Celsus: "no God or son of God has come down or will come down"

[Giuseppe]

But that certain Christians and (all) Jews should maintain, the former that there has already descended, the latter that there will descend, upon the earth a certain God, or Son of a God, who will make the inhabitants of the earth righteous, is a most shameless assertion, and one the refutation of which does not need many words.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04164.htm

This claim by Celsus has surprised more than a scholar in virtue of the his apparent denial not only of the Christian belief that the Son of God descended on the earth, but also for the logical corollary of it: that no god or demigod was really descended on earth. Not even a Pagan god.

Is Celsus a Zeus mythicist, an Attis mythicist, an Osiris mythicist, etc, just as he is a Jesus mythicist?

It is surely a fact that among the Pagans, the Platonists were more scandalized for the Christian doctrine.

[nightshadetwine]

From what I understand, the Platonists didn't take myths literally. So they didn't think a son of god like Heracles or Dionysus literally lived on earth.

[GakuseiDon]

But that certain Christians and (all) Jews should maintain, the former that there has already descended, the latter that there will descend, upon the earth a certain God, or Son of a God, who will make the inhabitants of the earth righteous, is a most shameless assertion, and one the refutation of which does not need many words.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04164.htm

This claim by Celsus has surprised more than a scholar in virtue of the his apparent denial not only of the Christian belief that the Son of God descended on the earth, but also for the logical corollary of it: that no god or demigod was really descended on earth. Not even a Pagan god.

Origen goes on to quote Celsus further on the matter. I've snipped the quotes by Celsus between Origen's analysis on each quote. Celsus supposedly wrote:

What is the meaning of such a descent upon the part of God? Was it in order to learn what goes on among men? Does he not know all things? Then he does know, but does not make (men) better, nor is it possible for him by means of his divine power to make (men) better. Is it then not possible for him, by means of his divine power, to make (men) better, unless he send some one for that special purpose?

Celsus is repeating an old philosophical argument: If God is all-powerful, why couldn't He have made man perfectly righteous from the start? Why does He need to send someone for that purpose?

Origen's response is typical of early Christian apologists: the pagans do the same! AKA "I'm rubber, you're glue!"

The argument which Celsus employs against us and the Jews will be turned against himself thus: My good sir, does the God who is over all things know what takes place among men, or does He not know? Now if you admit the existence of a God and of providence, as your treatise indicates, He must of necessity know. And if He does know, why does He not make (men) better? Is it obligatory, then, on us to defend God's procedure in not making men better, although He knows their state, but not equally binding on you, who do not distinctly show by your treatise that you are an Epicurean, but pretend to recognise a providence, to explain why God, although knowing all that takes place among men, does not make them better, nor by divine power liberate all men from evil? We are not ashamed, however, to say that God is constantly sending (instructors) in order to make men better; for there are to be found among men reasons given by God which exhort them to enter on a better life. But there are many diversities among those who serve God, and they are few in number who are perfect and pure ambassadors of the truth, and who produce a complete reformation, as did Moses and the prophets. But above all these, great was the reformation effected by Jesus, who desired to heal not only those who lived in one corner of the world, but as far as in Him lay, men in every country, for He came as the Saviour of all men.

[Giuseppe]

If God is all-powerful, why couldn't He have made man perfectly righteous from the start? Why does He need to send someone for that purpose?

Origen's response is typical of early Christian apologists: the pagans do the same!

Precisely. Hence Celsus is denying that also the Pagan gods and demigods were really descended on the earth in the past. Since otherwise, as you have just described, they would be not so perfects and so not really divine.

In virtue of the same prohibition for a god/goddess to contaminate himself/herself with the inferior matter, fourth century philosopher Sallustius called the story of Attis "an eternal cosmic process, not an isolated event in the past" (On Gods and the World, 9). It was the only way a Platonist could accept an ontological reality for a god: by denying the his earthly appearance.

The Platonist Celsus is saying basically the same thing about any god, Jesus included.

[GakuseiDon]

If God is all-powerful, why couldn't He have made man perfectly righteous from the start? Why does He need to send someone for that purpose?

Origen's response is typical of early Christian apologists: the pagans do the same!

Precisely. Hence Celsus is denying that also the Pagan gods and demigods were really descended on the earth in the past. Since otherwise, as you have just described, they would be not so perfects and so not really divine.

Origen charges Celsus with the following:

...you, who do not distinctly show by your treatise that you are an Epicurean, but pretend to recognise a providence ...

An "Epicurean" believed that there may have been gods, but they were remote and didn't interact with humans. "Providence" is the idea that the gods are in control of earth, including what happens with humans. So Celsus 'recognising a providence' suggests that Celsus believed in that kind of god/gods. Thus he isn't necessarily denying that pagan gods and demigods descended to earth. The argument is more about what kind of god controlled the world and how it interacted with humans.

[Giuseppe]

"Providence" is the idea that the gods are in control of earth, including what happens with humans. So Celsus 'recognising a providence' suggests that Celsus believed in that kind of god/gods. Thus he isn't necessarily denying that pagan gods and demigods descended to earth.

that is totally a non-sequitur. Celsus is too much explicit in the his denial of gods descending on earth, totally beyond the his 'recognising a providence' or not. The providence is exercised by God even today, according to Christians, without a Jesus necessarily on earth. We can't put on Celsus's mouth the Origen's words. We can say that Celsus could concede that a god descended on earth, but only by mere convention to the tastes of the hoi polloi, without really believe sincerely.

[GakuseiDon]

The argument is framed around the need for God to send instructors to make men more righteous, i.e. why did Christ come at that time? Why did God wait so long? Origen reports Celsus as continuing with, "After so long a period of time, then, did God now bethink himself of making men live righteous lives, but neglect to do so before?" It doesn't tell us about Celsus's belief in pagan gods or demigods descending to earth.

[Giuseppe]

I am sorry but there is no way to make Celsus say the exact contrary (!) of what one can mean by saying so explicitly and clearly: "no God or son of God has come down or will come down". Usually one does so peremptory statements when there are no doubts whatsoever about what he is meaning prima facie.

Hence you should have very strong evidence by Celsus (not even by Origen) to deny the clear sense of the claim.

[GakuseiDon]

I am sorry but there is no way to make Celsus say the exact contrary (!) of what one can mean by saying so explicitly and clearly: "no God or son of God has come down or will come down". Usually one does so peremptory statements when there are no doubts whatsoever about what he is meaning prima facie.

The quote is: "... there will descend, upon the earth a certain God, or Son of a God, who will make the inhabitants of the earth righteous, is a most shameless assertion"

It may be that Celsus denies that ANY god has descended to earth, but that isn't what he is saying there. He is arguing the idea that God shouldn't need to send an instructor to make men righteous, since a perfect God should have been able to make men like that in the first place. That's the 'most shameless assertion': the Christian idea of a descending Son of God to make men righteous implies a non-perfect God.

[Giuseppe]

That's the 'most shameless assertion': the Christian idea of a descending Son of God to make men righteous implies a non-perfect God.

Christian and Pagan. He is talking in absolute general terms, here.