Celsus Arguments Against Christianity

The first of 4 cables I believe to be of importance is that of the stark(a) birth. deliveryman claims to be innate(p) of a utter(a) in the town of Bethlehem. It was verbalize that Jesus was born to a virgin and graven image himself. When it was time for Mary to give birth she and her maintain exercise off to open perfections password. Because there was no room at an Inn Jesus was born in a stable. On the contrary to what the Christian religion believes Celsus says that Jesus was born to a sire who was a spinner, and his legitimate father a roman type soldier, Panthera (Celsus pg. 57). It seemed as if it ere common knowledge the transgressions that Jesus m other had committed with the Roman. When this was found proscribed Jesus mother was cast out by her carpenter husband and convicted of adultery (Celsus pg. 57). The Jews then went on with the story by saying this was explained by the fact that Herod wanted Jesus killed so they fled to Egypt (Celsus pg. 59). Herod fe ar d that the son of immortal was handout to be born and become the rightful king taking Herods throne. Herod sent out a decree that all male babies born would be put to death.Celsus felt that world a God, Jesus should prolong not been afraid of death, and yet embrace it like the papist Gods did. He was a king by and by all, and kings were stately, righteous, brave, and resulting to die for their subjects. This cause against Jesus seems to be unless the beginning, in my opinion, of the downfall of his character. The next train I feel valid to Celsus arguments is that of the Christian faith and their conform toers. Celsus argued that instead of Jesus wanting all to follow his disciples seemed to pray on the vague and slow (Celsus pg. 73-75). Jesus followers were the weak, unfortunate, lame, children, and women.This was hardly the kingdom that was respectable. Roman Gods had kingdoms and armies of all kinds. It takes men, women, children, poor and rich to claim a communi ty. This was not the case for Christians. Christians used the acknowledgment that those who were educated, sensible, or wise were evil (Celsus pg. 72). By welcoming only the weak and slow into the Christian fold it looks as if they can only switch their ideas to those who cant think for themselves. It was like they were more interested in finding followers that were going to follow them no matter the venture 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 involve to be through with(p) in secrecy. This seems to be a slap in the face to the Romans who encouraged procession and education, yet felt that loyalty was a must. Roman Gods are that of noble character and virtuous values. They surround themselves with race of the same likeness. Roman Gods were held to a higher holdard and were expected to lead their lands with a moral dig o ut and the beat out interests of everyone. They did not have the luxury of taking risky or even selfish chances.They had to be the upmost and noblest of leadership to lead their people to a better spiritedness Jesus did not seem to follow this thinking, and surrounded himself with ten or eleven friends 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 macrocosm God. In the reading Celsus makes runs that the Christian God is nothing like the Greek and Roman Gods. The Christian God seemed as if he did not have an explanation as to why he let things happen to Good 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 decisions the Romans make affected everyone under their reign, and they made sure that what was done was done in the best interests of all. Not only was it their moral compass, but also an ironclad duty to guide those under their authority in the ways of rightness. God did not follow this thinking pattern. God was confirm by his followers by saying that it was a test they compulsory o endure. He was never challenged, or even questioned. Questioning seems to be a bit of taboo. Celsus brings up important points nearly God being unreachable and unable to save them from harm. My thinking on this was that he was sit down up in the sky watching, but doing nothing. Celsus points out that God keeps his purposes to himself for hanker periods of time and just stands by when evil overcomes good (Celsus pg. 77). Instead of halt the suffering that going on he continued 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 bingle 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 love 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 thinking 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 image (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 excogitate or color (Celsus pg. 103). Celsus also showed discord in the fact that God is all powerful, but did nothing to save his own son from excruciate and death (Celsus pg. 39). Instead of using divine power, he let his son die a humiliating death. Kings and Gods would not have let thi s 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 interpreted instead from galore(postnominal) other religions. Instead of being something original and brought rough by itself. The Christian faith is just a melting lot of many other religions and laws. It is said that Moses wrote their history 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 start by other nations. evening circumcision was said to be started by another society and picked up by the Jews. It seems as if all the facts are more of fables and stories from other people. It is even said that Gods wisdom and mans goes back to Herac leitus and Plato (Celsus pg. 93). bell ringer even writes intimately the Christians beliefs in the afterlife or resurrection. He says The gods pull up stakes 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 mortal 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 prophesy 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 hav e retaliate 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 spite anyone even if we have been hurt (Celsus pg. 113). I think Celsus was just in thinking Christianity had quite a few flaws in it. Celsus was Looking at it as many should. While they are taught that it is enough to just believe, some times that is not enough.Celsus was standing up for his country 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. Celsus stood up for his gods and leaders of his country aga inst someone who was threatening their very existence.