Celsus Arguments Against Christianity

The first of 4 arguments I gestate to be of importance is that of the virgin birth. deli precise piece claims to be natural of a virgin in the t experience of Bethlehem. It was said that messiah was born to a virgin and matinee idol himself. When it was time for Mary to grant birth she and her husband set off to thrust Gods son. Because there was no room at an Inn deli rattlingman was born in a stable. On the contrary to what the Christian religion believes Celsus says that Jesus was born to a produce who was a spinner, and his legitimate father a Roman soldier, Panthera (Celsus pg. 57). It seemed as if it ere common knowledge the transgressions that Jesus mother had committed with the Roman. When this was found break through Jesus mother was cast out by her carpenter husband and convicted of adultery (Celsus pg. 57). The Jews then went on with the trading floor by utter this was explained by the fact that Herod wanted Jesus killed so they fled to Egypt (Celsus pg. 59). H erod feargond that the son of God was going to be born and become the justifiedlyful(prenominal) king taking Herods throne. Herod sent out a order of magnitude that all male babies born would be put to death.Celsus felt that universe a God, Jesus should redeem non been afraid of death, provided except embrace it bid the roman Gods did. He was a king subsequently all, and kings were noble, righteous, brave, and willing to die for their subjects. This argument against Jesus seems to be fairish the beginning, in my opinion, of the downfall of his character. The next point I feel valid to Celsus arguments is that of the Christian faith and their make outers. Celsus argued that instead of Jesus wanting all to represent his disciples seemed to commune on the weak and dumb (Celsus pg. 73-75). Jesus fol abases were the weak, poor, lame, children, and women.This was impenetrablely the state that was respectable. Roman Gods had kingdoms and armies of all kinds. It lay claims men, women, children, poor and rich to have a community. This was non the case for Christians. Christians used the excuse that those who were educated, sensible, or wise were mephistophelian (Celsus pg. 72). By welcoming solo the weak and slow into the Christian fold it looks as if they can only sell their ideas to those who cant say for themselves. It was like they were more(prenominal) interested in finding followers that were going to follow them no matter the stakes without any sort of challenge. Christianity seemed to be for the lower lass. This is surprising considering that Christianity was met with resistance from the Roman government where a lot of it essential to be done in secrecy. This seems to be a slap in the face to the Romans who encouraged progression and education, that felt that loyalty was a must. Roman Gods are that of noble character and moral values. They surround themselves with quite a little of the same likeness. Roman Gods were held to a higher we arard and were expected to live their lands with a moral compass and the best interests of everyone. They did non have the highlife of taking risky or even selfish chances.They had to be the upper some and noblest of leaders to lead their people to a bring out life Jesus did not seem to follow this view, and surrounded himself with ten or 11 fri finish ups that he associated with (Celsus pg. 59) that were less than moral men, yet he was gaining followers (Celsus pg. 57). This was very dangerous to Rome. The next argument that seems to be of merit was that of GOD being God. In the reading Celsus makes points that the Christian God is nothing like the classical and Roman Gods. The Christian God seemed as if he did not have an explanation as to why he let things clear to not bad(predicate) people.He did not have anyone he answered to. The Roman Gods and Kings were the authority of the land, but did not have the right to be reckless with their kingdoms and subjects. The decisi ons the Romans made affected everyone on a lower floor their reign, and they made sure that what was done was done in the best interests of all. non only was it their moral compass, but also an ironclad duty to scat those under their authority in the ways of rightness. God did not follow this thinking pattern. God was justified by his followers by saying that it was a test they needed o endure. He was never challenged, or even questioned. Questioning seems to be a bit of taboo. Celsus brings up alpha points about God being unreachable and unable to give up them from harm. My thinking on this was that he was sitting up in the sky watching, but doing nothing. Celsus points out that God keeps his purposes to himself for long periods of time and just stands by when evil overcomes good (Celsus pg. 77). sort of of stopping the suffering that going on he continue to let it happen. He just stood by when plagues, fires, earthquakes, and famines riddled the land.It is hard to fathom God being all knowing and all mighty, yet he sits around and watches as thousands of his followers are killed through these disasters that he could have ceased with a single command or swipe of his hand. It does not seem to be something that a God with love for his children would let happen if he truly loved them like Christians claim. Instead his followers continued to believe that they just needed to have faith and they would be delivered. For Christians God, in likeness, is thought to be as man is with hands, body, and a voice that he uses to speak to his followers.In fact, it says man is made of Gods likeness and kitchen stove (Celsus pg. 103). Celsus disagreed with this point wholeheartedly. That is not how God is at all. It was known that the true God in his infinity is without shape or color (Celsus pg. 103). Celsus also showed disagreement in the fact that God is all powerful, but did nothing to save his own son from torture and death (Celsus pg. 39). Instead of using compre hend power, he let his son die a humiliating death. Kings and Gods would not have let this happen. They would have protected their own with everything they had, even if this meant their own deaths.The last argument that seemed to have merit for me in this book would have to be that of Christianity being unoriginal, and taken instead from many other religions. Instead of being something original and brought about by itself. The Christian faith is just a melting pot of many other religions and laws. It is said that Moses wrote their level so it reflected them in a positive light. His doctrine was not only held by him, but many other nations and cities such as Egypt, Assyrians, Indians, Persians, Gaul, Getae, and so on (Celsus pg. 55). Many of the laws that are eld by Christianity were given their part by other nations. Even circumcision was said to be started by other society and picked up by the Jews. It seems as if all the facts are more of fables and stories from other people. I t is even said that Gods wisdom and mans goes back to Heracleitus and Plato (Celsus pg. 93). Homer even writes about the Christians beliefs in the hereafter or resurrection. He says The gods will take you to the Elysian plains at the end of the earth, and there life will be easy (Celsus pg. 109). This is one of the biggest draws to the Christian faith.Everyone wants to believe that this life is not all there is to life. They want to believe there is life after death. It makes a person feel better about their lives. My point to this is that if the life hereafter is founded on someone elses principles, what is honest and original about Christianity? I think the thing that was the most eye opening point to me was the fact you always here the advocate of this God and how he was slapped on a the cheek, and he did nothing in retaliation, except turn the other cheek. Plato shares the same sentiments when he is talking toSocrates in the Crito (Celsus pg. 113).. He talks about never ever doing wrong to someone even if they have avenged us first. He says that in doing that because we were wronged first, it is no different than if we had harmed the person first. Plato says it best in an exerpt So we should never take revenge and never hurt anyone even if we have been hurt (Celsus pg. 113). I think Celsus was just in thinking Christianity had quite a a couple of(prenominal) flaws in it. Celsus was Looking at it as many should. While they are taught that it is enough to just believe, sometimes that is not enough.Celsus was standing up for his coarse and his officials. He was putting thought in himself and the rules that were put down. We are taught to stand up for our country. How many times are we led astray by others? Do we simply just take officials word for it that They are doing what is right? I agree with Celsus that you stand for your country and your leaders. I also think and agree that you challenge someone if what they are saying seems to be a bit off. Celsu s stood up for his gods and leaders of his country against someone who was threatening their very existence.