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

[Secret Alias]

Celsus's references to the phenomenon:

Book 1

A few years ago he began to teach this doctrine, being regarded by Christians as the Son of God.

And it is a Jew who addresses the following language to Him whom we acknowledge to be our Lord Jesus: When you were bathing, says the Jew, beside John, you say that what had the appearance of a bird from the air alighted upon you. What credible witness beheld this appearance? or who heard a voice from heaven declaring you to be the Son of God? What proof is there of it, save your own assertion, and the statement of another of those individuals who have been punished along with you?

[Celsus' Jewish critic]: If you say that every man, born according to the decree of Divine Providence, is a son of God, in what respect should you differ from another? Countless individuals will convict Jesus of falsehood, alleging that those predictions which were spoken of him were intended of them.

[Celsus' Jewish critic]: But if, then, this was done in order that you might not reign in his stead when you had grown to man's estate; why, after you did reach that estate, do you not become a king, instead of you, the Son of God, wandering about in so mean a condition, hiding yourself through fear, and leading a miserable life up and down?

[Celsus' Jewish critic]: The old mythological fables which attributed a divine origin to Perseus, and Amphion, and Aeacus, and Minos were not believed by us. Nevertheless, that they might not appear unworthy of credit, they represented the deeds of these personages as great and wonderful, and truly beyond the power of man; but what hast thou done that is noble or wonderful either in deed or in word? Thou hast made no manifestation to us, although they challenged you in the temple to exhibit some unmistakable sign that you were the Son of God.

[Celsus' Jewish critic]: What need, moreover, was there that you, while still an infant, should be conveyed into Egypt? Was it to escape being murdered? But then it was not likely that a God should be afraid of death; and yet an angel came down from heaven, commanding you and your friends to flee, lest ye should be captured and put to death! And was not the great God, who had already sent two angels on your account, able to keep you, His only Son, there in safety?

Book 2

[Celsus' Jewish critic]: One who was a God could neither flee nor be led away a prisoner; and least of all could he be deserted and delivered up by those who had been his associates, and had shared all things in common, and had had him for their teacher, who was deemed to be a Saviour, and a son of the greatest God, and an angel.

[Celsus' Jewish critic]: If any one predicted to us that the Son of God was to visit mankind, he was one of our prophets, and the prophet of our God?

[Celsus' Jewish critic]: the Christians deemed Jesus to be the Son of God, because he healed the lame and the blind. and moreover, because, as they assert, he raised the dead.

[Celsus' Jewish critic]: If he wished to remain hid, why was there heard a voice from heaven proclaiming him to be the Son of God? And if he did not seek to remain concealed, why was he punished? or why did he die?

Book 4

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.

Is it not ridiculous to suppose that, whereas a man, who became angry with the Jews, slew them all from the youth upwards, and burned their city (so powerless were they to resist him), the mighty God, as they say, being angry, and indignant, and uttering threats, should, (instead of punishing them,) send His own Son, who endured the sufferings which He did?

In the next place, ridiculing after his usual style the race of Jews and Christians, he compares them all to a flight of bats or to a swarm of ants issuing out of their nest, or to frogs holding council in a marsh, or to worms crawling together in the comer of a dunghill, and quarreling with one another as to which of them were the greater sinners, and asserting that God shows and announces to us all things beforehand; and that, abandoning the whole world, and the regions of heaven, and this great earth, he becomes a citizen among us alone, and to us alone makes his intimations, and does not cease sending and inquiring, in what way we may be associated with him for ever. And in his fictitious representation, he compares us to worms which assert that there is a God, and that immediately after him, we who are made by him are altogether like unto God, and that all things have been made subject to us,--earth, and water, and air, and stars,--and that all things exist for our sake, and are ordained to be subject to us. And, according to his representation, the worms--that is, we ourselves--say that "now, since certain amongst us commit sin, God will come or will send his Son to consume the wicked with fire, that the rest of us may have eternal life with him. And to all this he subjoins the remark, that such wranglings would be more endurable amongst worms and frogs than betwixt Jews and Christians.

Book 5

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.

O Jews and Christians, no God or son of a God either came or will come down (to earth). But if you mean that certain angels did so, then what do you call them? Are they gods, or some other race of beings? Some other race of beings (doubtless), and in all probability demons.

Some of them will concede that their God is the same as that of the Jews, while others will maintain that he is a different one, to whom the latter is in opposition, and that it was from the former that the Son came. There is a third class who call certain persons "carnal," and others "spiritual" and there are some who give themselves out as Gnostics. There are some who accept Jesus, and who boast on that account of being Christians, and yet would regulate their lives, like the Jewish multitude, in accordance with the Jewish law.

Let us then pass over the refutations which might be adduced against the claims of their teacher, and let him be regarded as really an angel. But is he the first and only one who came (to men), or were there others before him? If they should say that he is the only one, they would be convicted of telling lies against themselves. For they assert that on many occasions others came, and sixty or seventy of them together, and that these became wicked, and were cast under the earth and punished with chains, and that from this source originate the warm springs, which are their tears; and, moreover, that there came an angel to the tomb of this said being--according to some, indeed, one, but according to others, two--who answered the women that he had arisen. For the Son of God could not himself, as it seems, open the tomb, but needed the help of another to roll away the stone. And again, on account of the pregnancy of Mary, there came an angel to the carpenter, and once more another angel, in order that they might take up the young Child and flee away (into Egypt). But what need is there to particularize everything, or to count up the number of angels said to have been sent to Moses, and others amongst them? If, then, others were sent, it is manifest that he also came from the same God. But he may be supposed to have the appearance of announcing something of greater importance (than those who preceded him), as if the Jews had been committing sin, or corrupting their religion, or doing deeds of impiety; for these things are obscurely hinted at.

Book 6

These things are stated much better among the Greeks (than in the Scriptures). and in a manner which is free from all exaggerations and promises on the part of God, or the Son of God.

You see how Plato, although maintaining that (the chief good) cannot be described, in words, yet, to avoid the appearance of retreating to an irrefutable position, subjoins a reason in explanation of this difficulty, as even 'nothing' might perhaps be explained in words. "Plato is not guilty of boasting and falsehood, giving out that he has made some new discovery, or that he has come down from heaven to announce it, but acknowledges whence these statements are derived. Accordingly, we do not say to each of our hearers, 'Believe, first of all, that He whom I introduce to thee is the Son of God although he was shamefully bound, and disgracefully punished, and very recently was most contumeliously treated before the eyes of all men. Believe it even the more (on that account)'."

Will they not besides make this reflection? If the prophets of the God of the Jews foretold that he who should come into the world would be the Son of this same God, how could he command them through Moses to gather wealth, to extend their dominion, to fill the earth, to put their enemies of every age to the sword, and to destroy them utterly, which indeed he himself did--as Moses says--threatening them, moreover, that if they did not obey his commands, he would treat them as his avowed enemies; whilst, on the other hand, his Son, the man of Nazareth, promulgated laws quite opposed to these, declaring that no one can come to the Father who loves power, or riches, or glory; that men ought not to be more careful in providing food than the ravens; that they were to be less concerned about their raiment than the lilies; that to him who has given them one blow, they should offer to receive another? Whether is it Moses or Jesus who teaches falsely? Did the Father, when he sent Jesus, forget the commands which he had given to Moses? Or did he change his mind, condemn his own laws, and send forth a messenger?

Certain most impious errors are committed by them, due to their extreme ignorance, in which they have wandered away from the meaning of the divine enigmas, creating an adversary to God, the devil, and naming him in the Hebrew tongue, Satan. Now, of a truth, such statements are altogether of mortal invention, and not even proper to be repeated, viz., that the mighty God, in His desire to confer good upon men, has yet one counterworking Him, and is helpless. The Son of God, it follows, is vanquished by the devil; and being punished by him, teaches us also to despise the punishments which he inflicts, telling us beforehand that Satan, after appearing to men as He Himself had done, will exhibit great and marvellous works, claiming for himself the glory of God, but that those who wish to keep him at a distance ought to pay no attention to these works of Satan, but to place their faith in Him alone. Such statements are manifestly the words of a deluder, planning and manoeuvring against those who are opposed to his views, and who rank themselves against them.

The Son of God is punished by the devil, and teaches us that we also, when punished by him, ought to endure it. Now these statements are altogether ridiculous. For it is the devil, I think, who ought rather to be punished, and those human beings who are calumniated by him ought not to be threatened with chastisement.

I can tell how the very thing occurred, viz., that they should call him 'Son of God.' Men of ancient times termed this world, as being born of God, both his child and his son. Both the one and other 'Son of God,' then, greatly resembled each other.

How could he, who was punished in such a manner, be shown to be God's Son, unless these things had been predicted of him?

Since a divine Spirit inhabited the body (of Jesus), it must certainly have been different From that of other beings, in respect of grandeur, or beauty, or strength, or voice, or impressiveness, or persuasiveness. For it is impossible that He, to whom was imparted some divine quality beyond other beings, should not differ from others; whereas this person did not differ in any respect from another, but was, as they report, little, and ill-favoured, and ignoble.

Since a divine Spirit inhabited the body (of Jesus), it must certainly have been different from that of other beings in respect of grandeur, or voice, or strength, or impressiveness, or persuasiveness.

Again, if God, like Jupiter in the comedy, should, on awaking from a lengthened slumber, desire to rescue the human race from evil, why did He send this Spirit of which you speak into one corner (of the earth)? He ought to have breathed it alike into many bodies, and have sent them out into all the world. Now the comic poet, to cause laughter in the theatre, wrote that Jupiter, after awakening, despatched Mercury to the Athenians and Lacedaemonians; but do not you think that you have made the Son of God more ridiculous in sending Him to the Jews?

Although knowing all things, He was not aware of this, that He was sending His Son amongst wicked men, who were both to be guilty of sin, and to inflict punishment upon Him.

Book 7

There are many who, although of no name, with the greatest facility and on the slightest occasion, whether within or without temples, assume the motions and gestures of inspired persons; while others do it in cities or among armies, for the purpose of attracting attention and exciting surprise. These are accustomed to say, each for himself, 'I am God; I am the Son of God; or, I am the Divine Spirit; I have come because the world is perishing, and you, O men, are perishing for your iniquities. But I wish to save you, and you shall see me returning again with heavenly power. Blessed is he who now does me homage. On all the rest I will send down eternal fire, both on cities and on countries. And those who know not the punishments which await. them shall repent and grieve in vain; while those who are faithful to me I will preserve eternally.'" Then he goes on to say: "To these promises are added strange, fanatical, and quite unintelligible words, of which no rational person can find the meaning: for so dark are they, as to have no meaning at all; but they give occasion to every fool or impostor to apply them to suit his own purposes.

If these things were predicted of the Most High God, are we bound to believe them of God simply because they were predicted?

Although the prophets may have foretold truly such things of the Son of God, yet it is impossible for us to believe in those prophecies declaring that He would do or suffer such things.

As the Son of God, who existed in a human body, is a Spirit, this very Son of God would not be immortal.

He next becomes confused in his statements, as if there were some of us who did not admit that God is a Spirit, but maintain that only with regard to His Son, and he thinks that he can answer us by saying that there is no kind of spirit which lasts for ever.

Book 8

If you should tell them that Jesus is not the Son of God, but that, God is the Father of all, and that He alone: ought to be truly worshipped, they would not consent to discontinue their worship of him who is their leader in the sedition. And they call him Son of God, not out of any extreme reverence for God, but from an extreme desire to extol Jesus Christ.

We must not disobey the ancient writer, who said long ago, 'Let one be king, whom the son of crafty Saturn appointed;. If you set aside this maxim, you will deservedly suffer for it at the hands of the king. For if all were to do the same as you, there would be nothing to prevent his being left in utter solitude and desertion, and the affairs of the earth would fall into the hands of the wildest and most lawless barbarians; and then there would no longer remain among men any of the glory of your religion or of the true wisdom.

Do you not see, good sir, that even your own demon is not only reviled, but banished from every land and sea, and you yourself, who are as it were an image dedicated to him, are bound and led to punishment, and fastened to the stake, whilst your demon--or, as you call him, 'the Son of God'--takes no vengeance on the evil-doer?

You mock and revile the statues of our gods; but if you had reviled Bacchus or Hercules in person, you would not perhaps have done so with impunity. But those who crucified your God when present among men, suffered nothing for it, either at the time or during the whole of their lives. And what new thing has there happened since then to make us believe that he was not an impostor, but the Son of God? And forsooth, he who sent his Son with certain instructions for mankind, allowed him to be thus cruelly treated, and his instructions to perish with him, without ever during all this long time showing the slightest concern. What father was ever so inhuman? Perhaps, indeed, you may say that he suffered so much, because it was his wish to bear what came to him. But it is open to those whom you maliciously revile, to adopt the same language, and say that they wish to be reviled, and therefore they bear it with patience; for it is best to deal equally with both sides,--although these (gods) severely punish the scorner, so that he must either flee and hide himself, or be taken and perish.

[Secret Alias]

It is interesting to note a few things about Celsus:

1. even the Jew (let's assume from a second century work) makes reference to the Christian identification of Jesus as 'Son of God.' It is of central significance for Christianity.

2. Celsus himself sees the Son of God as having central significance for Christianity

3. Celsus clearly has an orthodox Christian writer at his disposal to piece together the religion. Is this why there is such an emphasis on the Son of God?

4. Indeed it is very curious that Celsus isn't aware that Jews don't know a 'Son of God.' One would expect at least something about the lack of knowledge of this term among Jews unless of course - as I suspect - Celsus's whole source of information about Christianity comes from orthodox sources. Even the information about the Marcionites and other heresies.

[Secret Alias]

Some more notes from Celsus:

1. the Jew used a gospel where 'the Son of God' was born according to a virgin birth
2. used a gospel where "the great God, who had already sent two angels ... to keep you, His only Son, there in safety" (i.e. Egypt)
3. used a gospel which had the 'beloved Son' announcement at baptism
4. used a gospel which "deemed Jesus to be the Son of God, because he healed the lame and the blind. and moreover, because, as they assert, he raised the dead."
5. used a gospel which may have had another divine announcement from heaven of his sonship "If he wished to remain hid, why was there heard a voice from heaven proclaiming him to be the Son of God? And if he did not seek to remain concealed, why was he punished? or why did he die?"
6. had a gospel where the Jews challenged him "in the temple to exhibit some unmistakable sign that you were the Son of God."
7. MIGHT HAVE had a gospel where "the Son of God could not himself, as it seems, open the tomb, but needed the help of another to roll away the stone." [not from the section where Celsus cites the treatise of the Jew]
8. the Jew understood that "the Son of God was to visit mankind, he was one of our prophets, and the prophet of our God"
9. the Jew understands that that "my prophet once declared in Jerusalem, that the Son of God will come as the Judge of the righteous and the Punisher of the wicked." Origen seizes upon this anomaly saying - seemingly correctly - that a Jew would have used the term Christ which appears nowhere in Celsus's treatise interestingly. This understanding of a Jewish interest in the son of God pervades later parts of his work too written by his own hand "f the prophets of the God of the Jews foretold that he who should come into the world would be the Son of this same God" and then refers to Moses and the command to be fruitful and multiply etc.
10. the Jew expects Jesus as Son of God "to become a king, instead of ... wandering in a mean condition."

there is clearly a 'follow up section' which immediately follows the citation of what the Jew wrote where Celsus draws from the treatise to elucidate the differences between Jews and Christians on the 'Son of God':

11. "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" O Jews and Christians, no God or son of a God either came or will come down. But if you mean that certain angels did so, then what do you call them? Are they gods, or some other race of beings? Some other race of beings (doubtless), and in all probability demons.
12. Celsus says that the Christians "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."
13. the Christians say that "God will come or will send his Son to consume the wicked with fire, that the rest of us may have eternal life with him. And to all this he subjoins the remark, that such wranglings would be more endurable amongst worms and frogs than betwixt Jews and Christians." It is important to note that he does make a distinction between Christians who specifically identify 'God' and those who call Jesus 'the Son of God.' It is tempting to identify those who identify 'God' as Marcionites and 'Son of God' as orthodox or proto-orthodox (i.e. Justin).

[Secret Alias]

This might argue against the idea that the Marcionites understood Jesus merely as a generic 'god' (or 'God') and not the Son:

Some of them will concede that their God is the same as that of the Jews, while others will maintain that he is a different one, to whom the latter is in opposition, and that it was from the former that the Son came. There is a third class who call certain persons "carnal," and others "spiritual" and there are some who give themselves out as Gnostics. There are some who accept Jesus, and who boast on that account of being Christians, and yet would regulate their lives, like the Jewish multitude, in accordance with the Jewish law.

But this section clearly seems to derive from some heresiological work like Irenaeus. So it is difficult to believe that any of this has any applicability to the question of what the Marcionites believed. Again, I don't think that Celsus can be used to provide independent information about the Marcionites.

That there were some Christians who did not specifically identify Jesus as the 'Son of God' is evidence from other sections of Celsus's work. For instance when discussing the similarities with Plato's doctrine he declares that Plato taught the same things "in a manner which is free from all exaggerations and promises on the part of God, or the Son of God." The explanation for the term 'Son of God' arising from Greek sources I can tell how the very thing occurred, viz., that they should call him 'Son of God.' Men of ancient times termed this world, as being born of God, both his child and his son. Both the one and other 'Son of God,' then, greatly resembled each other." This is derived from Philo whom Celsus must have read - https://books.google.com/books?id=xREzA ... lo&f=false

[iskander]

No case needs to be made for Jesus being the son of a previously unkown god....how would you even make it? There's no prior revelation to base it on, so you just assert it, or prove it by doing miracles (i.e. it can only be proven in person not in writing, why Paul talks about the kingdom of God not being in word but in power 1 Cor 4:20). Once you change him to the son of the OT god you have to offer some proof from the OT, so prophecies twisted out of context are offered, and the fact that no son of god was announced as coming in the OT is ignored and prophecies about births like Isa 7 snd Micah 5 are pretended to be meet the case.

The title of son of god is Biblical and Moses is an ordinary man like Jesus. Nothing was needed to make them a little less common than other sons of god.

He doesn't say he said Moses was a god

You can understand or explain a situation where a man is greater than a god without accepting that the man was also divine? I don't think you've actually thought through your position. The Jews and Samaritans always viewed Moses as being divine or divinized. I've consistently provided the earliest references to this (Philo, Marqe). For some reason you can't process complex reasoned thought. I would suggest that it is owing to a basic cognitive difficulty on your part. The Jews on the one hand accept that Moses was a human being but at the same time he was a 'man God' and so he is called 'man of God' by Jews and Samaritans from the beginning - a divine man. Why is this? Because Deuteronomy 33:1 explicitly calls him this! אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים. But people who don't read or understand Hebrew have no idea what the range of meaning of this terminology is relying instead upon an English translation. So it is that Marqe makes reference to Moses's physical nature having become divinized after his encounter with God on Sinai and Philo hints at it. You just don't know enough to pretend you have authority on Biblical matters. You need to read more and improve your cognitive abilities to allow you to understand what you read.

in
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3035&p=67657&hilit=moses#p67657

[Secret Alias]

It is curious that Celsus cannot find an explanation of the 'Son of God' figure from the sources available to him. It is true he certainly uses orthodox Christian sources - and probably Justin and Irenaeus. But it is certainly true that he cannot find any trace of an explanation or origin of the terminology in their writings. His reaching back to Philo is very interesting so too is the unnamed 'Jew' whom he uses to ridicule Christianity. Could Philo have been the unnamed Jew who accepts the figure of the 'Son of God' as part of the Jewish prophetic expectation? It is interesting to note that not only is the 'Son of God' the world but also the Logos is so described. Buried in the account of the Carpocratians or Cerinthians (I forget which exactly right now) there is the notion that Jesus had a 'perfect soul' which resembled the world. I will have to look this up. But it might be the critical link.

[Secret Alias]

It is shocking to realize (I had no idea previous to this thread) that Celsus never once uses the title 'Christ.' He doesn't have a clue that this has anything to do with Jesus. This is a most surprising discovery. How can it be explained? As Origen notes "A Jew, however, would not admit that any prophet used the expression, The 'Son of God' will come; for the term which they employ is, The 'Christ of God?' will come."

[Secret Alias]

It would be interesting to find out which Church Father has the lowest frequency of appearances of 'Christ' in his writings. My guess is Clement of Alexandria. For example there are only 7 references to 'Christ' in Book Two of the Stromata and at least a few of them are clearly to 'Chrest(os') not Christ(os):

Now those who have believed in Christ both are and are called Chrestoi (good), as those who are cared for by the true king are kingly. For as the wise are wise by their wisdom, and those observant of law are so by the law; so also those who belong to Christ the King are kings, and those that are Christ's Christians.

There are 20 overt references to Christ in Book 1:

3 of them are to the compound 'Christ Jesus' (scriptural citation)
2 of them are to the compound 'Jesus Christ' (scriptural citation)
13 in total are scriptural citations

It's a very rare term in Clement. There must be a relationship. Could Celsus have been getting his information from Alexandrian Christianity?

[Peter Kirby]

fwiw, a reminder:

http://peterkirby.com/a-table-of-christ ... itles.html

These texts have no term "Christ" in them:

Dialogue of the Savior
Gospel of Mary
Second Apocalypse of James
First Apocalypse of James
On the Eighth and Ninth
Eugnostos the Blessed
Athenagoras of Athens
Epistle to Diognetus
Shepherd of Hermas
Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs
Tatian’s Address to the Greeks
Theophilus of Antioch
3 John
Authoritative Teaching
Coptic Apocalypse of Paul

I've done no survey of relative frequency.

[iskander]

Saviour is good.