Unlike prior opponents of Christianity, Celsus took the time to understand Christian belief thoroughly, and his arguments against Christian belief were more carefully considered. Unfortunately, we don't have the complete text of his work, but it's pretty easy to see exactly where Celsus was coming from by Origen's response. As you look at Origen's reply to Celsus, note the specific objections to Christianity Celsus raises. Which of these objections seems to you hardest to answer?
Celsus is looking at Christianity from a Jewish perspective and it's pretty clear that he does not have a high approval rating on Christianity. He goes about the "Address of the Jew" in part 1 questioning everything that the Lord Jesus claims about Himself, then in part 2 admonishing those who have converted from Judaism to Christianity.
ReplyDeleteA good summary quote is this:
"If the Son is mightier than God, and the Son of man is Lord over Him, who else than the Son can be Lord over that God who is the ruler over all things? How comes it, that while so many go about the well, no one goes down into it? Why art thou afraid and shrink with fear when thou hast gone so far on the way? Answer: Thou art mistaken, for I lack neither courage nor weapons."
Kent Johnsen
To me Celsus reads as an attack more than a rebuttal because he brings in arguments that do not seem to have any references. - Example
ReplyDelete"For he [Celsus] represents the Jew disputing with Jesus, and confuting Him, as he thinks, on many points; and in the first place, he accuses Him of having
invented his birth from a virgin, and upbraids Him with being born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God."
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/celsus.html
Is there a source document for this, perhaps lost to antiquity, or was it a fabrication from thin air. In making arguments such as this it lowers the exchange from a debate to a mudslinging contest. I think there are other avenues for rebuttal without making attacks such as this.
Although Celsus uses the Old Testament as part of his rebuttal I believe he was a pagan philosopher who used all sources at his disposal to build his case against Christianity. I think Jews would have used other references to counter the Christian claims.
Jerry Taylor
Celsus's writing comes across as an attack towards Christians without any real reasoning behind it. The reason I say this is because his writing has a bunch of holes in his logic. A good example of this would be, ""For he [Celsus] represents the Jew disputing with Jesus, and confuting Him, as he thinks, on many points; and in the first place, he accuses Him of having
ReplyDeleteinvented his birth from a virgin, and upbraids Him with being born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery".
This clearly shows that he is only speaking from the Jewish perspective and not taking all perspectives into account. This seems hard to answer since it isn't backed by anything. He doesn't even back this argument using the Bible/written account of Jesus conception and birth. These factors alone confirm the fact he was a pagan who wouldn't listen to any other religion.
Source for quote: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/celsus.html
In Book IV, Chapter XIV of Origen’s Against Celsus, he writes that Celsus said that God is, essentially, perfect. But Jesus was a man, and by becoming man, rather than being a “God,” he is making a negative change. “From good to evil, from virtue to vice,” etc. That’s something I’ve always wondered about. People say that as a man, Jesus suffered in all the ways we do today. How did He remain perfect? I know he was still the Son of God, still perfect, all that. But how did He become a human, with a human mind and heart, and never commit a sin? How did He never have a jealous/lustful/sinful thought? I don’t know how one would defend that – that Jesus was human, but still remained God, still remained perfect. I don’t understand how that works. Maybe no one truly does, though.
ReplyDeleteCelsus had a few major points that he attacked the Christian doctrine from. The biggest were; why would God incarnate run, hide, and allow his betrayal, give up his divinity to be amongst men in this non-divine world, and be so historically insignificant and comparable to a sorcerer. The first two can be easily rebutted, as Christian doctrine states that Jesus was following Gods plan, which he was powerless to alter. His hiding, betrayal, and reason to become mortal is part of a larger plan. Very few would take this as a respectable criticism. His other point, specifically on his insignificant historicity, is a much better argument that Celsus is positing. Celsus was quoted as stating that, "...He ought to have appeared to those who had illtreated him, and to him who had condemned him, and to all men universally." (Pg. 118) Although these characteristics can be argued from a highly educated Christian, the majority of Christians, and all people for that matter, were illiterate. The ability to rationally argue from a position that he was very historically significant would be difficult if you were not educated on the region and it's history.
ReplyDelete-Daxton Harmon
The one, to me, that would be hardest to answer would be the argument on page 122:
ReplyDelete"For he had no longer occasion to fear any man after his death, being, as you say, a God; nor was he sent into the world at all for the purpose of being hid."
The following defense that Origen provides is very convoluted and tiresome. Honestly, I felt as if he were talking in circles, how Jesus both needed to hide in his lifetime and also didn't, how he would come to be known but had parts of himself that were hidden even to him.
Celsus made the excellent point that Jesus being hidden was overall unnecessary, or that the explanations as to who he was hidden from and why were difficult to understand given his position as God's son. To begin one's response by calling the argument 'vain' is not a good start, and the argument went downhill the further I read.
Additionally, towards the start of the chapter, it's noted that Celsus pointed out that what Jesus did was sorcery; however, Jesus appears to have gotten a free pass to do so while the sorcerers in Egypt were lambasted for their use of 'magic'. Why are the standards different?
A section that I found to be an excellent argument that would be difficult to answer was the fact that there were plenty of people suffering from similar afflictions to those we meet in the Bible - widows, the diseased, the lame and blind, etc.
Yet only a select few are given the divine treatment - why? Were the others simply not good enough?
That, in my opinion, is a great argument.
After reading Origen’s reply to Celsus in Classical Readings in Christian Apologetics A.D. 100–1800, I found that one of Celsus’s objections that seems hardest to answer is his claim that Jesus was not divine, but rather a sorcerer who used magical tricks to deceive people. Celsus argues that Jesus could not have been the Son of God because of his lowly background, his suffering, and his death by crucifixion. He even accuses Jesus of learning magical arts in Egypt and using them to perform what appeared to be miracles. This is hard to respond to because it directly attacks the foundation of Christian belief that Jesus’s miracles were signs of His divine nature, not illusions or deceptions. Origen tries to defend this by pointing to the moral and spiritual fruits of Jesus’s teachings and the power of His resurrection, but for someone who doesn’t already believe in Jesus’s divinity, it could still seem unconvincing.
ReplyDeleteAnother difficult objection Celsus makes is the claim that Christianity is not original that it borrows most of its beliefs and practices from earlier traditions. He argues that concepts like resurrection, divine incarnation, and moral teachings can be found in Judaism, Greek philosophy, and mystery religions. As a Christian, I believe that the revelation of God in Christ is unique and complete, but I can see how someone like Celsus, looking from the outside, might see Christianity as just another version of older ideas. Origen responds by saying that the truth may be hinted at in other places, but it is fulfilled in Jesus. Still, this objection is challenging because it pushes Christians to explain why and how the message of Christ stands apart from everything that came before.