesars, "Galba":

"Accordingly his [[Galba's]] coming was not so welcome as it might have been, and this was apparent at the first performance in the theatre; for when the actors of an Atellan farce began the familiar lines

"Here comes Onesimus from his farm"

all the spectators at once finished the song in chorus and repeated it several times with appropriate gestures, beginning with that verse..."

This is the only mention I can find of "Onesimus" in the Literature (of the emperor...). I can find Galba in the NT - YMMV, as usual - but "Useful" appears to have a specialized use, hence, "Any interest in Philemon?"

Have a good one,

CW

[davidbrainerd]

Of course a case needs to be made. You can't work from 'belief' backwards. If the gospel was most people's introduction to know Jesus and the Son of God was Jesus's identity surely you have to give some background information about who or what a Son of God was.

If Paul came first then the written gospels you can.

I can't get over how bad a book 'unknown Son of God comes to announce unknown Father God' would be. You'd expect some sort of connection with the wanderer and the town he is wandering through especially if 'we' live in the town with the wandering 'unknown Son of God announcing the unknown Father God.' Seems like a very detached story. Hard to connect for the audience. No frame of reference. Hard to get excited about that scenario.

Then build the narrative around the messianic secret, i.e. that the unknown son of the unknown god is mistaken as the christ of the known god and has to hush people up from saying that. And leave a vague hint that he actually is encouraging the misidentification via reverse psychology.

But I guess you're right...something has to have been historical or why not write the story a little better...so maybe the unknown god really revealed himself.

(Sometimes I even wonder if the horrible misuses of OT prophecy are not on purpose as a clue that the author doesn't really believe Jesus is the son of the OT god. Like its a cipher text anyone with real knowledge of the OT should figure out. Because the case for him being the son of the OT god is just soooo bad.)

[John T]

...For my purposes in the thread I am trying to explain how Celsus had access to Christian manuscripts but never once makes a reference to the title Christ in association with Jesus...."

The True Doctrine of Celsus

"They [christians] postulate, for example, that their messiah {emphasis mine} will return as a conqueror on the clouds, and that he will rain fire upon the earth in his battle with the princes of the air, and that the whole world, with the exception of believing christians, will be consumed in fire...." (77).

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/celsus3.html

Are not the title Christ and Messiah interchangeable?

I also can't help but mention that, although Celsus thought the idea of Jesus claiming to be the Son of God was a ploy on the ignorant masses, Celsus did not deny the historical existence of Jesus.

Sincerely,

John T

[davidbrainerd]

I also can't help but mention that, although Celsus thought the idea of Jesus claiming to be the Son of God was a ploy on the ignorant masses, Celsus did not deny the historical existence of Jesus.

Considering that Celsus himself may not be historical that doesn't mean much. He only exists in Origen's refutation, right? So he may be a literary fiction himself. Or at the very least, Origen may ignore his better arguments and only deal with the ones he feels confident he can refute.

[Secret Alias]

Actually John the fact that Celsus knows the terminology but doesn't apply it to Jesus and instead thinks it to be exclusively Jewish is quite significant. Thanks for the find!