A Plea for the Christians

[The Duke of Vandals]

In the late second century (circa 175), Athenagoras of Athens pens the 32 paragraph (chapter) essay titled "A Plea for the Christians". His intended audience? The Alexandrian Church and the sitting Roman emperor. His intention? To explain what Christianity is to these people.
My question for the believer: Why doesn't Athenagoras mention Jesus is a person in his explanation of Christianity?
The closest he comes is paragraph/chapter 10 (emphasis mine):

we acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, illimitable, who... the universe has been created through His Logos*... we acknowledge also a Son of God. Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have a Son. For though the poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no better than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as theirs... the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one... But if... it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence .... had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos [logikos]; but inasmuch as He came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all material things...
​

Imagine the president had never heard of Christianity. Imagine a prominent Christian wrote him a detailed explanation that said, "We worship a god that has a spiritual son attached to it". Think that adequately describes Christianity?
Discuss.


*Greek translation for "Word of god".

 

[Kathryn]

Well, I don't think that Athenagoras of Athens intended for this brief statement to be the synopsis of Christianity or to contain the full dogma of the person of Jesus Christ. Even if he did, it's just his take on the matter.

I haven't read the entire work so I can't make a full evaluation of it.

 

[McBell]

Well, I don't think that Athenagoras of Athens intended for this brief statement to be the synopsis of Christianity or to contain the full dogma of the person of Jesus Christ. Even if he did, it's just his take on the matter.

I haven't read the entire work so I can't make a full evaluation of it.

I found a copy here:

Athenagoras of Athens: A Plea for the Christians
​

Though I cannot attest to the accuracy of the translation...

I also found this copy:

ANF02. Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire) | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
​

This will be the copy I will read because it has a much better reader friendly layout....

I also wanted to point out that this site:

Welcome to the Christian Classics Ethereal Library! | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
​

Has all manner of early Christian writings

 

[The Duke of Vandals]

Well, I don't think that Athenagoras of Athens intended for this brief statement to be the synopsis of Christianity or to contain the full dogma of the person of Jesus Christ. Even if he did, it's just his take on the matter.

I haven't read the entire work so I can't make a full evaluation of it.

A) If you didn't even read it, let alone look up anything about Athenagoras, how can you speculate about his authorly intentions?

B) A Plea for the Christians was most certainly meant to explain what Christianity is.

C) Why aren't you willing to consider the most obvious and logical answer: that Athenagoras knew that Jesus wasn't a real person and wrote accordingly?

 

[McBell]

C) Why aren't you willing to consider the most obvious and logical answer: that Athenagoras knew that Jesus wasn't a real person and wrote accordingly?

Then who is he talking about when he says "Son of God", "the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son", "the Father and the Son being one", etc.?

 

[The Duke of Vandals]

Then who is he talking about when he says "Son of God", "the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son", "the Father and the Son being one", etc.?

He's most certainly not talking about the godman of the new testament. He's talking about the gnostic idea of a Jesus who never existed as a real person, but as a state of being people should attempt to attain.

 

[Mister Emu]

He's most certainly not talking about the godman of the new testament. He's talking about the gnostic idea of a Jesus who never existed as a real person, but as a state of being people should attempt to attain.

I'm not sure you can fully pull that from the statement...

He certainly quotes Jesus from the Gospels at least a couple of times in different chapters...

 

[McBell]

I'm not sure you can fully pull that from the statement...

He certainly quotes Jesus from the Gospels at least a couple of times in different chapters...

I was about to ask how he was able to quote the words of an idea...

 

[The Duke of Vandals]

I'm not sure you can fully pull that from the statement...

There's absolutely no other explanation.

Look, I'm not particularly interested in beating around the bush or letting you guys be coy. We all know that, according to the traditional tale of Christianity, an explanation of said religion that doesn't include the comings, goings, and sayings of Jesus doesn't make a lick of sense. Ask any clergy member on the planet today, "What is Christianity?" and it's inconceivable that their reply would exclude Jesus (an allegedly real person) dying for peoples' sins.

It just wouldn't happen.

But there it is, in black and white.

Now, I appreciate that you guys are trying to rationalize Athenagroas' writing with the dogma you have, but the only way to do that is to accept what's plain: that Athenagoras, like so many others, never thought of Jesus as a person.

He certainly quotes Jesus from the Gospels at least a couple of times in different chapters...

He states things that later on end up in the gospels, but he A) never attributes them to Jesus and B) doesn't indicate that they're coming from the gospels.

 

[The Duke of Vandals]

I was about to ask how he was able to quote the words of an idea...

I was going to ask you to do some homework and actually find what you think is quoted. How about you do that?

 

[Kathryn]

Duke, apparently you are pretty new around here. Here's a suggestion: If you want to carry on debates and discussions with fellow members of this forum, it's a good idea to be CIVIL rather than sarcastic. You'll bet a better quality of response.

That's assuming that's what you're here for. I may be wrong.

I have yet to meet a true ****** in these parts.

 

[Kathryn]

I found a copy here:

Athenagoras of Athens: A Plea for the Christians
​

Though I cannot attest to the accuracy of the translation...

I also found this copy:

ANF02. Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire) | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
​

This will be the copy I will read because it has a much better reader friendly layout....

I also wanted to point out that this site:

Welcome to the Christian Classics Ethereal Library! | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
​

Has all manner of early Christian writings

THANK YOU for these - I'll check them out in the next day or so. Good work!

I can comment on them in more detail of course after I've read them.

 

[*Paul*]

Who cares what this man said? From a Christian point of view if his conclusions differ from Apostolic teaching then he is to be considered a heretic, to be marked and avoided!

1st John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;


1st John 4:1-3 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

IF Anthenagoras meant what you say then what does that prove? All it can possibly prove is that he had gnostic ideas, if so then he wasn't the first. Big deal.

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

Just because one man didn't specifically write the word "Jesus" in his uninspired explanation of Christianity is not conclusive evidence that Jesus did not exist.

Furthermore, he wrote "Son of God", which would have been recognized as the same man as Jesus, just as it is to Christians today. The words are interchangeable now, so what evidence do you have that they weren't then? Honestly.

Not to mention the fact that there's scads of historical writings that do specifically talk about Jesus, as a real man.

And then, your first post begs the question...how would Athenagoras know that Jesus did not exist? He lived generations after Jesus died.

 

[Mister Emu]

There's absolutely no other explanation.

Sure there is, and I will shortly provide one

"What is Christianity?" and it's inconceivable that their reply would exclude Jesus (an allegedly real person) dying for peoples' sins.

But Athenagoras isn't writing a theological expository on "What is Christianity?" He is writing an apologetic about why Christians shouldn't be persecuted... it includes "What is God to the Christians?" And it answers beautifully from the orthodox standpoint, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, all one. Trinity. It also includes the morals of Christians, philisophical arguements against other religions, and defences and attacks on accusers of Christians...

He states things that later on end up in the gospels

States things, or quotes verbatim? Quotes verbatim. Also the gosples would be at least nearing a century at that point... What he says doesn't "later on end up in the gosples", they are taken directly from them.

A) never attributes them to Jesus and B) doesn't indicate that they're coming from the gospels.

He doesn't have to, and that isn't his point. He isn't trying to convert someone, he is pleading for some protection from the Emperor for persecuted Christians...

I was going to ask you to do some homework and actually find what you think is quoted. How about you do that?

He directly quotes Jesus from Matt 5:44-45, in chapter 12 Athenagoras quotes Luke: "(“for if ye love them,” He says, “that love you, and lend to them that lend to you, what reward will ye have?”"
Who is the He? Jesus.

 

[Kathryn]

Whew, OK, I just finished reading this work. Mister Emu is right - the letter isn't meant to explain doctrines of Christianity in detail. It's a letter pleading for justice to be extended to the Christians of Rome, based on their peaceful and moral lifestyle and beliefs. It's carefully worded to placate and compliment the Emperor.

Athenagoras even states in the letter, "An apologist must adduce more precise arguments than I have yet given..."

This letter in no way disproves or even casts doubt on the Incarnation of God.

 

[sojourner]

There's absolutely no other explanation.

Look, I'm not particularly interested in beating around the bush or letting you guys be coy. We all know that, according to the traditional tale of Christianity, an explanation of said religion that doesn't include the comings, goings, and sayings of Jesus doesn't make a lick of sense. Ask any clergy member on the planet today, "What is Christianity?" and it's inconceivable that their reply would exclude Jesus (an allegedly real person) dying for peoples' sins.

It just wouldn't happen.

There it is in black and white.

Now, I appreciate that you guys are trying to rationalize Athenagroas' writing with the dogma you have, but the only way to do that is to accept what's plain: that Athenagoras, like so many others, never thought of Jesus as a person.



He states things that later on end up in the gospels, but he A) never attributes them to Jesus and B) doesn't indicate that they're coming from the gospels.

You're pushing a POV that is not well-supported by anything other than your interpretation.

You said,

Ask any clergy member on the planet today, "What is Christianity?" and it's inconceivable that their reply would exclude Jesus (an allegedly real person) dying for peoples' sins.

I am a member of the clergy, with standing in my denomination. My replies never include Jesus dying for people's sins.

It just wouldn't happen.

It just did...

There it is in black and white.

Perhaps you should add some pink and grey...

Here's the deal:
It would be entirely believable (and expected) that a Greek would argue christianity from this particular angle -- in ways that make sense to him. It is not an encapsulation of Christian theology. It's a synopsis from a particular perspective that the author thought would make sense to the emperor.

Even if the author didn't think Jesus was a real person, that's no proof that Jesus wasn't a real person. It's only "proof" that you think he thought that Jesus wasn't a real person.

 

[The Duke of Vandals]

Who cares what this man said?

You certainly should. He was explaining Christianity to the Roman emperor and never thought to mention that Jesus was a person. That tells you that something's not right with your religion.

 

[The Duke of Vandals]

Just because one man didn't specifically write the word "Jesus" in his uninspired explanation of Christianity is not conclusive evidence that Jesus did not exist.

This wasn't some letter that had nothing to do with Christianity that was sent to no one of consequence.

This was a 34 part essay specifically meant to explain what Christianity is to the emperor of the most powerful nation on the planet at the time.

Furthermore, he wrote "Son of God", which would have been recognized as the same man as Jesus,

So... you think it's acceptable to ignore the evidence where the author states very specifically where god's son isn't like other gods (like Hercules)? Why is that?

Not to mention the fact that there's scads of historical writings that do specifically talk about Jesus, as a real man.

That's an outright fantasy.

NO ONE writes about Jesus during his alleged lifetime. Not a single soul. People who should have been writing volumes about him are utterly silent. Guys like Philo of Alexandria, for example, say nothing.

The only other writings we have are from Josephus and Tacitus. Both of whom come far after Jesus' alleged lifetime.

Josephus is forgery; an interpolation by the church to make it seem like there was a Jesus. We know this because no one mentions Josephus' works until the 3rd century. All those early church fathers arguing with all those pagans: they would have absolutely leapt at the chance to quote a Jew talking about Jesus, but they never do.

Tacitus is a strange paradox that Christians seem to blithely ignore. I have repeatedly asked Christians to explain how Tacitus knew about Jesus. I've repeatedly asked for Tacitus' sources. However, no Christian has ever been able to provide them. Instead, it's demanded that we look at what a respected historian Tacitus was. Okay fine... except that Tacitus refers to Christianity as a "pernicious superstition". So, the end result is that, according to Christians, we're supposed to trust Tacitus because he's an excellent historian AND ignore the fact that he dismisses Christianity as sillyness.

It's quite obvious that Tacitus is simply the first person in a very long line of individuals to see Christians running around and (as all Christians have done for the last 2000+ years) assume there was a Christ.

And then, your first post begs the question...how would Athenagoras know that Jesus did not exist?

He knew Jesus didn't exist because the myth making that invented Jesus wouldn't get into full swing for generations to come.

 

[The Duke of Vandals]

Sure there is, and I will shortly provide one


But Athenagoras isn't writing a theological expository on "What is Christianity?" He is writing an apologetic about why Christians shouldn't be persecuted... it includes "What is God to the Christians?" And it answers beautifully from the orthodox standpoint,

So... let me get this straight.

Athenagoras explicitly explains that god has a son that doesn't exist as a person (as other religions have like Hercules), but as the words of the father. This textbook example of gnosticism is, according to you, an example of orthodoxy? I just want to make sure I understand your position before I reply. Now, is that really your argument? Really?