Why Doesn't Celsus Know Jesus is the Christ?

[Secret Alias]

As a complete tangent I thought Schopenhauer's 38 stratagems for winning an argument might be a humorous distraction http://www.mnei.nl/schopenhauer/38-stratagems.htm

[Peter Kirby]

This thread is a continuation of the discovery in another thread that Celsus the pagan critic of Christianity does not seem to know that Jesus is called 'Christ' by Christians...

The OP leaves out the best quote in the first book, which was noted in the previous thread...

• What was the previous thread? Link, please?

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3044&p=67992#p67992

[Secret Alias]

One bit of progress today. I think I can make progress on the identification of Christianity with the Scythians. Who is the figure of 'Scythianos' the dualist who takes the place of Marcion in most traditions describing the origin of Manichaeanism? Ammonius Saccas (Ἀμμώνιος Σακκᾶς) is a very logical candidate especially as Saccas undoubtedly means 'Scythian':

Ancient Greek historians spoke of Scythians who lived north of the Black Sea and the Caucasus Mountains. Persians used the term Saka (Old Persian: Sakā; New Persian: ساکا; Greek: Σάκαι; Armenian: սկյութները; Latin: Sacae, Sanskrit: शक Śaka), for approximately the same people who lived further east.

His cognomen "Sakkas" has been interpreted to indicate that he was a porter in his youth.[1] This seems to be a misreading of "Sakkas" for "sakkophoros" (porter) which is grammatically incorrect. However Erich Seeberg[2] argued that the cognomen refers to the "Śākyas" of India, the ruling clan to which Gautama Buddha also belonged[unreliable source?]. The "Śākyas" (related to Iranian Saka, Scythians and Indo-Scythians) were known in antiquity.[3] The cognomen "Sakkas" therefore referred to India [4] as a marker of ethnic identity. This is, according to this interpretation, supported by the fact that Ammianus Marcellinus refers to him as "Saccas Ammonius", thus as the "Sacian Ammonius",[5] which makes any reading as denoting "sakkos" impossible. This interpretation of the name, which has subsequently been contested,[6] would corroborate Porphyry's report that Plotinus, Ammonius' foremost student, acquired his high esteem for Indian philosophy and his eager desire to travel to India from Ammonius.[7]
The interpretation that "Saccas" denotes ethnic northern Indian origin, rather than alluding to Gautama Buddha, supports the possibility that Ammonius may have been raised a Christian, who reverted to paganism, as reported by Eusebius,[8] drawing on Porphyry's Contra Christianos. In this case Ammonius may have been a second-generation Indian who remained in contact with the philosophy of his ancestral country. The intensity of commerce of goods and ideas between Alexandria and India makes this a wholly possible option.
The link to India however is not only consistent with Plotinus' passion for India, but also helps to explain the often noted substantial agreements and shared ideas between Vedanta and Neoplatonism which are increasingly attributed to direct Indian influence.[9]
Most details of his life come from the fragments left from Porphyry's writings. The most famous pupil of Ammonius Saccas was Plotinus who studied under Ammonius for eleven years. According to Porphyry, in 232, at the age of 28, Plotinus went to Alexandria to study philosophy:
In his twenty-eighth year he [Plotinus] felt the impulse to study philosophy and was recommended to the teachers in Alexandria who then had the highest reputation; but he came away from their lectures so depressed and full of sadness that he told his trouble to one of his friends. The friend, understanding the desire of his heart, sent him to Ammonius, whom he had not so far tried. He went and heard him, and said to his friend, "This is the man I was looking for." From that day he stayed continually with Ammonius and acquired so complete a training in philosophy that he became eager to make acquaintance with the Persian philosophical discipline and that prevailing among the Indians.[10]
According to Porphyry, the parents of Ammonius were Christians, but upon learning Greek philosophy, Ammonius rejected his parents' religion for paganism. This conversion is contested by the Christian writers Jerome and Eusebius, who state that Ammonius remained a Christian throughout his lifetime:
[Porphyry] plainly utters a falsehood (for what will not an opposer of Christians do?) when he says that ... Ammonius fell from a life of piety into heathen customs. ... Ammonius held the divine philosophy unshaken and unadulterated to the end of his life. His works yet extant show this, as he is celebrated among many for the writings which he has left.[11]

[John T]

...But clearly at least now that we see Jesus isn't Christ EVER for Celsus this might be part of the solution....

No! What Celsus is saying is that he believes all demi-god stories are myths, e.g. Perseus, Aeacus, and Minos. The virgin birth story of Jesus makes him a demi-god and by default a fraud.

Celsus pretended to understand who Jesus was to the Christians but Origen exposed him as being ignorant of what Christ was.

Not really that hard to understand.

[davidbrainerd]

...But clearly at least now that we see Jesus isn't Christ EVER for Celsus this might be part of the solution....

No! What Celsus is saying is that he believes all demi-god stories are myths, e.g. Perseus, Aeacus, and Minos. The virgin birth story of Jesus makes him a demi-god and by default a fraud.

Celsus pretended to understand who Jesus was to the Christians but Origen exposed him as being ignorant of what Christ was.

Not really that hard to understand.

You obviously havent read it. Because he doesnt say that.

[MrMacSon]

... The surviving MS (likely altered by Eusebius to use against fourth century pagans) seems to allude to the contemporary followers of Jesus as 'Christians' but there are good reasons that in Celsus's original manuscript they were called 'Chrestoi.' Does this help provide for us some clues to (a) where Celsus was writing against Christians and (b) what community Celsus was writing against or drawing his information from?

Clearly Christianity was a forbidden association at the time Celsus was writing (1.1). Moreover there is a strange emphasis on Christianity as a mystery religion which seems to point to Alexandria and the Alexandrian Church as his point of contact. He says it is a 'secret association' (συνθήκας κρύβδην 1.1) and specifically "of associations some are public, and that these are in accordance with the laws; others, again, secret (ἀφανεῖς), and maintained in violation of the laws." Celsus also speaks of 'secret Christian' beliefs (κρύφα Χριστιανοὺς 1.3) and the like but most interesting - going back to 1.1 - it is very apparent that Origen is not following the original order of the True Account at this section (i.e. early in Book 1)....

• dun dun, Dunnn ...

[John T]

Some of Origen's comments were truly mind-blowing on his take on election and heavenly beings.

• Interesting. Such as?

Pick-em.

"Every believer-although the humblest in the church-is said to be attended by an angel, who the Savior declares always beholds the face of God the Father. Now, this angel has the purpose of being his guardian. So if that person is rendered unworthy by his lack of obedience, the angel of God is said to be taken from him. And then that part of him-the part belonging to his human nature-is torn away from the divine part. And it is assigned a place along with the unbelievers. For it has not faithfully observed the admonitions of the angel assigned to it by God." Origen (c.225, E), 4.296

John T

[Secret Alias]

No! What Celsus is saying is that he believes all demi-god stories are myths, e.g. Perseus, Aeacus, and Minos. The virgin birth story of Jesus makes him a demi-god and by default a fraud.

Celsus pretended to understand who Jesus was to the Christians but Origen exposed him as being ignorant of what Christ was.

This is a terrible encapsulation of Celsus's argument and that of the Jew whom he cites. The facts are that Celsus knows what a messiah is (absolutely dead on in his description) but Jesus is never identified with that term. If the Jew or Celsus thought that Christians applied the title to Jesus he/they would have developed Jesus's failure to comply with the messiah expectation. Instead what we read in both authors is that Christians identify Jesus as the Son of God and the Son of God is identified as a demigod essentially. At one point the Jew says we actually expect a messiah not a demigod.

What I get from this situation is an imperative to re-examine the pastiche characteristic of the orthodox claims about Jesus. They through a whole bunch of titles upon Jesus. He is the Logos, the Son of God, the Son of Man, the Son of David, the messiah, the beloved and many more. These titles are not all synonymous with one another yet they are made so by a very powerful effort among the elite. I see orthodoxy as an ecumenical movement to basically pick and chose various things that Christian sects had been saying about Jesus and streamlining them as if they were all complimentary of one another (which is not true).

For instance Son of God and Son of Man are antithetical propositions. One assumes - at least implicitly - divinity the other humanity (I know the appearance of Son of God at Qumran but this is a complicated source). The fact that Celsus does not identify Jesus as Christ nor does he see that title being used in his sources means (a) Celsus was a very early witness for Jesus and Christianity and (b) Jesus was identified as the Christ very late in the development of Christianity or this was first done in a very geographically remote corner of the world and spread to the 'mainstream' late in the development of the religion.

[John T]

This thread is a continuation of the discovery in another thread that Celsus the pagan critic of Christianity does not seem to know that Jesus is called 'Christ' by Christians. As John noted in that thread, he is aware that Jews express an interest in a warrior figure whom they call 'messiah' but Celsus seems unaware that Jesus was so called by Christians.

Celsus as Quoted by Origen.

Ignorance, Irrationality and Superstition
Book VI

11. If these (meaning the Christians) bring forward this person, and others, again, a different individual (as the Christ), while the common and ready cry of all parties is, 'Believe, if thou wilt be saved, or else begone,' what shall those do who are in earnest about their salvation? Shall they cast the dice, in order to divine whither they may betake themselves, and whom they shall join?

Judiasm and Christianity
Book IV
22. The Christians, making certain additional statements to those of the Jews, assert that the Son of God has been already sent on account of the sins of the Jews; and that the Jews hating chastised Jesus, and given him gall to drink, have brought upon themselves the divine wrath.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/celsus.html

If I understand the argument of Secret Alias correctly, he is saying that since Celsus did not use the precise term of Jesus Christ and that Origen supposedly did not claim Christians considered Jesus the Messiah that they both were cross-talking about two different Jesus'. However, my point is, it matters not which term they used to describe the title of Jesus because they both have essentially the same substance in meaning. Celsus is arguing that Jesus could not be the Christ/Messiah due to x,y, and z and Origen is pointing out that Celsus is ignorant as to why Christians believe Jesus is the Christ. Just because a word search doesn't come up with Jesus Christ or Jesus the Messiah does not mean they are arguing over a different Jesus. Jesus Christ and Jesus the Messiah are one in the same. Celsus denies the divinity of Jesus and Origen believes.

With that being said, I'm done here.

Sincerely,

John T

[Secret Alias]

If I understand the argument of Secret Alias correctly, he is saying that since Celsus did not use the precise term of Jesus Christ

Well kind of. He continually refers to the title 'Son of God' being associated with Jesus but not 'Christ.'

and that Origen supposedly did not claim Christians considered Jesus the Messiah

No the author of Against Celsus ('Origen') identified Jesus as the Christ.

that they both were cross-talking about two different Jesus'.

No Origen just doesn't tell the reader or doesn't notice there is an anomaly in the original texts of both 'the Jew' and Celsus.