Celsus was the first important critic against with whom Christians had to contend .

He questioned not only their meetings, but also their beliefs.This is from Newadvent.org. Books against Celsus

This one from ccel.org Another link on Celsus

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 14, 2004

Answers

Celsus first point is that Christians of his days practiced healing by using witchcraft. From Book I ch. 6 After this, through the influence of some motive which is unknown to me, Celsus asserts that it is by the names of certain demons, and by the use of incantations, that the Christians appear to be possessed of (miraculous) power; hinting, I suppose, at the practices of those who expel evil spirits by incantations. And here he manifestly appears to malign the Gospel. For it is not by incantations that Christians seem to prevail (over evil spirits), but by the name of Jesus

In my opinion, this shows that Christians have used miracles as a source of conversion. That is no different than having Benny Hinn,...and others do the same today. In the Catholic sphere: Mary's apparitions at Lourdes, Fatima,....bring miraculous cures to those who visit.

In my own experience with Yahweh our God, I have found that not everyone gets their request. Neither does everyone get their wish granted. Such situation happened to our own apostle Paul. See II Corithians

From Blue Bible: 2Cr 12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

This shows Paul either suffered from an open wound that did not heal like a fistula (there are quite a few of them), or a painful dislocation of bones. For this, he did not even get a cure from God Yahweh. Yet, Yahweh protected Paul from death many times.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 14, 2004.

Celsus did not believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus.I believe he came into this conclusion by the different accounts there are over the resurrection.

And besides this, one may well wonder how it happened that the disciples--if, as the calumniators of Jesus say, they did not see Him after His resurrection from the dead, and were not persuaded of His divinity--were not afraid to endure the same sufferings with their Master, and to expose themselves to danger, and to leave their native country to teach, according to the desire of Jesus, the doctrine delivered to them by Him

I am of the opinion that Jesus appeared to his disciples in dreams. Jesus is mentioned as going inside a house where the disciples are across the wall, it seems, since the doors are closed.Even the apostle Paul never mentioned seeing Jesus physically. So in most likelihood , Jesu di not rise up physically in front of his disciples. This does not negate the fact that Yahweh was pleased for his testimony that he exalted Jesus above many others.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 14, 2004.

In Chapter XXXII, Celsus makes the accusation that Jesus was a bastard, the son of a Roman Soldier named Panthera.

But let us now return to where the Jew is introduced, speaking of the mother of Jesus, and saying that "when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera;" and let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera.

I am of the opinion that Celsus confused Panthera with Parthenos (virgin).Though Panthera was a name among Roman soldiers. There is a tomb of one a Roman general ,who lived in Syria, in Germany called Panthera who lived in the first century!!!!

I do agree with Paul (Roman 1:3) that Jesus is truly descended from David in the flesh. That is. Jesus is truly the son of Joseph and Mary thriough sexual intercourse.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 14, 2004.

Even by the end of the second century, controversy on the meaning of Almah as parthenos(virgin in Greek) was already on.Jews as mentioned by Celsus believed it meant young woman(neannis) in Greek.

Here Origin quotes Isaiah. An like many others,Origin forgets that the sign is for Ahaz, who lived around 740-725 BC and not Jesus generation.

And the Lord spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the RD thy God; ask it either in the depth or in the height above But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign. Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel, which is, being interpreted, God with us." And that it was from intentional malice that Celsus did not quote this prophecy, is clear to me from this, that although he makes numerous quotations from the Gospel according to Matthew, as of the star that appeared at the birth of Christ, and other miraculous occurrences, he has made no mention at all of this. Now, if a Jew should split words, and say that the words are not, "Lo, a virgin," but, "Lo, a young woman,"

I am of the opinion that here he was right. The prophecy does not apply to Jesus but to hezekiah, the son of Ahaz. He lived as a faithful King for many years.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 14, 2004.

Elpidio,

The rest of the text clarifies Origen's position on Isaiah and the "virgin". I believe Origen considers your points.

...Now, if a Jew should split words, and say that the words are not, "Lo, a virgin," but, "Lo, a young woman," we reply that the word "Olmah"--which the Septuagint have rendered by "a virgin," and others by "a young woman"--occurs, as they say, in Deuteronomy, as applied to a "virgin," in the following connection: "If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he humbled his neighbour's wife." And again: "But if a man find a betrothed damsel in a field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: but unto the damsel ye shall do nothing; there is in her no sin worthy of death."

CHAP. XXXV.

But that we may not seem, because of a Hebrew word, to endeavour to persuade those who are unable to determine whether they ought to believe it or not, that the prophet spoke of this man being born of a virgin, because at his birth these words, "God with us," were uttered, let us make good our point from the words themselves. The Lord is related to have spoken to Ahaz thus: "Ask a sign for thyself from the LORD thy God, either in the depth or height above; " and afterwards the sign is given, Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son." What kind of sign, then, would that have been--a young woman who was not a virgin giving birth to a child? And which of the two is the more appropriate as the mother of Immanuel (i.e., "God with us"),--whether a woman who has had intercourse with a man, and who has conceived after the manner of women, or one who is still a pure and holy virgin? Surely it is appropriate only to the latter to produce a being at whose birth it is said, "God with us." And should he be so captious as to say that it is to Ahaz that the command is addressed, "Ask for thyself a sign from the LORD thy God," we shall ask in return, who in the times of Ahaz bore a son at whose birth the expression is made use of, "Immanuel," i.e., "God with us?" And if no one can be found, then manifestly what was said to Ahaz was said to the house of David, because it is written that the Saviour was born of the house of David according to the flesh; and this sign is said to be "in the depth or in the height," since "He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill all things." And these arguments I employ as against a Jew who believes in prophecy. Let Celsus now tell me, or any of those who think with him, with what meaning the prophet utters either these statements about the future, or the others which are contained in the prophecies? Is it with any foresight of the future or not? If with a foresight of the future, then the prophets were divinely inspired; if with no foresight of the future, let him explain the meaning of one who speaks thus boldly regarding the future, and who is an object of admiration among the Jews because of his prophetic powers. - from Book I of Origen Contra Celsus, Chs. 34-35.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 16, 2004.