Front Matter

Against Celsus

Contra Celsum

Origenes

APPIAN WAY PRESS

AGAINST CELSUS CONTRA CELSUM

Copyright 2025 by Rick Brannan. Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

License details: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

Cover Design by Eli Evans

Published by Appian Way Press

Web: https://AppianWayPress.com

Email: info@AppianWayPress.com

About This Translation

This translation was created on 2024-12-30 using the model gpt-4o-mini from OpenAI. To ensure the translation is communicating the same meaning as the original, a sentence-level semantic similarity check was performed between the source text and translation using bowphs/SPhilBerta, available from HuggingFace. In addition to the sentence-level semantic similarity check, the text-to-translation length ratio was evaluated for each verse to locate and review possible hallucination.

Disclaimer

Please note, as indicated above, that this translation is a machine-generated translation. There are several older works, like Origenes's Contra Celsum, that are either not available in English or only available in old and difficult to read translations. This translation is an attempt to provide a readable and fairly literal modern English translation of the source text. The process that created this translation has done its best to mitigate hallucinations, but there may still be translation issues.

About the Source

Translated from: Origenes, Origenes Werke. J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung:Leipzig, 1899.

The source edition of Contra Celsum was retrieved from the Github repository First1KGreek.

For more information: First1KGreek. The Greek edition this translation uses as its source text is available as well.

Introduction.

Introduction, Section 1

The savior and lord of us, Jesus Christ, when falsely accused, remained silent, and when questioned, he did not answer anything. He believed that all his life and the deeds he did among the Jews were greater than the false testimony and the words defending against the accusations. But you, dear Ambrose, I do not know how you decided to defend us against the false testimony of Celsus against Christians and the faith of the churches in a book of accusations. Since there was no clear proof in the matters and no stronger argument than all the writings that could dismiss the false testimonies and give no chance for the accusations to stand. About Jesus, that he remained silent when falsely accused, it is enough to refer to Matthew; for Mark wrote similar things. The wording of Matthew goes like this: "But the high priest and the council sought false testimony against Jesus so that they might put him to death, and they did not find it, even though many came forward as false witnesses. Later, two came forward and said, 'This man said, I can destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.' And the high priest stood up and said to him, 'Do you not answer? What are these men testifying against you?' But Jesus remained silent." And also, that he did not answer when accused, it is written: "But Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, saying, 'Are you the king of the Jews?' Jesus said to him, 'You say so.' And when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he did not answer anything. Then Pilate said to him, 'Do you not hear how many things they testify against you?' And he did not answer him, not even a word, so that the governor was greatly amazed."

Introduction, Section 2

And indeed, it was worthy of amazement. It was fitting for those who think moderately to see the accused and falsely accused one, who could defend himself and show that he was not guilty of any crime, to speak about the goodness of his life and the powers that came from God, so that the judge might have a better way to decide about him. But he did not do this; instead, he despised it and greatly surpassed the accusers. If he had defended himself, the judge would have released him without hesitation, as is clear from what is written about him, where it says, "What do you want me to release for you, Barabbas or Jesus who is called Christ?" And it is stated that "he knew that they had handed him over out of envy." Therefore, Jesus is always falsely accused, and there is never a time when he is not accused of some evil by people. And he himself remains silent about these things now and does not answer with words, but he defends himself through the lives of his true disciples, who cry out the differences and prove that he is greater than all false testimonies, refuting and overturning the false testimonies and accusations.

Introduction, Section 3

I dare to say that the love of God, which you think we should defend, hides the true defense in the matters and the clear power of Jesus to those who are not insensitive. However, so that we do not seem to hesitate in response to what you have commanded, we have tried to argue according to the present power against each of the points written by Celsus, showing that none of his words can shake the faith of the believers. And let it not be found that someone has taken such a love of God "in Christ Jesus" that it could be shaken by the words of Celsus or anyone similar. Paul, however, speaks many things to separate the usual from "the love of Christ" and "the love of God in Christ Jesus," of which the love in him was greater than all. He did not place a word among those that separate. For he says earlier, "Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written, 'For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.' But in all these things, we are more than conquerors through him who loved us." Then he presents another group of those who are rooted in godliness, saying, "For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor rulers, neither present nor future things, neither powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in creation will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Introduction, Section 4

And truly, it is worthy for us to take pride in suffering that does not separate us from the following things, not Paul and the apostles. And if anyone has become similar to them, it is because he is far above such things, saying, "In all these things, we are more than conquerors through him who loved us," which is greater than just winning. But if the apostles should take pride, they would not be separated "from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord," and they would take pride in saying, "For neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor anything else can separate them from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Therefore, I do not agree with the believer in Christ that his faith could be shaken by Celsus, who lives a life no more common than that of a dead person, or by any persuasive words. I do not know in what way one should consider the need for words against the accusations of Celsus written in books about Christians. Restoring him from the shaking of faith to stand firm in it. However, since among the many who believe there might be some who are shaken and turned by the writings of Celsus but healed by the defense against them, if it has some character that can destroy Celsus and represent the truth, we thought it best to obey your command and argue about what you sent us in writing; which I do not think any of those who have made some progress in philosophy would agree is true, as Celsus has written.

Introduction, Section 5

So Paul, seeing that there are many things in Greek philosophy that are not easily dismissed by most people, presents falsehood as truth. He says about these things, "See that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit according to human tradition, according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ." And noticing some great size appearing in the words of worldly wisdom, he said that the words of philosophers are "according to the elements of the world." But no one with understanding would say that the writings of Celsus are "according to the elements of the world." Those writings have something deceptive and empty in them, perhaps in contrast to some non-empty deceit. Jeremiah, having seen this, dared to say to God, "You deceived me, Lord, and I was deceived; you overpowered me and prevailed." But it seems to me that the writings of Celsus have no deceit at all, nor do they have the emptiness that the writings of heresies in philosophy possess, which do not take into account those who truly understand. Just as no one would say that the falsehoods in geometric proofs are written by chance or even recorded for the sake of gymnastic exercises, so it should be similar for the thoughts of those who are rooted in philosophy to also be called empty deceit and "human tradition, according to the elements of the world."

Book One

This introduction, after stating everything up to the personification of Jesus in the writings of Celsus the Jew, seemed to us to be a good place to begin. This way, the reader of what has been dictated to us about Celsus can see that this book is not written for the faithful but rather for those who are completely unfamiliar with the faith in Christ or for those who, as the apostle named them, are weak in "the faith." He said this: "Welcome the one who is weak in faith." But let me explain the introduction, that we have presented the beginning of our response to Celsus in one way and the following parts in another. For earlier we aimed to summarize the main points and briefly mention what is said about them, and then after that to elaborate on the argument. Later, since we were short on time, we decided to stick to what has been dictated in the beginning and to argue as best we can in writing against the accusations of Celsus. Therefore, we ask for your forgiveness for the beginning of what comes after the introduction. If you are not moved and are not easily swayed by what follows, I ask for the same forgiveness for those points. If you still wish to find solutions to the arguments of Celsus through our writings, you can turn to those who are more knowledgeable and capable of addressing the accusations of Celsus through words and books. However, it is better for someone not to ask for the beginning, even if they encounter Celsus's writings, to respond to them, but instead to despise everything in his book as if it were also dismissed by a random believer in Christ because of the spirit in him.

Book 1, Section 1

First, Celsus wants to attack Christianity by saying that Christians secretly make agreements with each other against the established laws. He claims that some agreements are open and made according to the law, while others are hidden and happen outside the law. He also wants to criticize the so-called love of Christians for one another, saying it is based on a common danger and is a strong bond. Since he speaks about the common law when he mentions the agreements of Christians, it should be noted that just as someone among the Scythians, who have unlawful customs, would be forced to leave without having time to live among them, this person would rightly see the law of truth as a violation of the Scythian customs and would make agreements with those who think the same way as him against what is customary among them. In the same way, the laws of the nations regarding idols and their atheistic polytheism are the laws of the Scythians, and if there are any Scythians who are more impious. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to make agreements against what is customary for the sake of truth. Just as if someone secretly made agreements to overthrow a tyrant in the city, they would be doing well; in the same way, Christians, under the tyranny of what they call the devil and falsehood, make agreements outside the established laws against the devil and for the salvation of others, whom they might persuade to turn away from the laws of the Scythians and the tyrant.

Book 1, Section 2

Next, he says that the doctrine is barbaric, clearly referring to Judaism, from which Christianity is derived. He does not blame the doctrine for its barbaric origins, praising the barbarians for being able to find doctrines. He adds that the Greeks are better at judging, confirming, and practicing virtue than those doctrines found among the barbarians. Therefore, it is our task to respond to what he says about the truths in Christianity, showing that someone coming from Greek doctrines and training would not only judge them as true but also could strengthen and complete what seems lacking in Greek proof, thus supporting the truth of Christianity. It should also be noted that there is a special proof of the doctrine, which is more divine than the Greek dialectical proof. This greater proof is called by the apostle "proof of spirit and power." The "spirit" refers to the prophecies that strongly confirm what is said about Christ, and "power" refers to the great miracles that have occurred, which can still be seen by those living according to the will of the doctrine.

Book 1, Section 3

After this, he talks about Christians who secretly do and teach what pleases them, saying that they do this not in vain, since they are avoiding the death penalty. He compares their danger to the risks faced by philosophers like Socrates. He could also mention Pythagoras and other philosophers. It should be noted that the Athenians quickly changed their minds about Socrates, and they held no bitterness against him, nor did they against Pythagoras. In fact, the Pythagoreans established more schools in Italy, which was called Great Greece. However, against Christians, the Roman Senate, the kings at the time, the military, the people, and the relatives of believers all waged war against them. They would have defeated him under such great attacks if not for divine power that overcame and surpassed them, as if to conquer the whole world that was plotting against him.

Book 1, Section 4

Let us see how he thinks to attack the moral teachings by saying they are common and not serious or new compared to other philosophers. It should be noted that those who bring a fair judgment of God would be closed off from the punishment for those who sin, since not everyone has a healthy understanding of the moral teachings according to common ideas. Therefore, it is not surprising that the same God, who taught through the prophets and the Savior, has connected with the souls of all people. This is so that every person may be without excuse in divine judgment, having the "law written" in their own heart. This is what the word hints at, which the Greeks think is a myth, saying that God wrote the commandments with his own "finger" and gave them to Moses, which "evil" has broken, as if to say, the flood of sin has overwhelmed them. Then, God wrote again, as if he were shaping stones, giving a second set of letters to Moses, like the prophetic word preparing the soul after the first sin with the second letters of God.

Book 1, Section 5

About idolatry, he argues that people should not think of them as handmade gods, since it is unreasonable for the worst creators and wicked people to make gods. Many times, these idols are made by unjust humans. Therefore, he wants to share that this idea is not new, as it was expressed by Heraclitus, who said, "It is like someone who would treat lifeless things as gods." So, it should also be noted that similar moral ideas have been planted in people's minds, from which both Heraclitus and others, whether Greeks or barbarians, have thought to create. The Persians also share this view, as Herodotus tells us. We should also add that Zeno of Citium says in his Republic, "There is no need to build sacred places; for nothing should be considered sacred or worthy of great value, as it is the work of builders and craftsmen." It is clear, then, that this teaching is written "in the hearts" of people as the letters of God show what should be done.

Book 1, Section 6

After this, I do not know where Celsus gets the idea that Christians are strong because of the names and powers of certain demons, as I think he is hinting at the demons that oppress and drive people away. It seems he is clearly slandering the truth. For they do not think they are strong because of demons, but because of the name of Jesus along with the accounts of his stories. For these things often cause demons to separate from people. Especially when those who speak from a healthy disposition and genuine faith say them, the name of Jesus has such power against demons, that even when spoken by the most worthless, it can drive them away. This is what Jesus taught when he said, "Many will say to me on that day, 'In your name we cast out demons and performed miracles.'" I do not know whether Celsus is willingly lying or if he does not understand. He also accuses the Savior of having performed strange things through magic and foreseeing that others would do the same things, boasting that they can do this by the power of God, whom Jesus drives away from his own community. He accuses him that if he rightly drives them away, he himself is guilty of the same things; but if he is not guilty for doing these things, then neither are those who do the same as him. On the other hand, even if it seems unanswerable what is about Jesus, it is clear that Christians do not use any spells but rely on the name of Jesus and other words believed according to the divine scriptures.

Book 1, Section 7

Then, since he often calls the doctrine secret, he should be corrected on this point, as the preaching of Christians is known more widely than what pleases philosophers. For who is unaware of the virgin birth of Jesus, the crucified one, and his resurrection, which many believe, and the judgment that punishes sinners and rewards the righteous? But even the mystery of the resurrection is mocked by the unbelievers. Therefore, to say that the doctrine is secret is completely unreasonable; the idea of something being hidden from the many is not unique to Christian teachings but also applies to philosophers, among whom some had external teachings while others had internal ones. Some, like Pythagoras, said, "He himself said," while others taught in secret, keeping things unworthy from reaching the ears of the unclean and still unpurified. All the mysteries found everywhere in Greece and among the barbarians that are secret have not been discredited. Therefore, it is pointless to falsely accuse Christianity of being secret without understanding it accurately.

Book 1, Section 8

It seems that he harshly gathers those who witness to Christianity even to death, saying that one should not abandon the good doctrine if it puts one at risk among people, nor should one pretend to have left it or become indifferent. He accuses those who claim to think about Christianity but do not truly believe or deny it, saying that one should not pretend to have left the doctrine or become indifferent to it. Therefore, Celsus should be corrected for saying things that contradict himself. For he is found to be Epicurean in other writings; here, however, he seems to think it better to accuse the doctrine without admitting the teachings of Epicurus. He claims that it is better for a human to be related to God and says that those who are well off, meaning the soul, always desires what is related to it, and he says it is of God, and they always wish to hear and remember it. So, see how false his view of the soul is, since he previously said that one should not abandon the good doctrine, even if it puts one at risk among people, nor should one pretend to have left it or become indifferent. He himself falls into all the contradictions. For he knows that if he admits to being Epicurean, he would not have credibility in accusing those who once introduced providence and established God among beings. We have noted that there are two Celsuses who became Epicureans, one during Nero's time and this one during Hadrian's time and later.

Book 1, Section 9

After this, he encourages following the teachings and logical guidance of the doctrine, saying that it is a complete deception for those who do not agree with it. He compares those who believe without reason to sorcerers and magicians, like Mithras and the Sabians. And whoever encounters them, whether it be Hecate or another spirit or spirits. Just as in those cases, often wicked people take advantage of the gullible, leading them wherever they want, he claims the same happens among Christians. He says that some do not even wish to give or receive an explanation about what they believe, using phrases like "do not question, but believe" and "your faith will save you." He says they claim, "Wisdom in the world is bad, but foolishness is good."

It should be noted that if it is possible for everyone to leave behind the matters of life and focus on philosophy, there is no other path to pursue but this one. For in Christianity, there is no less, to avoid saying something burdensome, an examination of beliefs and a recounting of the riddles in the prophets and the parables in the gospels and many other symbolic teachings. But if this is impossible due to life's necessities or human weakness, very few will engage with the teachings. What other better method could be found to help the many than what has been handed down from Jesus to the nations?

And we inquire about the multitude of believers, who have cast off much of the evil they previously clung to. Is it better for those who believe without reason to somehow improve their morals and benefit from faith regarding the punishment of sinners and the reward for good deeds, or not to allow their return with mere faith until they examine the teachings? For clearly, very few will accept even this, which they have received from simple belief, but they remain in a very bad life.

If there is something else constructive in the loving nature of the teachings that does not disregard the lives of people, this should also be counted among them. For the respectful person does not disregard a doctor of the body, who has brought many to better health, thinking that he disregards cities and nations. Nothing good happens among people without regard. If the one who heals many bodies or improves them does not disregard, how much more the one who heals many souls, turns them around, improves them, and teaches them to direct all actions toward God's pleasure and to avoid everything that is most pleasing to God, even down to the smallest of actions or thoughts?

Book 1, Section 10

Then, since they talk about faith, we say that we accept it as useful for many and we teach to believe and reasonably for those who cannot leave everything behind and follow after examining the teachings. But those who do not acknowledge this do it in practice. For who, when encouraged to philosophy and choosing a certain school, would throw themselves away as philosophers or come to believe that this school is better? They do not wait to hear all the words of all philosophers and the different schools and the overturning of these and the construction of others; thus, they choose to be either Stoic, Platonic, Peripatetic, or Epicurean, or any other school of philosophy. But they come to practice, even if they do not wish to admit it.

For example, they might say: "Let's take the Stoic teachings, leaving aside the others," or "Let's consider the Platonic teachings as superior to the others," or "Let's choose the Peripatetic teachings as the most human and more reasonable in acknowledging human goods." And from the first encounter, some, disturbed by the discussions about providence, quickly agree with those who say there is no providence at all, choosing the teachings of Epicurus and Celsus.

Book 1, Section 11

If then it is necessary to believe, as the teaching has instructed, in one of the schools that have been introduced among the Greeks or the barbarians, how is it not more fitting to honor the one true God and the one who teaches this above all else, rather than regarding other things as either non-existent or, if they do exist, not worthy of honor, worship, or respect?

For the one who does not believe, but instead examines things with reason, will seek proofs for what he sees and finds. How is it not more reasonable to believe in God, who is the source of all human beliefs? For who marries, has children, or sows seeds on the ground without believing that what is better will come to pass? Is it not possible for the opposite to happen, and does it not happen sometimes?

Yet still, the belief in what is better and what can be achieved through prayer encourages everyone to act boldly, even in uncertain and potentially dangerous situations. If life continues in every action with uncertainty about the outcome, how can the hope and the belief in what is good for the future not be more reasonably accepted by the believer than the vast sea, the fertile land, a woman getting married, and other human matters created by God?

And with great boldness and divine greatness, how can one present this teaching to all parts of the world, despite great dangers and the risk of death, which he endured for humanity, teaching those who would serve his doctrine to be persuaded from the beginning, to face all dangers and the constant threat of death, and to boldly travel everywhere in the world for the salvation of humankind?

Book 1, Section 12

Then, since Celsus says with these words: "If they wish to answer me, not as one who is being tested (for I know everything), but as one concerned equally about all, it would be good. But if they do not wish to answer and instead say, as they usually do, 'Do not question,' it is necessary for them to teach these things, he says, whatever they are saying, and where they came from, and the rest."

But it should be noted that he is very arrogant in saying, "For if he has read the prophets most carefully, filled with acknowledged riddles and words unclear to many, and if he has engaged with the parables of the gospels and the rest of the law and the history of the Jews, and having read them, he would reasonably wish to enter into the meaning of the words, he would not be so bold to say, 'I know everything.'"

Just as we, who have engaged with these teachings, would not say, "I know everything," for truth is dear. None of us would say, "I know everything about Epicurus," or boldly claim, "I know everything about Plato," given the many disagreements and the accounts of those who tell these things.

For who would be so bold to say, "I know everything about the Stoics" or "I know everything about the Peripatetics"? Unless perhaps the claim of "I know everything" comes from some ignorant individuals who are unaware of their own ignorance. They think that by using such teachers, they have come to know everything.

It seems to me that he has made something like this, as if someone, having visited Egypt, where the wise of the Egyptians philosophize greatly about their traditional divine matters, while the common people hear certain myths, of which they do not understand the words, think highly of themselves, believing they know everything about the Egyptians, having learned from their common people and mixing with none of the priests, nor learning anything of the Egyptians' sacred teachings.

What I have said about the wise and the common people of the Egyptians can also be seen about the Persians, among whom there are rituals. They are logically represented by those among them, and symbolically by many others who are more superficial. The same can be said about the Syrians and Indians, and those who have both myths and writings.

Book 1, Section 13

Since Celsus has set forth what many Christians say, "Wisdom in this life is bad, but foolishness is good," it should be noted that he misrepresents the teaching. He does not present the phrase from Paul correctly, which says: "If anyone thinks he is wise among you, let him become a fool in this age, so that he may become wise; for the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God."

So the apostle does not simply say, "The wisdom is foolishness with God," but "The wisdom of this world." And again, it is not "If anyone thinks he is wise among you" simply "let him become a fool," but "let him become a fool in this age, so that he may become wise."

Therefore, we speak of "the wisdom of this age" as all the false philosophies that are rejected by the scriptures, and we call foolishness good, not without reason, but when someone becomes "foolish" in this age.

For example, if we were to say about the Platonists, who believe in the immortality of the soul and the teachings about it concerning reincarnation, that they have taken on foolishness in relation to the Stoics, who criticize their agreement, and in relation to the Peripatetics, who talk about Plato's "trifles," and in relation to the Epicureans, who accuse those introducing providence and God of superstition.

Moreover, it is clear that the teaching is very different from wisdom and that it is necessary to be aligned with the doctrines rather than just with simple faith. And since this is the case, the genuine disciple of Jesus, Paul, says: "For since in the wisdom of God the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe."

Thus, it is clearly shown that in the wisdom of God, one must know God. And since this has not happened, God has chosen to save those who believe not simply through foolishness, but through the foolishness of preaching. For Christ Jesus, who is preached, crucified, is the foolishness of the message; as Paul, who understands this, says: "But we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."

Book 1, Section 14

Celsus believes that many nations are related to the same teaching, naming all the nations as starting points for such a doctrine. I do not understand why he only slanders the Jews, not including their nation with the others, as if they either worked together with them and agreed or had similar teachings in many ways.

It is worth asking him what he believes about the histories of the barbarians and Greeks regarding the ancientness of those he named, while he alone falsifies the histories of this nation. For if each nation presented their own history honestly, why do we only distrust the prophets of the Jews? If Moses and the prophets wrote many things about their own people with grace, why do we not say the same about the writings of the other nations?

Or are the Egyptians, who speak ill of the Jews in their own histories, trustworthy about the Jews? And do the Jews, saying the same things about the Egyptians, falsely claim to have suffered many injustices and therefore say that they have been punished by God? This should not only be said about the Egyptians; we will find similar accounts of the Assyrians against the Jews, and these are recorded in the ancient writings of the Assyrians.

Thus, the Jewish writers recorded the Assyrians as enemies, so that it would not seem that they were anticipating the words of the prophets. Therefore, see how self-serving it is for some to believe that these nations are wise while others are considered entirely foolish.

Listen to Celsus saying that there is an ancient teaching from above, about which the wisest nations, cities, and wise men have always spoken. And no nation wished to say that they were the wisest, even if similarly to the Egyptians, Assyrians, Indians, Persians, Thracians, and Eleusinians regarding the Jews.

Book 1, Section 15

How much better is Numenius the Pythagorean than Celsus, who showed himself to be very wise and examined more doctrines, gathering from many sources what he thought to be true? Numenius, when speaking about the good and the nations, included the Jews among those he discussed regarding God as incorporeal, not hesitating to use prophetic words in his writing and to adapt them.

It is also said that Hermippus, in his first work about lawgivers, recorded that Pythagoras brought his philosophy from the Jews to the Greeks. And there is also a book by the historian Hecataeus about the Jews, in which he adds that the Jews are wise to such an extent that even Philo of Alexandria, in his writing about the Jews, first questions whether the work belongs to the historian and then says that, if it is indeed his, it is likely that he was influenced by the credibility of the Jews and accepted their teachings.

Book 1, Section 16

I wonder how Celsus could rank the Thracians, Samothracians, Eleusinians, and Hyperboreans among the oldest and wisest nations, while he did not consider the Jews worthy of being included as wise or ancient. Many writings from the Egyptians, Phoenicians, and Greeks testify to their ancientness, which I thought was worth mentioning.

For anyone can read the works of Flavius Josephus about the ancientness of the Jews, where he presents a large collection of writers who testify to the antiquity of the Jews. There is also a more recent work by Tatian directed at the Greeks, which discusses many historians about the ancientness of the Jews and Moses.

It seems that Celsus speaks not truly but with bias, aiming to accuse the origins of Christianity, which is based on the Jews. Yet he calls the milk-eating Thracians, the Druids of the Gauls, and the Getae very wise and ancient, while discussing their similarities to Jewish teachings. I do not know if there are writings about them.

But he only dismisses the Hebrews as lacking in both ancientness and wisdom. Again, while making a list of ancient and wise men who benefited their people and through writings those who came after them, he excluded Moses from the list of wise men.

He mentions Linus, whom he placed at the top of those he named, but neither laws nor teachings are said to have come from him that helped nations. However, Moses' laws are carried by the whole nation, spread throughout the entire world.

So see if he did not deliberately exclude Moses from the list of wise men while including Linus, Musaeus, Orpheus, Phercydes, Zoroaster the Persian, and Pythagoras, saying that they were included in these matters. And their teachings were written down in books and preserved until now.

He willingly forgot about the myths concerning the gods that are thought to be human-like, especially those written by Orpheus.

Book 1, Section 17

In the following, he accuses those who interpret and allegorize the history of Moses. It could be said to the most noble and truthful writer of his own book: what indeed, oh this one, do the gods face such terrible misfortunes, which your wise poets and philosophers write about, mixing in sacrifices and waging war against their fathers, and cutting off their private parts, while they write about such bold and terrible things?

But when Moses does not speak of God in such a way, nor of holy angels, but of humans, much less (for no one dared to do what Cronus did to Uranus, nor what Zeus did to his father, nor that the "father of men and gods" came to his own daughter), do you think that those who were legislated by him are deceived?

It seems to me that Celsus is doing something similar to the Platonic Thrasymachus, who does not allow Socrates to answer about justice as he wishes, but says: "See that you do not say that what is just is what is beneficial, nor what is right, nor anything else similar." For this one, having accused, as he thinks, of the histories from Moses and complaining about those who allegorize, also praises some who speak about them, saying that they are more reasonable.

He seems to be prevented from defending those who are able, as he wishes, while he accuses them, as is natural for things to be.

Book 1, Section 18

Let us say that we challenge this one to compare the writings of Linus, Musaeus, Orpheus, and Phercydes with the laws of Moses. He places histories against histories and moral discourses against laws and commands. And see which can be turned back more easily and which of them can even rub off on the listener.

And notice how the collection of your writers has little thought for those who are encountered from the same source. Only those who can interpret and allegorize have written their own philosophy, as you say. But Moses, studying with a noble rhetorical style, has carefully presented the double meaning of his words in the five books, neither giving the many legislated Jews reasons for harm in the moral realm, nor fully explaining to the few who are able to understand, while providing a writing for those who seek his will.

It seems that none of your wise poets' books would still be preserved if the one encountering them sensed any benefit. But the writings of Moses have moved many, even those from outside the Jewish community, to believe that according to the promise of the writings, the creator of the world was the first to legislate them and give them to Moses.

For it was fitting for the creator of the whole world to provide power to the words that were set as laws for the entire world. And I say these things while still examining not Jesus, but Moses, who is much less than the Lord, showing how the discourse will present him, differing greatly from your wise poets and philosophers.

Book 1, Section 19

Next, Celsus, wanting to slander the creation story according to Moses, secretly claims that the world does not have a count of countless years but is much younger. He adds that those who say the world is uncreated are stealing his idea. For many destructions have happened throughout all ages, and the flood during Deucalion's time is said to be more recent, clearly presenting the world as uncreated to those who can hear him.

Let the one who accuses us Christians in faith tell us by what convincing words he was forced to accept that many destructions and floods have occurred, and that the flood during Deucalion's time is newer than the destruction of Phaethon. But if he brings up Plato's dialogues about these things, we will say that we can believe in the pure and pious soul of Moses, who spoke of everything that is created and of the creator of all, depending on himself.

The divine spirit is much clearer than Plato's and those of the wise among the Greeks and the barbarians who presented the idea of God. If he demands from us reasons for such faith, let him first provide reasons for what he himself has declared without proof, and then we will show how our beliefs stand.

Book 1, Section 20

But even unwillingly, Celsus fell into the trap of claiming that the world is younger and does not yet have a count of countless years, while he thinks that the Greeks consider these things ancient, as they have not observed or remembered the older events of floods and destructions.

Let Celsus have the most learned Egyptians as teachers of the myths about destructions and floods, whose wisdom is shown by the irrational animals they worship and by the reasonable words they present, which seem to be somewhat withdrawn and mystical in their worship of such a god.

If the Egyptians, honoring their own theology, are wise, then the one who, in the Jewish law and legislation, refers everything to the creator of all is considered lesser by Celsus and those like him. He thinks that this view does not only reduce divinity to logical and mortal beings but also brings it down to irrational creatures, beyond the mythical transformations.

Regarding the falling of the soul from the heavens to the irrational animals, not only of the days but also of the wildest ones, it descends. And if the Egyptians are mythologizing, they believe they have philosophized through riddles and hidden meanings. But if Moses writes histories and leaves laws for the whole nation, his words are considered empty myths, not even allowing for any allegorical interpretation.

Book 1, Section 21

For this is what Celsus and the Epicureans think. He says that Moses, having heard this teaching from wise nations and reasonable men, received a demon-like name. And it should be said that if Moses heard an older teaching and passed it on to the Hebrews, if he accepted a false teaching and did not pass on a wise or serious one, he is guilty. But if, as you say, he agreed with wise and true doctrines and educated his people through them, what charge can be made against him?

Would that Epicurus and Aristotle, who is less than him, and the Stoics, who say that God is a body, had heard this teaching! So that the world would not be filled with a teaching that denies providence or cuts it off or introduces a corrupt beginning to the physical, in which God is a body to the Stoics. They are not ashamed to say that he is changeable and can be altered and can simply perish if he has something that destroys him, while the fortunate one does not perish because the destroyer is nothing.

But the teaching of the Jews and Christians, which holds to the unchangeable and unalterable nature of God, is considered impious, since it does not agree with those who think impiously about God, saying in their prayers to the divine, "You are the same." It is believed that God has said, "I do not change."

Book 1, Section 22

After this, Celsus, not blaming the Jews for circumcision, says that it came from the Egyptians, believing more in the Egyptians than in Moses. He claims that Abraham was the first to be circumcised among men. But it is not only Moses who writes about Abraham's name being related to God; many of those who chant also use the phrase "the God of Abraham," making it clear through the name and the relationship to the righteous God, which is why they take up the phrase "the God of Abraham."

Not knowing who Abraham is, the same can be said about Isaac, Jacob, and Israel, whose names are acknowledged as Hebrew and are often mentioned by the Egyptians in some teachings. The teaching of circumcision began with Abraham and was prevented by Jesus, who did not want his disciples to do the same.

There is no need to explain this now. For the present time is not for discussing these teachings, but for addressing the accusations made by Celsus against the Jewish teaching, thinking that he will quickly create falsehoods about Christianity if he presents the origins of it as being in the Jewish writings and accuses them of being false.

Book 1, Section 23

Next, Celsus says that those who followed Moses were herdsmen and shepherds. They, being deceived by rustic tricks, thought there was one god. So let him show how, as he believes, the herdsmen and shepherds turned away from worshiping gods. He can present the multitude of gods among the Greeks or the other barbarians. Let him show the existence and essence of the Muses, born from Zeus, or the Hours from Themis, or the Graces always presented as naked.

But he will not be able to show that the Greek myths about gods are true compared to those of the Egyptians, who do not even know their own language, mentioning Memory as the mother of the Muses, or Themis as the Hours, or Eurynome as one of the Graces, or any of their other names. How much more effective and better is the belief in one creator, who is one and whole, and therefore cannot be created by many creators, just as the whole universe is not moved by many souls.

For one is enough to carry the entire unchanging universe from east to west and to encompass everything within. The world needs what is not independent. For all parts of the world are not gods, and no part is the whole. The god must be complete, just as a part is incomplete. Perhaps a deeper explanation will show that God is not a part or the whole, since the whole is made up of parts. And reason does not allow us to accept that the one god is made up of parts, each of which cannot be like the other parts.

Book 1, Section 24

After this, he says that the herdsmen and shepherds believed in one god, whether the highest, Adonai, the heavenly one, or Sabaoth, or however they joyfully named this world. And they knew nothing more. Then he says that there is no difference between calling the one god among the Greeks "Zeus" or some other name. The same goes for the Indians or the Egyptians.

It should also be noted that there is a deep and profound discussion about the nature of names. Aristotle thinks that names are based on a fixed idea, while the Stoics believe they arise from imitating the first sounds of things, which is why they introduce some elements of etymology. Or, as Epicurus teaches, names are based on the nature of things, derived from the first human sounds related to those things.

If we can present the nature of active names that the wise Egyptians or the learned Persians or the philosophical Brahmins of the Indians use, then we can see how each nation has its own understanding. And thus, it will be shown that what is called magic is not, as Epicurus and Aristotle think, an unstable thing, but, as those skilled in these matters demonstrate, it is a collection of words known to very few.

Then we will say that the names "Sabaoth" and "Adonai," along with others among the Hebrews, are handed down with great solemnity, not relating to random or created things, but to a theology that refers to the creator of all. Therefore, these names can be said to have a certain harmony with them. Other names from Egypt are associated with certain demons, while others in the Persian dialect relate to different powers, and so on for each nation, being taken for specific needs.

Thus, the names of the demons on earth will be found to vary according to place and ethnic dialects. The one who is more insightful, even with a little understanding of these matters, will be careful not to apply names to things incorrectly, lest he mistakenly associate the name of God with lifeless matter. Or they might misapply the name of the good from the first cause or from virtue and beauty to blind wealth and to the balance of flesh, blood, and bones in health and well-being, or to the so-called nobility.

Book 1, Section 25

And perhaps the danger is no less in using the name of God or the name of the Good for things that should not be associated with them, than in exchanging names based on some hidden meaning, bringing lesser things to greater ones and greater things to lesser ones. I do not say that when someone calls Zeus, he immediately associates him with Cronus, the son of Rhea, and the husband of Hera, and the brother of Poseidon, and the father of Athena and Artemis, and the one who mingled with his daughter Persephone, or that when someone calls Apollo, he associates him with Leto, the son of Zeus, and the brother of Artemis and Hermes.

What is the exclusion here? Is it not true that Zeus is the father of Cronus and the mother Rhea? The same should be done for the other named gods. This accusation does not touch upon the names "Sabaoth" or "Adonai" or any of the other names.

When someone can philosophize about names that are hidden, he would find much about the calling of the angels of God, such as Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael, who serve according to the will of the creator of all in the universe.

Our own Jesus is also included in this discussion about names, whose name has already been seen to drive out demons from souls and bodies, acting upon those from whom they were removed.

Furthermore, regarding names, those skilled in using incantations tell that the same incantation, when spoken in its own dialect, can achieve what it promises, but when translated into another language, it becomes powerless and ineffective. Thus, it is not the meanings of things that matter, but the qualities and characteristics of the sounds that have some power in relation to certain things.

In this way, we will defend why Christians strive until death, so that they do not call Zeus God or name him in any other dialect. For they either confess the common name "God" without distinction or add a description: "the creator of all, the maker of heaven and earth, who sent wise men to the human race." By applying the name "God," they achieve some power among humans.

There could be many other things said about names for those who think it necessary to be indifferent about their use. And if Plato is amazed when he says in the Philebus, "My fear, O First Leader, is not small regarding the names of the gods," since Philebus called pleasure a god in his conversation with Socrates, how much more should we acknowledge the reverence of Christians, not attaching any of the names found in myths to the creator of all? For there is enough of that at present.

Book 1, Section 26

Let us see how Celsus falsely accuses the Jews, claiming that they worship angels and are involved in sorcery, which Moses was their interpreter. Where in the writings of Moses did the lawgiver command them to worship angels? Let him say how he believes this is true for Christians and Jews, and how sorcery is among those who received the law of Moses.

Have they not read, "You shall not cling to those who practice divination"? Celsus claims he will teach next how the Jews were led astray by ignorance. If he found ignorance about Jesus the Christ among the Jews, he would not have heard the prophecies about him. He would truly have taught how the Jews were misled; but now he does not even wish to imagine that the errors of the Jews are indeed errors.

Celsus promises to teach later about the Jews, but first he discusses our Savior. He says that he was a leader in the time when we Christians came to be. He claims that he taught this doctrine only a few years ago, being thought by Christians to be the son of God. And concerning him, we will say that just a few years ago he became such a figure.

Did he, desiring to spread his teachings, manage to have so many people in our world, both Greeks and barbarians, wise and foolish, struggle for Christianity until death, so that they would not deny him? No one is known to have done this for any other doctrine; he has become an atheist.

I, therefore, not flattering the argument but trying to examine things critically, would say that even those who heal many bodies do not become atheists regarding the health of bodies. If someone could also free souls from evil and immorality and wrongdoing and contempt for the divine, and could demonstrate such a work by improving a hundred people (let's say the argument is based on this number), no one would reasonably say that such a person is not an atheist for having freed so many from evils.

If the wise person considers these things, he will agree that nothing better has happened among humans than this. How much more will the greatness about Jesus be revealed, examining many who come to his teachings, older lives compared to later ones, and understanding in what immoralities, injustices, and greed each of these was involved?

Before, as Celsus and those who think the same as him say, they will be deceived and accept a corrupt argument, as they claim. The life of humans, from which they have taken the argument, how have they become more decent, dignified, and stable, as some of them, because of their love for surpassing purity, worship the divine more purely and do not touch on the pleasures permitted by the law?

Book 1, Section 27

But someone examining these matters will see that Jesus dared to do something greater than human nature and succeeded in it. For from the very beginning, all opposed his message spreading throughout the whole world, including kings of the times, their generals, and all those who held authority, as well as city leaders and military leaders. Yet, he prevailed, not being hindered as a word of God.

And becoming stronger than so many opponents, he dominated all of Greece and even more so the barbarians, converting countless souls to his worship of God. It was necessary that in the multitude held by his message, many more of the common people and the uneducated became numerous compared to those trained in rhetoric.

But Celsus, not wanting to understand these things, thinks that the kindness of the message is private and only for individuals, as if it were meant for private people alone. However, it is not possible for the message to have power only among private individuals, even though he does not say that only private individuals are drawn to the worship of God through Jesus. For he admits that there are also moderate, decent, and wise people among them, ready to understand allegory.

Book 1, Section 28

Since he also personifies, in a way mimicking a certain rhetorical style, he introduces a Jewish person speaking to Jesus, saying something youthful and not worthy of a wise man. Let us examine these things and show that the Jewish character does not maintain even the fitting qualities in what is said.

After this, he personifies a Jew conversing with Jesus and challenging him about many things, first about his birth from a virgin. He reproaches him for being born from a Jewish woman from a poor and humble village. He claims that she was also accused of being an adulteress, as her husband was a carpenter. Then he says that she, being cast out by her husband and wandering, gave birth to Jesus in shame.

He also states that, due to poverty, they went to Egypt, where he was tempted by some powers that the Egyptians honor. He returned with great pride and declared himself a god because of these powers. All of this is left unchallenged by those who cannot do anything, but it seems to me that examining the beginnings of these matters leads to the conclusion that it is worthy to say that Jesus is the son of God.

Book 1, Section 29

For among humans, it often happens that someone becomes notable and famous, and their name becomes widely known, when their parents are in a position of greatness and success. The wealth of those who raised them and spent it on the education of their son, being from a great and famous homeland, plays a role.

But when someone, having everything against them, manages to rise above the obstacles that prevent them from being known and shakes up those around them, becoming visible and clear to the whole world, speaking things that are unlike him, how should we not be amazed at such a nature, which is both great and capable of great things and has a boldness that cannot be easily dismissed?

If someone were to examine this further, how could they not ask how someone raised in poverty and lack, having received no formal education and not learning any words or doctrines from which they could reasonably speak to crowds and lead them, presents themselves with new teachings, introducing a message that breaks down the customs of the Jews while also honoring their prophets and especially undermining the laws of the Greeks regarding the divine?

How could such a person, raised in such a way and having learned nothing serious from humans, speak about God's judgment and the punishments for evil and the honors for good in a way that is not easily dismissed? So that not only the uneducated and common people are led by what is said, but also many of the wiser and more capable individuals are drawn to it, hiding from the lesser-known things?

As it can be said, is there anything more surprising? For instance, when Plato reproaches Themistocles, who became famous in his generalship, saying that his fame did not come from his own character but from the good fortune of his homeland, which is the most renowned in all of Greece. Themistocles, recognizing that his homeland contributed to his fame, would say, "Neither would I have become so famous being from Seriphus, nor would you have become Themistocles if you had been fortunate as an Athenian."

Yet our Jesus, being reproached for being from a village that is not even Greek and for being the son of a poor and humble woman, is said to have left his homeland due to poverty and to have gone to Egypt to earn a living. In this way, he is not only like someone from Seriphus, a small and insignificant island, but he has managed to shake the whole world, not only over Themistocles the Athenian but also over Pythagoras, Plato, and others of any wisdom, kings, or generals in the world.

Book 1, Section 30

Who would not be amazed, while examining the nature of things, at someone who has triumphed and risen above all the things that are usually considered unworthy, and who has gained a reputation that surpasses all those who are thought to be famous? Indeed, it is rare for those who are famous among humans to achieve greater glory at the same time.

One may gain fame for wisdom, another for military leadership, some for extraordinary powers from spells, and others for various other things, but few have been admired and become famous all at once. This person, however, is admired for wisdom, power, and for being the origin of all things.

For he did not persuade anyone to abandon the laws as a tyrant, nor did he rob people as a bandit, nor did he give wealth to those who approached him like a rich benefactor, nor did he act like one of the commonly criticized. Instead, as a teacher of the divine word and of the religion towards him, and of all moral conduct, he was able to connect people to the God who lives above all.

And for Themistocles or any of the famous, nothing has happened that opposes their glory. But for him, in contrast to those mentioned, it was possible to cover the soul of a person in unworthiness, even one who is very capable, and the death that seemed to be shameful for him, being crucified, was enough to erase the glory that had come before and to hide those who, as they think, do not agree with his teachings, leading them to be deceived and to recognize the deceiver.

Book 1, Section 31

Who would not be amazed at where his disciples got the courage, as those who speak ill of Jesus say, since they did not see him rise from the dead nor were convinced that he was something divine, while they were not afraid to suffer the same things as their teacher, to face danger together, and to leave their homelands in order to teach according to the will of Jesus the message given to them by him?

For I think that anyone who examines these matters thoughtfully would not say that they gave themselves to the life of Jesus' teaching without some great persuasion, which he inspired in them by teaching not only to follow his teachings but also to lead others, and to lead them while being aware that the life of humans is full of dangers for those who dare to innovate everywhere and with everyone, while others cling to the earlier beliefs and customs, wanting to keep them for themselves.

For did not the disciples of Jesus, daring not only to present to the Jews from the prophetic words that this was the one foretold, but also to the other nations that the one who was crucified yesterday and the day before willingly accepted this death for the sake of humanity, similar to those who die for their homelands when they extinguish a plague or a disaster?

It is likely that in the nature of things, there are certain hidden and hard-to-understand truths for most people, such that one who dies willingly for the common good creates horror among evil spirits that cause plagues or disasters or similar things.

Let those who wish to disbelieve in Jesus' death for humanity by crucifixion consider whether they will accept the many Greek and barbarian histories about those who died for the common good, which led to the downfall of cities and nations due to evils. Or if those events happened, the supposed human would have no reason to die for the downfall of a great spirit and the rulers of spirits, who have taken control of all human souls on earth.

Seeing these things, the disciples of Jesus, and many more like them, which it is likely they learned from Jesus in secret, were also filled with some power. For he gave them strength and courage, not a poetic kind but the true wisdom and understanding of God, so they rushed to be open with all, not only with the Argives but with all Greeks and barbarians, and they would gain a good reputation.

Book 1, Section 32

But let us return to the portrayal of the Jew, in which the mother of Jesus is described as being cast out by her betrothed, a carpenter, accused of adultery and giving birth to someone named Panthera. Let us see if those who created the myth of the virgin's adultery with Panthera and the carpenter casting her out did not blindly weave all this into a story of a miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit.

For they could have easily fabricated a false history because the story is so very strange, and they did not want to admit that Jesus was born not from ordinary human marriages. And it followed that those who did not accept the miraculous birth of Jesus would create some lie. However, it was not reasonable for them to do this, especially since they wanted to maintain that the virgin did not conceive Jesus from Joseph, making it clear to those who could hear and judge that this was a blatant falsehood.

Is it not reasonable that someone would dare so much for the sake of humanity, so that all Greeks and barbarians, expecting divine judgment, would turn away from evil and do everything pleasing to the creator of all? Is it not strange that there would be no miraculous birth, yet the most unlawful and shameful of all births?

I would say this to the Greeks, especially to Celsus, whether he thinks so or not, while also considering the teachings of Plato. Would the one who sends souls into human bodies dare so much and teach so many, and from the outpouring of evil, lead many humans towards the most shameful birth, without bringing him into human life through legitimate marriages?

Or is it more fitting for each soul, according to certain hidden truths (I speak of these now according to Pythagoras, Plato, and Empedocles, whom Celsus often names), to be judged worthy of being joined to a body based on its previous character? It is likely that this soul, being more beneficial to the life of humans, would need a body, not only as different from human bodies but also from that which is greater than all.

Book 1, Section 33

For if this soul, having become worthy according to certain hidden truths, is not to be born in a body that is entirely irrational, it must also not be clothed in a monstrous body, such that the reason cannot be fulfilled by one who is thus born and has a head that is disproportionate to the rest of the body and very short.

But another body takes on such a form, becoming somewhat more rational, and yet another even more so, depending on whether the nature of the body is more or less in harmony with the understanding of reason. Why should there not also be a soul that takes on a body that is in every way paradoxical, having something in common with humans so that it can live among them, but also having something exceptional, so that the soul can remain untouched by evil?

If the teachings of physiognomists hold true, whether from Zopyrus, Loxus, Polemon, or anyone else who has written such things and claimed to know something wonderful, all bodies must be suited to the nature of the souls. Therefore, it would be necessary for a body to exist that would paradoxically inhabit life and elevate it, not as Celsus thinks, born from Panthera who committed adultery with a virgin.

For from such unions, it would be more likely to produce a foolish and harmful teacher of immorality and injustice and other evils, rather than one of self-control, justice, and other virtues.

Book 1, Section 34

But as the prophets also said, he will be born of a virgin. According to the promise of a sign of his birth, it is shown that at his birth he will be God among humans. And it seems fitting to me to present the prophecy of Isaiah alongside the portrayal of the Jew, which says that the Emmanuel will be born of a virgin; a prophecy that Celsus did not mention, whether he did not know it or, knowing it, chose to remain silent so that it would not seem he was opposing his own argument.

The text goes like this: "And the Lord spoke to Ahaz, saying: 'Ask for a sign from the Lord your God, either in the depths or in the heights.' And Ahaz said, 'I will not ask, nor will I test the Lord.' (And he said:) 'Hear now, O house of David, is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel," which is interpreted as "God with us."

That Celsus did not reveal the prophecy shows clearly from what he presented that he took many things from the Gospel of Matthew, such as the star that appeared at the birth of Jesus and other miraculous events, without even mentioning the beginning of this. If a Jew were to say that "behold, the virgin" was not written but instead "behold, the young woman," we would respond to him that the word used for virgin, which the seventy translators used, is found, as they say, also in Deuteronomy regarding a virgin, thus written: "If a girl who is a virgin is betrothed to a man, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both to the gate of their city, and they shall be stoned with stones, and they shall die."

The young woman is mentioned in this context because she did not cry out in the city, and the man is mentioned because he humbled his neighbor's wife. "And further: 'If a man finds the girl who is betrothed in the field and forces her, then the man who lay with her shall die alone, and you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is no sin deserving of death for the young woman.'"

Book 1, Section 35

So that we do not seem to rely on the Hebrew wording for those who do not understand, whether we should agree with it or not, let us bring forth an explanation about the prophet saying that this one will be born of a virgin, of whom it is said at his birth, "God is with us."

The Lord is recorded as having said to Ahaz: "Ask for a sign from the Lord your God, either in the depths or in the heights." Then the sign given is, "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son." What kind of sign is it if a young woman does not give birth as a virgin? And what is more fitting to be born "Emmanuel," which means "God with us," than a woman who has not been with a man and who conceives through a pure and holy virginity?

For it is fitting for her to give birth to a child, for whom it is said, "God is with us." If he argues that it was said to Ahaz, "Ask for a sign from the Lord your God," we will respond: In the time of Ahaz, who was born, for whom it is said at his birth, "Emmanuel," which means "God with us"? If no one can be found, it is clear that what was said to Ahaz was said to the house of David because the Savior was to be born "according to the flesh" from the seed of David.

But this "sign" is said to be "in the depths or in the heights," since "he who descended is the same as he who ascended above all the heavens, that he might fill all things." I say these things as a response to the Jew who accepts the prophecy. Let Celsus or anyone with him say what the prophet speaks about the future, whether these things or others, as written in the prophecies.

For does the prophet have foreknowledge of future events or not? If he does have foreknowledge of future events, then the prophets had a divine spirit. But if he does not have foreknowledge of future events, let him consider the mind of the one daring to speak about the future and being admired by the Jews for the prophecy.

Book 1, Section 36

Since we have come to the topic of the prophets, for the Jews who believe they have been spoken to by a divine spirit, what will be said will not only be useless to them but also to the grateful among the Greeks. To them, we will say that it is necessary to accept that the Jews had prophets, if they were to remain united in the law given to them and believe in the Creator, as they received, and not have reasons to turn away toward the polytheism of the nations.

We will present the necessity like this: "The nations," as it is written in the Jewish law, "will listen to diviners and soothsayers." But to that people, it was said: "But the Lord your God has not given you such a thing." And it is added, "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet from among your brothers."

If, therefore, the nations are using divination, whether through "diviners," or through omens, or through birds, or through ventriloquists, or through those who proclaim sacrifices, or through Chaldeans who calculate horoscopes, all of which are forbidden to the Jews. If the Jews had no means of knowing the future, they would have despised their own as having nothing divine within themselves and would not have approached Moses as a prophet nor written down his words. Instead, they would have turned to the nations for divination and oracles or would have tried to establish something similar among themselves.

Thus, it is not strange that the prophets among them would speak as comfort for those desiring such things, so that even Samuel prophesied about lost donkeys and about the illness of the king's son, as recorded in the third book of Kings. How would those who wish to receive divination from idols be struck by the Jews who uphold the law? Just as Elijah was found confronting Ahaziah and saying: "If there is no God in Israel, why do you go to seek a god of Ekron?"

Book 1, Section 37

It seems to me that it has been reasonably established not only that our Savior will be born of a virgin, but also that there were prophets among the Jews, who foretold not only general things about the future, such as those concerning Christ and worldly kingdoms, and about what would happen to Israel and to the nations believing in the Savior, and many other things said about him, but also specific things, like how the lost donkeys of Kish would be found and about the illness of the king's son, or if anything else of that sort is recorded.

Moreover, we must speak to the Greeks, who refuse to believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, that the Creator showed in the creation of various animals that it was possible for him to do what he wished, whether through one animal or another or even through humans. There are some female animals that do not have male partners. As those who write about animals say regarding vultures: this animal preserves the succession of generations without mixing.

So what is strange if God, wishing to send a divine teacher to the human race, made him come into being in a different way instead of through the usual means of male and female? Even among the Greeks, not all humans were born from a man and a woman. For if the world is created, as many Greeks believe, it is necessary that the first humans were not born from union but from the earth, with the seed of life coming together in the ground.

I think this is more paradoxical than Jesus being born in the usual way like other humans. There is nothing strange in using Greek history, so that we do not seem to rely solely on this extraordinary story. For it has seemed to some that it is possible to write not only about ancient histories and heroes but also about things that happened recently, like how Plato was born from the Amphictyons, when Ariston was prevented from joining them until he gave birth to the child sown by Apollo.

But these things are truly myths, created to reshape something about a man whom they thought had greater wisdom and power, and from better and more divine seeds received the beginning of the formation of the body, as if this were fitting for the greater ones or according to human standards. Since Celsus introduced the Jew speaking to Jesus and attacking, as he thinks, the claim of his virgin birth, bringing in the Greek myths about Danaë and Melanippe and Auge and Antiope, it should be said that these words were fitting for a buffoon and not for someone serious in their telling.

Book 1, Section 38

Moreover, taking from the written account in the Gospel of Matthew about Jesus going to Egypt, those who find this strange did not believe it, nor did they accept that an angel announced it, or that Jesus, leaving Judea, lived in Egypt. Instead, they created something else. While somewhat agreeing with the strange powers that Jesus performed, which convinced many to follow him as the Christ, they wanted to discredit these powers as being from magic and not from divine strength.

For they say that he was raised in darkness, having fled to Egypt, and that he returned from there after being tested by certain powers, declaring himself a god through those powers. But I do not see how a magician could strive to teach a doctrine, convincing everyone to act as if judged by a god over all their actions, and thus preparing his own disciples, who would serve his teaching.

Would those disciples, having been taught in this way, perform miracles to attract listeners, or would they not perform miracles at all? To say that they did not perform miracles but believed in some ability of words, similar to the wisdom of the Greeks in dialectics, and thus devoted themselves to teaching a new doctrine wherever they went, is completely unreasonable. For who would they be bold enough to teach this doctrine and innovate it?

And if they did perform miracles, what credibility do the magicians have to expose themselves to such dangers for the sake of teaching a forbidden magic?

Book 1, Section 39

It does not seem to me that there is a serious argument here, but rather it is said with mockery. If the mother of Jesus was beautiful, and if God mingled with her because of her beauty, would it not be natural for him to desire a mortal body? Or is it that it was not likely for God to fall in love with her, since she was neither fortunate nor royal, and no one knew her, not even her neighbors?

He plays around by saying that even though she was rejected by the carpenter and cast out, divine power or a credible word did not save her. Therefore, he claims that none of this matters to the kingdom of God. So how would these things differ from those who are insulted in the streets and say nothing worth taking seriously?

Book 1, Section 40

Next, taking from the Gospel of Matthew and perhaps also from the other Gospels, he wants to dismiss the account of the Holy Spirit descending upon the Savior while he was being baptized by John as a fabrication. He seems to have mixed up the story of our Savior being born of a virgin, as he does not present it in order, since there is no organized anger or hatred, but those who are angry and hostile slander those they hate, not allowing themselves to speak about the accusations in an orderly way and with clear thought.

For if he had kept the order, he could have taken the Gospel and started his accusations from the first story, then moved on to the second, and so on. But now, after the virgin birth, Celsus, who claims to know everything, accuses us of the Holy Spirit appearing in the form of a dove at the baptism, and then he moves on to prophesies about the coming of our Savior, and after that he jumps to the story of the star and the Magi who came from the east to worship the child.

He would find many things written throughout the whole book that are mixed up, so that through this he could be challenged by those who know how to keep things in order and seek the truth, having boldly and arrogantly written a true account in his book, which no wise philosopher has done. For Plato says that it is not reasonable to insist on such unclear matters, and Chrysippus, in many places, lays out the causes that moved him and sends us to those who might speak better than he does.

So this person, who is wiser than these and the other Greeks, has written his book claiming to know everything and has written a true account.

Book 1, Section 41

So that we do not seem to be avoiding his main points out of confusion, we have decided to address each one according to its strength. We have considered not the natural order of things, but the order of what is written in his book.

Now let us see what he says when he claims that the Holy Spirit was seen by the Savior in the form of a dove. The Jew, still speaking to him, whom we acknowledge to be our Lord Jesus, says, "You claim that a vision of a bird appeared to you while you were being baptized by John." Then, asking further, the Jew says, "Who saw this vision as a worthy witness, or who heard a voice from heaven saying that you are the Son of God? Except that you say this and you bring one of those who are with you as a witness."

Book 1, Section 42

Before we begin the defense, it should be said that almost every story, even if it is true, is difficult to construct in a way that makes it seem real and understandable. For example, it is very hard to argue that the Iliad war did not happen, especially when trying to explain the birth of Achilles, son of the sea goddess Thetis and the man Peleus, or of Sarpedon, son of Zeus, or of Ascalaphus and Ialmenus, sons of Ares, or of Aeneas, son of Aphrodite. How could we prove such things, especially when we are troubled by the uncertainty of the stories about the real war between the Greeks and Trojans in Ilium?

Similarly, some might doubt the story of Oedipus and Jocasta and their sons, Eteocles and Polynices, because of the mixed-up tale of the Sphinx. How could we prove such a thing? And so it is with the stories of the Epigones, even if there is nothing mixed up in the tale, or about the descent of the Heraclids, or about countless other stories.

But the wise person, who carefully examines the histories and wants to keep himself safe from deception, will judge what to accept and what to change. He will seek to understand the reasons behind the stories that have been reshaped and will decide whom to trust as credible witnesses.

And having anticipated this, we have presented the history of Jesus found in the Gospels, not just on blind faith, calling upon those who are more cautious, but wanting to show that there is a need for careful consideration and much examination. Thus, I will name it so: an entrance into the intention of the writers, so that it may be found how each one was written with a certain mindset.

Book 1, Section 43

So we will first say that if the one who doubts the vision of the dove as the Holy Spirit is Epicurean, Democritean, or Peripatetic, he would have a reason to follow the personification of what is said. But now, the wisest Celsus has not seen this, since he speaks to a Jew who believes more and finds stranger things in the prophetic writings about the vision of the dove.

For if someone were to say to the Jew, who doubts the vision and thinks he is accusing it as a fabrication, "But from where do you prove that the Lord God spoke to Adam, Eve, Cain, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob?" To bring this history into comparison, I would say to the Jew: "And your Ezekiel wrote saying, 'The heavens were opened, and I saw a vision of God,' describing what he saw, 'This vision is like the glory of the Lord.' And he said to me."

If the things written about Jesus are false, since we do not have, as you suppose, clear proof, how can these things be true, seen or heard only by him, and as you think, preserved by one of those punished? Why should we not also say that Ezekiel, speaking of 'the heavens being opened,' and the rest, is also fabricating?

But even if Isaiah claims, 'I saw the Lord of Hosts sitting on a high and exalted throne; and the seraphim stood around him, each having six wings,' how can we know that he truly saw? For you, Jew, believe these things as true, and they were seen not only by the prophet but also spoken and written down by a divine spirit.

To whom should we give more credit, to the one who claims that the heavens were opened and he heard a voice, or to the one who saw 'the Lord of Hosts sitting on a high and exalted throne,' Isaiah or Ezekiel, or to Jesus? For there is no work of theirs that is so great; but the greatness of Jesus is not just about his physical presence alone.

But even until now, the power of Jesus is at work, bringing about change and improvement in those who believe in God through him. A clear proof of his power is that, as he says and is understood, there are no workers harvesting the souls, yet there is such a harvest being gathered and collected into the many fields of God and the church.

Book 1, Section 44

And I say these things to the Jew, not because the Christian doubts Ezekiel and Isaiah, but because he sees that this one is much more worthy of belief, saying that he has seen such things and likely passing on to the disciples what he saw and the voice he heard.

But if someone were to say that not all of Jesus' followers heard these things as they wrote about the vision of the dove and the voice from heaven, it was Moses who taught the older history, starting from the creation of the world up to Abraham, his father. This he taught to those who wrote the Gospel, which became strange at the time of Jesus' baptism.

The one gifted with what is called "the word of wisdom" will explain the reason for the opening of the heavens and the vision of the dove, and that the Holy Spirit appeared in no other form than this. About this, the speaker does not require us to explain now; for the main point is to show that Celsus did not treat the Jew fairly, casting doubt on the matter with such words, more likely based on what he believed than on what was accepted by him.

Book 1, Section 45

I remember once speaking to some wise Jews using this argument. As more people were judging the statement, I said, "Tell me, you who are here, about two men who appeared among the human race, concerning whom strange things are written beyond human nature: I speak of Moses, your lawgiver, who wrote about himself, and of Jesus, our teacher, who left nothing written about himself but is testified by his disciples in the Gospels.

What is the reason to believe Moses as truthful, even though the Egyptians accused him of being a sorcerer and claimed he performed his wonders through magic, while you disbelieve Jesus, since you accuse him? For both are witnessed by nations. The Jews witness for Moses, while Christians, not denying the prophecy of Moses, show that the things about Jesus are true, as recorded by his disciples.

For if you demand a statement from us about Jesus, give us one about Moses, who came before him. Then we will provide the account about this. But as you rise up and flee from the proofs concerning him, we do not prove anything similar to you at present. Nevertheless, you admit that you have no proof about Moses and have heard the proofs about Jesus from the law and the prophets.

And the strangeness of the proofs concerning Jesus is shown in the law and the prophets, proving that both Moses and the prophets were prophets of God."

Book 1, Section 46

The law and the prophets are filled with similar strange things written about Jesus at the time of his baptism regarding the dove and the voice from heaven. I think this was a sign of the Holy Spirit appearing in the form of a dove, which led to the strange events that happened through Jesus, which Celsus claims he learned from the Egyptians.

I will not only use those examples but also what the apostles of Jesus have done. For without powers and wonders, they would not have moved people to leave their traditions and accept these teachings, even risking death. And still, the traces of that Holy Spirit, which appeared in the form of a dove, are preserved among Christians. They cast out demons, perform many healings, and see visions according to the will of the word about future events.

And even if Celsus mocks what is said or the Jew he introduced, it will still be said that many have come to Christianity as if they were drawn by some spirit that suddenly turned them away from hating the word to wanting to die for it and imagining they had a real experience or dream.

For we have recorded many such things, which if we wrote down, those who encountered them and saw them would agree. We would bring great laughter to the unbelievers, thinking we are like those who believe these things are made up and shape them. But God is a witness to our conscience, wanting to show the divine teaching of Jesus not through false claims but through a variety of clear signs.

Since the one about the Holy Spirit appearing in the form of a dove has come to Jesus, it would be worth asking him, "O Jew, who is the one in Isaiah saying, 'And now the Lord has sent me and his Spirit?'" In which the saying is uncertain, whether the Father and the Holy Spirit sent Jesus, or the Father sent both Christ and the Holy Spirit, the second is true.

And since the Savior was sent, then the Holy Spirit, so that what was said by the prophet might be fulfilled, it was necessary for the fulfillment of the prophecy to be known to those who came after. For this reason, the disciples of Jesus wrote about what happened.

Book 1, Section 47

I would want to say to Celsus, who has made the Jew into a character, that someone wrote about John the Baptist baptizing Jesus for the forgiveness of sins. This was recorded by someone who came shortly after John and Jesus. In the eighteenth book of Jewish Antiquities, Josephus testifies about John as a baptizer who promised purification to those who were baptized.

He himself, although he disbelieved in Jesus as the Christ, sought the reason for the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. He should say that the plot against Jesus was the cause of these events for the people, since they killed the prophesied Christ. Yet he, as if unwilling, says that these things happened to the Jews as a punishment for James the Just, who was the brother of "Jesus called Christ," because they killed him, being a very righteous man.

This James, the genuine disciple of Jesus, Paul says he saw as "the brother of the Lord." It is not so much because of their blood relationship or their common upbringing, but because of their character and teaching. If, therefore, he says that the events concerning the desolation of Jerusalem happened because of James, how much more blessed would it be to say that this happened because of Jesus the Christ?

For many witnesses of his divinity are those who have turned away from the evils of the church and have been connected to the creator, giving all things in praise to him.

Book 1, Section 48

If the Jew does not defend himself about Ezekiel and Isaiah, while we share what is said about the opening of the heavens at Jesus' baptism and the voice heard by him, and similar things found in Ezekiel and Isaiah or some other prophet, we will present our argument as best as we can. Just as a dream is believed to reveal something divine or announce future events, whether clearly or in riddles, this is evident to all who have received such insights.

So, what is strange about the mind being shaped in a dream and having a reality that is useful to the one who dreams or to those who hear from him? Just as we receive visions in dreams and perceive sounds and sights, not through the physical eyes or ears but through the mind, it is not strange for such things to happen to the prophets when it is recorded that they saw something more extraordinary or heard words from the Lord or saw the heavens opened.

For I do not think that the physical heavens were opened or that his body was torn apart to record such things as Ezekiel did. So, should we not also expect the same from the Savior, who wisely listens to the Gospels, even if the simpler ones, who move the world with their simplicity, are troubled by such things? The deeper thinker will say that there is a divine sense, as the scripture names it, which only the blessed find, as it is said by Solomon: "For you will find a divine sense."

And those who have this sense see greater things in the heavenly realm, where the cherubim or seraphim are shown, and they hear voices that are not in the air, and they taste the living bread that came down from heaven and gives life to the world. Likewise, they smell the fragrance of Christ, as Paul says it is "the aroma of Christ to God," and they touch, as John says he touched "the word of life."

The blessed prophets found this divine sense and saw divinely, heard divinely, tasted similarly, and smelled, so that I may call it a sense that is not physical, and they touched the word with faith, so that its power might come to them and heal them. Thus, they saw what they wrote about and heard what they said, and they experienced similar things, as they wrote, eating the "head" given to them from the book.

So also Isaac "smelled the fragrance of his son's divine garments" and said with a spiritual blessing: "Behold, the smell of my son is like the smell of a full field, which the Lord has blessed." In a similar way, and more spiritually than physically, Jesus "touched" the leper to cleanse him, as I believe, freeing him not only from the physical leprosy that many hear about but also from the other leprosy through his truly divine touch.

Thus, "John testified saying that he saw the Spirit descending like a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. And I did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize in water said to me: 'Upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining on him, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit, and I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God.'"

And to Jesus, the heavens were opened. And at that time, except for John, no one is recorded to have seen the heavens opened. This opening of the heavens was foretold by the Savior to the disciples, saying, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man."

And thus Paul was caught up to the third heaven, having first seen it opened, since he was a disciple of Jesus. Now, to explain why Paul says, "Whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows," is not the time for that.

I will also add to the argument what Celsus thinks, that Jesus himself spoke about the opening of the heavens and the Holy Spirit descending upon him in the form of a dove by the Jordan. This scripture does not present that he said he saw this. The bravest one did not see that it is not according to what he said to the disciples about the vision on the mountain: "Tell no one the vision until the Son of Man is raised from the dead," to mention what was seen by John at the Jordan and heard.

It is also possible to see the character of Jesus everywhere surrounding his self-praise, and for this reason, he says, "If I bear witness of myself, my testimony is not true." And he surrounded his self-praise more with his works than with words. This is why the Jews say to him, "If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."

Since the Jew who speaks to Celsus about Jesus concerning the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, yet you say that he brings some one of those who are with you into the conversation, it is necessary for him to show that this is not fittingly attached to the Jewish character. For the Jews do not connect John with Jesus or John's actions with Jesus' actions.

And in this, the one who has boasted of knowing everything is shown to not know whom he is attaching words to the Jewish character concerning Jesus.

Book 1, Section 49

After this, I do not know how the greatest point about the nature of Jesus, that he was prophesied by the prophets among the Jews, Moses and those after him or even before Moses, falls short, as I think, because he cannot respond to the argument that neither the Jews nor any sects want to prophesy about Jesus. Perhaps he does not even know the prophecies about Jesus; for if he did, he would not dismiss what Christians say, that many prophets foretold the coming of the Savior.

He attributed to the Jewish character what was more fitting for a Samaritan than for a Sadducee. And a Jew would not say in the portrayal that "my prophet in Jerusalem once said that the Son of God will come, a judge of the holy and a punisher of the unjust." For not one prophet prophesied about Christ. Even if the Samaritans or Sadducees, who only accept the books of Moses, claim that the Christ is prophesied in them, it is not so in Jerusalem, where the prophecy was not spoken during the time of Moses.

Therefore, all the accusers of the word must be in such ignorance, not only of the facts but also of the simple writings of the scripture, and they accuse Christianity so that their argument has no plausible chance of being believed, causing the unsteady and "timely" believers to turn away, not from faith but from doubt.

A Jew would not admit that a prophet said the Son of God would come; for what they say is that the Christ of God will come. And indeed, they often ask us directly about the Son of God, as if there were no such person nor any prophecy about him. And we do not say this because the Son of God is not prophesied, but because it does not fit the Jewish character, since they do not acknowledge such a thing. He attributed to "my prophet in Jerusalem" the statement that the Son of God will come.

Book 1, Section 50

Then, as he says that this one was not only prophesied to be a judge of the holy and a punisher of the unjust, but he also does not mention his birthplace, his suffering, his resurrection, or the great miracles he would perform. He asks, "What more are you than the countless others who came after the prophecy?" About whom were these things prophesied?

And I do not know how, wanting to suggest that others might think they were the ones prophesied, he says that some who are inspired and others who are stirred up claim that the Son of God has come from above. For we have not recorded these things as being acknowledged by the Jews.

Therefore, it should first be said that many prophets in various ways foretold things about Christ, some through riddles, others through allegories, and some even in plain words. And since he later says in the portrayal of the Jew to those who believe from the people that the prophecies about this can apply to others, speaking this wickedly and maliciously, we will explain a few from many.

About which the one who wants to say something compelling for their overturning and is able to quickly lead believers to turn away from faith.

Book 1, Section 51

It has been said about the place of his birth that "from Bethlehem the ruler will come." In this way: "And you, Bethlehem, house of Ephrathah, you are too small to be among the thousands of Judah; from you will come a ruler in Israel, whose origins are from ancient times." This prophecy cannot be connected to anyone, as the Jew speaking to Celsus says, who claims to be inspired and stirred up, unless it is clearly shown that he was born in Bethlehem or, as someone else might say, that he comes from Bethlehem to lead the people.

Regarding Jesus being born in Bethlehem, if someone wants to be convinced after the prophecy of Micah and the account recorded in the Gospels by the disciples of Jesus, they should understand that according to the Gospel's account of his birth, it shows the cave in Bethlehem where he was born and the manger where he was wrapped in swaddling clothes.

And this is clearly shown in places and among those who are strangers to the faith, as in this cave, Jesus, who is worshiped and admired by Christians, was born. I believe that before the coming of Christ, the chief priests and scribes of the people taught clearly and plainly that the Christ would be born in Bethlehem.

This word reached many of the Jews; hence, Herod is recorded as asking the chief priests and scribes of the people if they had heard that the Christ would be born "in Bethlehem of Judea," where David was from. It is also said in the Gospel of John that the Jews mentioned that the Christ would be born in Bethlehem, where David was from.

After the coming of Christ, those who sought to deny the belief about him as prophesied concerning his birth turned this teaching away from the people, making a brother out of those who convinced the witnesses who saw him raised from the dead, the guards at the tomb, and they reported to those who saw: "Say that his disciples came and stole him while we were sleeping. And if this is heard by the governor, we will persuade him and keep you out of trouble."

Book 1, Section 52

For it is difficult to argue and to look against the clear facts, so that they do not abandon the teachings that have become familiar to them, which have somehow shaped their souls. And a person finds it easier to leave other habits, even if they are hard to break, than to leave their beliefs. However, even those familiar with these beliefs do not easily overlook them; thus, neither homes, nor cities, nor villages, nor familiar people are easily abandoned by those who have been influenced by them.

This has become the reason why many Jews then resisted the clear truths of the prophecies and the miracles that Jesus performed and suffered. That such things happened to human nature will be clear to those who understand that those who have once been influenced by the shameful and false traditions of their ancestors and citizens do not easily change.

Certainly, no one would quickly disregard the beliefs passed down from their ancestors, such that they would not consider this irrational creature a god, or even guard against tasting the flesh of this creature until death.

If we examine more closely the matters concerning Bethlehem and its prophecy, we believe it is necessary to do this, defending ourselves against those who might say that if the prophecies about Jesus were so clear to the Jews, why did they not accept his teaching when he came and turn to the better things he showed?

Let no one among us reproach those who believe with a similar accusation. We see that the arguments are not easily dismissed by those who have learned to advocate for faith in Jesus.

Book 1, Section 53

If there is a need for a second clear prophecy about Jesus, we will present the one recorded many years before the coming of Jesus by Moses, who said that Jacob prophesied about each of his sons and mentioned Judah: "The ruler will not depart from Judah, nor the leader from his descendants, until what is reserved for him comes."

Now, someone encountering this prophecy might wonder how Moses could have predicted that the rulers of the people would come from the tribe of Judah, given that there were twelve tribes among the Jews. This is why all the people are called Jews, being named after the ruling tribe.

Moreover, it would be surprising to see how Moses stated that the rulers and leaders of the people would come from the tribe of Judah and that the leadership would not cease "from Judah" until what is reserved for him comes, and he himself is the hope of the nations.

For the one who is "what is reserved," Christ of God, "the ruler" of God's promises, has clearly become the only one among all before him, and I would confidently say even those after him, "the hope of the nations." For from all the nations, they have believed in God through him, and according to what was said by Isaiah, nations hoped in his name, saying: "Nations will hope in his name."

He also said, "to those in chains," as "each one is bound by the chains of their sins," the "come out" and to those in darkness, the light has come to them, and these things were prophesied: "And I have given you as a covenant for the nations to establish the land and inherit the desolate heritage, saying to those in chains, 'Come out,' and to those in darkness, 'Be revealed.'"

And it is evident to see at his coming that many throughout the world are simply believing, fulfilling the saying: "And they will be fed in all the ways, and in all the paths, their pasture."

Book 1, Section 54

Since the one who is to announce everything about the word, Celsus, blames the Savior for his suffering as if he was not helped by the Father or was unable to help himself. It should be noted that his suffering was prophesied along with the reason. It was necessary for him to die for people and to bear the wounds he suffered.

It was also foretold that "the nations will understand him," among those to whom the prophets did not come, and it was said that he would appear with "an appearance that is despised" among people. Thus, the text goes: "Behold, my servant will understand, and he will be lifted up and glorified and greatly exalted. Just as many were astonished at you, so his appearance was marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men."

So many nations will marvel at him, and kings will shut their mouths because they will see what has not been told to them, and they who have not heard will understand. "Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" We have announced him as a child before him, as a root in a dry land; he has no form or beauty.

And we saw him, and he had no form or splendor. But his appearance was despised and rejected by all people; he was a man of sorrows and familiar with suffering, as if his face was hidden. He was despised, and we did not consider him. This one bears our sins and suffers for us, and we thought he was in pain and afflicted.

But he was wounded for our transgressions, and he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds, we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. By oppression and judgment, he was taken away; and who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people, he was stricken.

Book 1, Section 55

I remember once discussing with those called wise among the Jews, using these prophecies, where the Jew said that these were prophesied about one person for the whole people, and that he would be born in the dispersion and be afflicted, so that many converts would come to the Jews through this prophecy.

And thus, he explained the phrase "he will be despised by men" and "those who have not been told about him will see," and "a man who is afflicted." Therefore, many things were said in that inquiry that showed it was not reasonable for them to apply these prophecies to the whole people when they were about a single individual.

I asked what kind of person would say, "This one bears our sins and suffers for us," and "he was wounded for our transgressions, and he was crushed for our iniquities," and whose face was the one saying, "By his wounds, we are healed."

For clearly, those who have sinned and have been healed from the suffering of the Savior, whether from that people or from the nations, say these things about the prophet, having seen them and having been inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Most of all, we were struck by the phrase: "He was led to death because of the iniquities of my people." For if the prophesied ones are from that people, how can it be said that he was led to death "because of the iniquities of the people" of God, unless he is someone other than the people of God?

Who is this, if not Jesus Christ, by whom "we are healed" through "his wounds," those who believe in him, having stripped off "the powers and authorities" and having shown them openly on the cross?

It is necessary to clarify each point in the prophecy and leave nothing unexamined for another time. And I think these things have been said more than enough, due to the ongoing discussion with Celsus the Jew.

Book 1, Section 56

Celsus and the Jew with him, along with all who do not believe in Jesus, have overlooked that the prophecies speak of two appearances of Christ: the first being more human and humble, so that Christ, being with people, would teach the way to God and leave no one in life without a defense regarding the coming judgment. The second appearance is glorious and more divine, having nothing human about it.

It would take a lot to present all the prophecies, but for now, it is enough to mention the 42nd and 44th psalms, which are also titled "A Song for the Beloved," where God is clearly proclaimed through these words: "Grace has been poured out on your lips; therefore, God has blessed you forever. Gird your sword upon your thigh, O mighty one, with your glory and majesty, and in your majesty ride on and prosper, and reign for the sake of truth and meekness and righteousness, and your right hand will lead you wonderfully. Your arrows are sharp, O mighty one; the peoples will fall under you in the heart of the king's enemies."

Pay careful attention to what follows, where God is said: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; the scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of righteousness. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore, God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness more than your companions."

And understand that the prophet, speaking of God, says, "Your throne is forever and ever," and "the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom." This God is said to be anointed by God, who was his God; and he was anointed because "he loved righteousness and hated wickedness."

I remember very well the distress of the Jew who thought himself wise from this saying; he said that to the one God it is said, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; the scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of righteousness." But to Christ, he said, "You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore, God, your God, has anointed you."

Book 1, Section 57

Moreover, the Jew says to the Savior that if you say this, that every person, according to divine providence, is a son of God, what makes you different from others? To this, we respond that every person, as Paul named, is no longer a child under fear but a son by choosing the good for himself; but this one is much greater and far different from any son of God who acts for virtue, as he is like a source and beginning of such things.

Paul's words are as follows: "For you did not receive a spirit of slavery again to fear, but you received a spirit of adoption, by which we cry, 'Abba, Father.'" Some will also argue, as the Jew with Celsus says, that many claim Jesus said these things about themselves, which were prophesied about him.

We do not know if Celsus knew of anyone who lived and wanted to call themselves sons of God or of God's power. But since we are examining the facts carefully, we will say that before the birth of Jesus, there was a certain Theudas among the Jews who claimed to be a "great one." After he died, those who were deceived by him were scattered.

And after him, "in the days of the census," when Jesus is said to have been born, there was a certain Judas from Galilee who led many away from the Jewish people as a wise innovator; after his death, his teaching was completely destroyed, leaving only a few.

And after the time of Jesus, there was also a Samaritan named Dositheus who tried to convince the Samaritans that he was the one prophesied by Moses as the Christ, and he seemed to have gained some following with his teaching.

But it is very wise to refer to what is written by Gamaliel in the Acts of the Apostles, showing how those were not part of the promise, neither sons of God nor having his power, while Christ Jesus was truly the Son of God.

Gamaliel said there, "If this plan or this teaching is of human origin, it will be destroyed," just as those of the others were destroyed after their deaths. "But if it is from God, you will not be able to destroy their teaching; otherwise, you might even find yourselves fighting against God."

Simon the Samaritan magician also wanted to take something away with his magic. At that time, he deceived many, but now I think there are about thirty Simonian followers in the whole world, and perhaps even more than that. But in Palestine, there are very few; and in the rest of the world, his name is nowhere to be found, as he wanted to spread glory about himself.

For those who are mentioned, it is reported from the Acts of the Apostles; but those who speak about him are called Christians, and the evidence has shown that Simon was nothing divine.

Book 1, Section 58

After this, the Jew with Celsus says that instead of the magi in the Gospel, it is said that they were Chaldeans who came because of the birth of Jesus. They worshiped him as a god while he was still an infant. And it was made known to Herod the tetrarch; he sent to kill those born at the same time, thinking that he would eliminate this one too, so that he would not live long enough to reign.

So, see in this the mistake of not distinguishing the Chaldean magi or recognizing their different prophecies, and for this reason, he falsely interprets the Gospel text. I do not know how the event that moved the magi was silenced, nor did he say that it was a "star" that appeared to them "in the east," according to what is written.

Let us see what can be said about this. We believe that the "star that appeared in the east" was something new and unlike any of the usual ones, neither among the fixed stars nor among those in the lower spheres, but that it was of a kind that happens at certain times, like comets or other signs that the Greeks might call by different names.

We are preparing this kind of explanation.

Book 1, Section 59

In great matters and major changes on earth, such stars are said to rise, signaling either the changes of kingdoms or wars or whatever might happen among people, shaking the powers on earth. We have read in the work about comets by Chairemon the Stoic how, at the time of Christ, comets appeared, and he presents the history regarding these.

If, therefore, a comet or some similar star rises at new kingdoms or other major events on earth, what is so surprising about the birth of one who is about to innovate among humanity and introduce teachings not only to the Jews but also to many Greeks and even to the barbarian nations?

I would say that there is no prophecy concerning comets, stating that such a comet will rise during this kingdom or at this time. But regarding the star that rose at the birth of Jesus, Balaam prophesied, as Moses wrote: "A star will rise out of Jacob, and a man will arise out of Israel."

If we need to also examine what was written about the magi at the birth of Jesus and the appearance of the star, we would say different things to the Greeks and to the Jews.

Book 1, Section 60

To the Greeks, it is said that the magi, who associate with spirits, do what they have learned and desire, calling upon them, which seems nothing more divine or powerful than the spirits themselves. If a more divine appearance occurs, the actions of the spirits are weakened, unable to withstand the light of divinity.

It is likely that at the birth of Jesus, since "a multitude of the heavenly army," as Luke wrote and I believe, praised God and said: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men," the demons were troubled and disturbed, their magic being challenged and their power broken, not only by the angels who appeared in that region because of the birth of Jesus but also by the soul of Jesus and the divinity within him.

Thus, the magi, wanting to do the usual things they had done before through certain spells and magic, sought the cause, thinking it to be a great one, and seeing a divine sign in the sky, they wanted to see what it signified.

I think that having Balaam's prophecies, which Moses also wrote, they found there about the star and thought, "I will show him." And they did not think, "Blessed is he, and he will not touch," that the man prophesied with the star was living among them, and that he was greater than all the demons and those who appeared to them and acted. They wanted to "worship" him.

So they came to Judea, believing that a "king" had been born or knowing where he would be born, but not knowing what kingdom he would reign over. They brought "gifts," which, as I would name them, were symbols of a certain divine and mortal being: "gold" as for a king, "myrrh" as for one who would die, and "frankincense" as for a god. They "offered" these after learning the place of his birth.

But since he was God, who helps humans through angels, an angel directed the magi to worship Jesus with reverence, telling them not to go to Herod but to return another way to their own country.

Book 1, Section 61

If Herod plotted against the one who was born, even if the Jew with Celsus does not truly believe this happened, it is not surprising. For wickedness is blind and desires to be stronger than what it should fear.

This is what happened to Herod, who believed a king had been born to the Jews and had a secret agreement with this belief, not seeing that either he is truly a king and will reign, or he will not reign and will be killed in vain. Therefore, he intended to kill him, driven by the evil judgments of the blind and wicked devil, who from the beginning plotted against the Savior, imagining him to be some great one who would come.

An angel then instructed Joseph to follow the course of events, and even if Celsus does not believe, he told him to flee with the child and his mother "into Egypt." Herod "killed" all the children "in Bethlehem" and "in its borders," hoping to eliminate the one born as the king of the Jews.

For he did not see the unceasing guard of those worthy to be protected and kept for the salvation of humanity, of whom Jesus was the first and greatest in honor and excellence, not as Herod thought he would be, but as it was fitting for God to give a kingdom based on the goodness of those being ruled, not indifferent and unfeeling, so that I might name it thus, a kindness that benefits the subjects, but truly teaches them the laws of God and guides them.

This is what Jesus knew and denied being, as most people expect, but as a king, he taught the excellence of his kingdom, saying: "If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight so that I would not be delivered to the Jews. But now my kingdom is not of this world."

If Celsus had seen this, he would not have said: "If you have grown up to reign instead of him, why, since you have grown, do you not reign, but the son of God is so lowly, trembling in fear and being destroyed up and down?"

It is not lowly to avoid dangers with wisdom, not out of fear of death, but to benefit others while he lives, until the right time comes for the one who has taken on human nature to die a human death, having something useful for humanity. This is clear to anyone who understands that Jesus died for humanity, about which we have spoken as best we can before this.

Book 1, Section 62

After this, since he did not even know the number of the apostles, he said there were ten or eleven, depending on how many he thought Jesus had chosen for himself, calling them outspoken men, tax collectors and the most wicked sailors, and he has said that he would gather them here and there, collecting shameful and meager food. Let us also discuss these things as much as we can.

It is clear to those who encounter the gospel words, which Celsus does not seem to have read, that Jesus chose twelve apostles, including Matthew the tax collector, and he speaks confusedly of sailors, perhaps referring to James and John, since they left their boat and "their father Zebedee" to follow Jesus. For Peter and his brother Andrew, who were busy with their necessary food, were not sailors but, as the scripture has written, should be counted among fishermen.

Let it be that Levi the tax collector followed Jesus; however, he was not part of the number of his apostles unless according to some copies of the Gospel of Mark. As for the others, we have not learned their deeds, from which before the discipleship of Jesus, they gathered food for themselves.

I say, therefore, that it seems wise and reasonable for those able to examine the apostles of Jesus to see that they taught Christianity with divine power, successfully bringing people to the word of God. For their ability to speak and their order of preaching was not based on the Greek dialectical or rhetorical skills that influenced their listeners.

It seems to me that Jesus, having chosen some wise men who were pleasing to the many and capable of understanding, used them as helpers in his teaching, and he would have been greatly blessed to be compared to similar philosophers leading a certain school.

And the message about the divine would no longer appear as a mere promise, since the word and the preaching were in the persuasions of wisdom in the arrangement and composition of words. And "faith" would be similar to that of the philosophers of the world regarding their doctrines, "in the wisdom of men" and not "in the power of God."

Now, who sees fishermen and tax collectors who have not even learned the first letters (as the gospel writes about them and Celsus believes about them, speaking truthfully about their ignorance), boldly speaking not only to Jews about faith in Jesus but also preaching him among other nations, would not ask where they got their persuasive power? For it was not the usual knowledge of many.

And who would not say that the phrase "Come, follow me, and I will make you fishers of men" was fulfilled by some divine power in his apostles? This is what Paul presents, as we have said above, saying: "And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God."

For according to what is said in the prophets, they proclaim beforehand about the preaching of the gospel: "The Lord gave a word to those proclaiming with great power, the King of the hosts of the beloved," so that the saying of the prophecy: "His word runs swiftly" might be fulfilled.

And we see that "the sound of Jesus' apostles went out into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world." Therefore, those who hear the word spoken with power are filled with strength, which they demonstrate through their disposition, life, and struggle for the truth until death.

Some are different, even if they claim to believe in God through Jesus, those who do not have divine power seem to approach the word of God. Even if I mentioned the gospel saying by the Savior above, I will still use it now at the right time, presenting the divine foreknowledge of our Savior regarding the preaching of the gospel and the power of the word, without teachers holding the believers with divine persuasion.

Jesus says: "The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore pray to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest."

Book 1, Section 63

Since Celsus called the apostles of Jesus "outspoken men, tax collectors, and the most wicked sailors," we will say that it seems he wants to accuse them with his words, believing what he wants about the written texts. He wants to deny the evident divinity shown in those same books and disbelieve the gospels. It is necessary for someone who loves the truth to believe what is written about the handwritings and about the more divine matters.

It is indeed written in the Catholic Epistle of Barnabas, from which Celsus perhaps took the idea to call the apostles "outspoken and wicked," saying that "Jesus chose his own apostles, being more lawless than all lawbreakers." And in the gospel according to Luke, Peter says to Jesus: "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, Lord."

But Paul, in his letter to Timothy, also says, and he himself became an apostle of Jesus later, that "the saying is trustworthy, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost." I do not know how he forgot or did not think to mention anything about Paul, who after Jesus established the churches in Christ.

It is likely that he saw the need to defend himself regarding Paul, how he persecuted the church of God and fiercely fought against the believers, even wanting to deliver the disciples of Jesus to death. Later, he changed so much that "from Jerusalem to Illyricum, he fulfilled the gospel of Christ" and "was eager to preach," so that he would "not build on another's foundation," but where the gospel of God in Christ was first preached.

So what is strange about wanting to present Jesus, who has the healing power of souls, choosing the outspoken and wicked and promoting them to such an extent that they become an example of the purest character for those who come to the gospel of Christ through them?

Book 1, Section 64

If we are going to blame those who change their lives based on their previous lives, we should also accuse Phaedon and his philosophical pursuits, since, as history says, Socrates moved him from his home to a life of philosophy. We should also blame the way of life of Polemon, who succeeded Xenocrates, for his wastefulness in philosophy; it is necessary to acknowledge this as well.

For the one who has persuaded others to change from such evils must be able to do so. Among the Greeks, there is one Phaedon, and I do not know if there is a second, and one Polemon, who changed from a wasteful and wicked life to a philosophical one. But with Jesus, not only the twelve apostles at that time but also many more have become a chorus of the wise, saying about their former lives: "For we once were foolish, disobedient, led astray, serving various desires and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another; but when the goodness and loving kindness of our Savior appeared," "through the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Spirit, which he poured out on us richly," we became like this.

"For God sent his word and healed them and delivered them from their destruction," as the one who prophesied in the psalms taught. I would also add to what has been said that Chrysippus, in his work on the healing of passions, attempts to calm the passions of souls in humans, not pretending to have any doctrine of truth, but healing according to the various schools those who are troubled by passions. He says that even if pleasure is the end, the passions should be treated in this way; and even if there are three kinds of good, according to this reasoning, those troubled by passions should be freed from them.

But the accusers of Christianity do not see how many passions and how much evil is suppressed and how many wild behaviors are tamed by the power of the word. They should have acknowledged the social graces that have transformed many evils in humans through a new method, and they should testify to him, even if it is not the truth, but what is beneficial for the human race.

Book 1, Section 65

Since Jesus was teaching his disciples not to be reckless, he said to them: "If they persecute you in this city, flee to another; and if they pursue you in the other, flee again to another." By giving them this example, he showed them how to live a stable life, managing to avoid danger wisely and not carelessly. Celsus accuses Jesus again, saying that the Jew who was with him claimed that Jesus was running away with his disciples from one place to another.

We will say that this accusation against Jesus and his disciples is similar to the story about Aristotle. For he, seeing that a court was about to be formed against him for some of his philosophical teachings, which the Athenians thought were impious, left Athens and made his studies in Chalcis, explaining to his friends that "we should leave Athens so that we do not give the Athenians a reason to take up a second charge similar to that against Socrates, and so that they do not accuse philosophy again of impiety."

Celsus also says that Jesus, along with his disciples, was shamefully and greedily gathering food. He should explain where he got the shameful and greedy nature of their gathering. For in the gospels, it is written that "some women, healed of their infirmities," including "Susanna," provided food for the disciples "from their own resources."

Which of the philosophers and those reclining at the table did not receive what they needed from these women? Or did those women do this properly and well, but when the disciples of Jesus do the same, they are accused by Celsus of shamefully and greedily gathering food?

Book 1, Section 66

Then the Jew says to Jesus, according to Celsus: "Why did you still need to be carried to Egypt as a child? Should you not have been afraid of being killed? For it is not fitting for a god to fear death. But an angel came down from heaven, commanding you and your family to flee, so that you would not die if you were left behind. But could the great God, who sent two angels to protect you, not keep you safe there?"

Celsus thinks that there is nothing divine in Jesus, either in his body or soul, and that his body is like those described in the myths of Homer. He jokingly claims that the blood of Jesus shed on the cross was not ichor, like that which flows for the blessed gods. But we believe in Jesus, who said about his divinity: "I am the way, the truth, and the life," and if there is anything similar to this, he also said that "now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth."

It would have been necessary for the one who foresaw his life as a human to avoid danger until death. Thus, he should have been guided by those who cared for him. By a divine angel, who first said to Joseph: "Do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit," and then: "Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you; for Herod is seeking the child to destroy him."

In these things, there is nothing at all strange to me. For in each part of the scripture, an angel is said to have spoken these things to Joseph. The dream is shown to some to do these things, and it happens to many others, whether by an angel or by some kind of vision in the soul.

So what is strange about the one who became human and lived as a human needing to avoid danger? It is not impossible for such a thing to happen, but it is necessary for the one who is to be saved to be guided in a way that is appropriate for Jesus' salvation. And it would have been better for the child Jesus to escape Herod's threat and to go with those caring for him "to Egypt until the threat is over," than for the divine plan concerning Jesus to be hindered by Herod wanting to kill the child or to do something similar to what happened in Sodom.

For it would be very strange if the help that came to him was not useful for teaching him as a man to have something divine in the visible human. For he was indeed the Son of God, the Word of God, the Power of God, and the Wisdom of God, who is called Christ. Now is not the time to discuss the composition of the one who became human and how he was made.

Book 1, Section 67

After this, the Jew, according to Celsus, says that some Greek, who is eager to learn and educated in Greek ways, points out that the ancient myths about Perseus, Amphion, Aiacus, and Minos, although we do not believe them, still showed great and truly wonderful deeds beyond human ability, so that they would not seem unbelievable. But you, what good or marvelous work or word have you done? You have shown us nothing, even though you were challenged to provide some clear sign in the temple, to prove that you are the Son of God.

Moreover, the Greeks have shown us some bright and beneficial things from those they have named, extending them to later generations, to create belief in the myths about them, saying they were born from divine seed. But they will show nothing, not even a little, about the men that Jesus presented. If the Greeks do not lead us to myths and their histories, wanting us to believe those things without reason, while being very skeptical about these, we say that the work of Jesus has affected the whole world of people, where the churches of God through Jesus have changed many from countless evils.

Furthermore, the name of Jesus causes people to be amazed, drives out demons, and even heals diseases. It brings a certain wonderful calmness, a change in character, kindness, goodness, and gentleness to those who do not pretend to be human for worldly needs but who genuinely accept the teachings about God, Christ, and the coming judgment.

Book 1, Section 68

Next, Celsus, considering the great things that Jesus is said to have done, about which we have mentioned a few from many, pretends to accept as true the accounts of healings, resurrections, or the feeding of many with a few loaves, from which many remains are left behind. He thinks that the disciples have made up other wonders and adds: "Come, let us believe that you have done these things."

He immediately compares these works to those of magicians, who promise even greater wonders, and to those performed by learned men from Egypt, who, for a few coins in the marketplace, show solemn teachings, drive out demons, heal diseases, and call back the souls of heroes, displaying lavish banquets and tables, showing things that do not exist, and making things appear alive that are not truly alive, but only seem so in imagination. He asks: "Since those people do these things, should we consider them to be sons of God? Or should we say that these are the tricks of wicked and evil men?"

You see how through these things, they seem to accept magic. I do not know if the same person who wrote about magic wrote more books. However, it is useful for him to compare the things told about Jesus to those from magic. It would be similar if he showed that Jesus' works were like those of magicians. But now, none of the magicians, through what they do, call those who see them to a correction of morals, nor do they teach those who are amazed by the spectacles to live in a way that would make them justified before God.

And the magicians do nothing of the sort, since they cannot or do not want to deal with the correction of humanity, being themselves full of the worst and most shameful sins. But the one who performed wonders for the moral improvement of those who see what is happening, how could he not have provided himself not only as an example of the best life to his true disciples but also to others? So that the disciples might encourage people to teach according to God's will, and others, having learned from his words or his character and the wonders, might do everything in accordance with what pleases God.

If this was the life of Jesus, how could anyone reasonably compare him to the intentions of magicians and not believe that he is God, appearing in human form for the benefit of our race?

Book 1, Section 69

After this, Celsus, discussing the common claims of Christians, says that such a body as yours, Jesus, could not be from God. But we say that he took on a body that was human, coming from a woman, and was capable of human death. Therefore, we also say that he became a great fighter, since he experienced human life "in every way," but without sin, unlike other people. For it clearly seems to us that "he did not commit sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth," and "not knowing sin," he offered himself as a pure sacrifice for all who have sinned.

Then Celsus says that such a body, which you, Jesus, have, could not be from God. However, he acknowledges that if, as it is written, he was born, then his body could somehow be more divine than most and in some way signify a body of God. But he doubts the accounts of his conception by the Holy Spirit and believes that he was conceived by some man named Panthera who ruined the virgin. Therefore, he says that such a body, as you were born with, could not be from God. But we have already said more about these matters above.

Book 1, Section 70

He says that a body like this cannot be the body of God, as if it were being fed according to the Gospel writings, and what it is being fed with. But let him say that he ate the Passover with the disciples, not only saying, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you," but also that he drank by the well of Jacob. What does this have to do with what we say about his body? It clearly seems that he ate fish after the resurrection; for we say that he took on a body, having been "born of a woman."

But he says that a body of God does not use such speech or such persuasion. And these things are cheap and very contemptible; for it will be said to him that the one believed by the Greeks to be a god, Apollo, and the Twin Gods, speaks in such a way as the Pythia or the prophetess from Miletus. And for this reason, he is not accused by the Greeks of not being a god, whether Apollo or the Twin Gods, or any other such Greek god established in one place.

It would be much better to use a god who speaks in a powerful way, for it would convey something extraordinary to those who hear it.

Book Two

Then he says, insulting Jesus because of the impiety and wicked teachings, that he was hated by some wicked sorcerer. However, if one examines the names and the things closely, it will be impossible for a person to be hated by God, since God loves all beings and does not reject anything he has made; for he does not hate anything he has created. If some prophetic words say such things, they will generally explain that the Scriptures use human-like expressions about God.

What should one say in response to someone who thinks that it is necessary to use slander and insults against Jesus, who is considered wicked and a sorcerer? For this does not prove anything but shows a private and unphilosophical passion. It is necessary to examine the matter thoughtfully and to speak about what arises as much as possible. But since the argument from Celsus the Jew against Jesus has stopped, we too will stop our description of the first book against him.

And since God gives the truth that destroys the false words according to the stated prayer: "In your truth, destroy them," we will begin with the next section, in which the Jew is made to speak to those who have been convinced by Jesus about what follows.

Book 2, Section 1

In the first book of the true word addressed to Celsus, we have taken up the portrayal of the Jew against Jesus, having received a complete description. We intend to respond to the accusations he brings against those from the Jewish people who believe in Jesus. First, we ask why Celsus, having judged once, does not portray a Jew speaking to those from the nations, but only to those from the Jews. The argument seems to him to be most convincing when written to us.

But perhaps the one who claims to know everything did not see the context of the portrayal. So what does he say to those from the Jews who believe? He claims that they have abandoned their ancestral law to be led by Jesus, and that they have been deceived in a very silly way, fleeing to another name and another life, not realizing that those from the Jews who believe in Jesus have not abandoned their ancestral law. For they live according to it, having become known as those who are poor according to the law.

For the poor are called Ebionites among the Jews, and those from the Jews who accept Jesus as the Christ are called Ebionites. Peter also seems to have kept the Jewish customs for a long time, as he had not yet learned from Jesus to rise above the letter of the law to the spirit. This we have learned from the Acts of the Apostles.

For on the next day, when Cornelius saw the angel of God, it was suggested to him to send for Simon, called Peter, and Peter went up to the rooftop to pray about the sixth hour. While he was hungry and wanted to eat, he fell into a trance and saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet coming down, held by four corners, and in it were all kinds of animals and reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. And a voice came to him: "Get up, Peter, kill and eat." But Peter said, "No way, Lord, for I have never eaten anything common or unclean." And a voice came to him a second time: "What God has cleansed, you must not call common."

See how Peter still observes the Jewish customs about clean and unclean. And from what follows, it is clear that he needed a vision to share the words of faith with Cornelius, who was not an Israelite according to the flesh, and with those with him, as he still lived as a Jew according to Jewish traditions, looking down on those outside of Judaism.

And in the letter to the Galatians, Paul shows that Peter, still fearing the Jews, stopped eating with the Gentiles, when James came to him, "separating himself" from the Gentiles, "fearing those from the circumcision." And the other Jews and Barnabas did the same thing. And it was expected that those sent to the circumcision would not turn away from Jewish customs when "those who seemed to be pillars gave Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship," "they themselves going to the circumcision," so that they might preach to the Gentiles.

What then do I say about those preaching "to the circumcision" who separated themselves from the Gentiles and set themselves apart? When Paul himself became "a Jew to the Jews," "that he might win Jews." Therefore, as it is written in the Acts of the Apostles, he also brought an offering to the altar to persuade the Jews not to be seen as a rebel against the law.

If Celsus knew all this, he would not have portrayed the Jew saying to those believing from Judaism: "What have you suffered, citizens, that you have left your ancestral law and have been led by him, to whom we have just referred, being very foolishly deceived and fleeing to another name and another life?"

Book 2, Section 2

Since we have once spoken about Peter and those who taught the Christians in the circumcision, I think it is fitting to present a saying of Jesus from the Gospel according to John and its explanation. It is written that he said, "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you into all truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak."

We seek to understand what the "many" things were that Jesus had to say to his disciples, which they could not bear at that time. I say that it was not as if he had to say to the Jews and those who were caught up in the letter of the law of Moses what the true law was, and what the "heavenly" worship was that was performed among the Jews, and what the "good things to come" were that the law concerning food, drink, festivals, new moons, and Sabbaths contained as a shadow.

These were indeed many things that he had to say to them. He saw that it was very difficult to change beliefs that had been almost born and raised together with them until the age of the man, and that had convinced those who had received them that these were divine, while changing them would be impious. In the greatness of the truth according to Christ, that is, the truth, he would challenge these beliefs as "rubbish" and "loss," so that those who heard would be persuaded, and he postponed this for a more suitable time after his passion and resurrection.

For it was truly untimely to bring this help to those who had not yet accepted it, as it would disrupt the understanding about Jesus, which they had already received as concerning the Christ and the Son of the living God. And pay attention, if one does not have a mind that is not easily dismissed, to hear the words, "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now." For there were many things of the law according to spiritual explanation and clarity; and the disciples could not bear them, being born and raised as Jews at that time.

I think that since those things were types, the truth was what the Holy Spirit was to teach them. Therefore, it is said, "When he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you into all truth," as if he were saying: into all the truth of things. From these types, you think you are serving the true worship to God.

And according to the promise of Jesus, "the Spirit of truth" came upon Peter, saying to him about the four-footed animals and reptiles of the earth and birds of the air: "Get up, Peter, kill and eat." And he came to him still hesitating, for he said to the divine voice, "No way, Lord, for I have never eaten anything common or unclean." And he taught the true and spiritual word about foods in "What God has cleansed, you must not call common."

And from that vision, "the Spirit of truth" guiding him "into all truth," he said many things to Peter that he could not bear when Jesus was still with him in the flesh. But concerning these matters, there will be another time to tell about those according to the tradition of the law of Moses.

Book 2, Section 3

Now it is time to challenge the ignorance of Celsus, where the Jew says to the citizens and Israelites who believe in Jesus: "What have you suffered that you have left your ancestral law?" And so on. How have they abandoned their ancestral law, those who criticize those who do not listen to him and say: "Tell me, you who read the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons," up to "what these things symbolize" and the rest.

And how have they abandoned their ancestral law, those who always remember the words of their ancestors and say: "Does not the law say this? For it is written in the law of Moses: 'You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.' Is God concerned about oxen? Or does he say this for our sake? For it was written for our sake."

And as confusedly as this Jew speaks through Celsus, he could more convincingly say that some of you have abandoned the customs under the pretext of stories and allegories, while others, as you claim, spiritually keep the ancestral traditions no less. Yet some do not even want to tell and accept Jesus as prophesied, while keeping the law of Moses according to the traditions, having the full understanding of the spirit.

But where does Celsus get his ideas about the place, who mentions the atheistic sects and everything foreign to Jesus in the following sections, and does not see the Israelites believing in Jesus and not abandoning their ancestral law? For it was not his intention to honestly examine all that pertains to the place, so that if he found anything useful, he would accept it. But as an enemy, he became entirely inclined to overturn everything upon hearing such things.

Book 2, Section 4

Then the Jew speaking through Celsus says to those from the people who believe: "Yesterday and the day before, when we were tending your flocks, you have turned away from the ancestral law," knowing nothing accurate about what he was saying, as we have shown. After this, it seems to me that it is terrible how you begin from our sacred things and then dishonor them, having no other authority to speak of the doctrine than our own law.

For indeed, the introduction for Christians is from the sacred writings of Moses and the prophetic texts. And after the introduction, in their explanation and clarity, there is progress for those who are being introduced, seeking the mystery "according to revelation," which has been "kept silent in ages past" but "has now been revealed" in the prophetic voices and in the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Not as you say, those who are advancing dishonor what is written in the law, but they show even greater honor to them, demonstrating how deep the wisdom and hidden words of those writings are that have not been understood by the Jews. What is strange about the beginning of our doctrine, that is, the Gospel, being the law? For even our Lord himself said to those who do not believe in him: "If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote about me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"

And one of the evangelists, Mark, says: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: 'Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you,'" showing that the beginning of the Gospel is connected to the Jewish writings.

So what is said about us by the Jew through Celsus? For if someone has previously declared to you that the servant of God will come to men, this one was our prophet and of our God. What accusation is there against Christianity if John, who baptized Jesus, was a Jew? For since he was a Jew, it does not follow that everyone who believes, whether coming from the nations or from Jews, must keep the law of Moses according to the letter.

Book 2, Section 5

After this, even if Celsus repeats himself about Jesus, he says for the second time that he was punished by the Jews. But we will not go over the defense again, being satisfied with what has already been said. Then, since the Jew speaking through him trivializes the matters of the resurrection of the dead, the judgment of God, and the honor for the righteous being fire for the unjust, he claims that Christians learn nothing new from these things, thinking that he can overturn Christianity.

It should be said to him that our Jesus, seeing the Jews doing nothing worthy of the teachings in the prophets, taught through a parable that "the kingdom of God will be taken away from them and given to those from the nations." Therefore, it is truly evident to see that all the myths and nonsense of the Jews today (for they do not have the light of knowledge of the scriptures) contrast with the truth of the Christians, who can elevate and lift up the soul and mind of a person, convincing them to have a "citizenship" not like that of the Jews below, but "in the heavens."

This is clear to those who consider the greatness of the meanings in the law and the prophets and can present other things as well.

Book 2, Section 6

Let it be that all the customs of the Jews, even their sacrifices, have made Jesus. What does this have to do with not needing to believe in him as the Son of God? Therefore, Jesus is the Son of the one who gave the law and the prophets. And we, from the church, do not go beyond this, but we have escaped the myths of the Jews and are being taught and educated by the mystical understanding of the law and the prophets.

For the prophets, while not stopping the mind from what is said in the obvious history or in the words and the letter of the law, where they claim to explain histories, say: "I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter hidden things from of old." But when they pray about the law as something unclear and needing God, they say in prayer: "Open my eyes, that I may see wonderful things from your law."

Book 2, Section 7

Let them show where any arrogance in the words of Jesus is found. For how can someone who says, "Learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls," be arrogant? Or how can someone who, "during a meal," took off his outer clothing and wrapped a towel around himself, poured water into a basin, and washed each one's feet, saying, "If I do not wash you, you have no part with me," be arrogant? Or how can someone who claims, "I am among you as one who serves," be arrogant?

Let someone point out what he lied about and present both great and small lies to show that Jesus lied greatly. There is also another way to challenge him: that there is no lie that is more of a lie. In the same way, there is no truth that is more true than the truth.

And let the Jew speaking through Celsus declare what is unholy about Jesus. Is it unholy to stop following physical circumcision, physical Sabbath, physical festivals, and physical new moons, while turning the mind to the worthy, true, and spiritual law of God? Is it unholy to become a Jew "for the sake of Christ" in order to win the Jews, and to be "under the law as under the law" in order to win those under the law?

Book 2, Section 8

He says that many others could also appear to those who want to be deceived, just like Jesus was. So let the Jew speaking through Celsus show even one person like Jesus, who brings words and teachings with a beneficial power to the human race and turns them away from the flood of sins. He claims that this is a crime for those who believe in Christ, since they do not believe that Jesus is God.

And about this, we have already defended ourselves above, showing how we understand him as God and why we call him a man. But he asks how we, having declared that the one who punishes the unjust comes from God, dishonor him. To respond to this seems very foolish to me. It is as if someone else said: how could we, who teach self-control, have done something reckless, or having advocated for justice, have acted unjustly?

Just as these things are found among people, so they say they believe the prophets, who spoke about the coming of Christ, and they knew that the one who came according to the prophecies was human. If we need to add another reason, we will say that the prophets also said this. Indeed, Isaiah clearly says: "You will hear but never understand, and you will see but never perceive. For the heart of this people has grown dull."

And let them tell us what the Jews hear and what they see, that it is prophesied they will not understand what is said and will not see the truth as they should. But it is clear that when they saw Jesus, they did not see who he was, and when they heard him, they did not understand his divinity from what was said, transferring the focus from the God of the Jews to those from the nations who believe in him.

So, it is evident that after the coming of Jesus, the Jews are left behind everywhere and have nothing of what they once thought was sacred, nor any sign of divinity among them. For there are no longer prophets or miracles, of which even traces can be found among Christians, and some even greater. And if we are faithful in saying this, we have seen it ourselves.

The Jew speaking through Celsus asks: why do we dishonor the one we proclaim? Or is it so that we may be punished more than others? To this, we can say that more than others, the Jews, because of their unbelief in Jesus and all the other insults they hurled at him, will not only be judged according to their believed judgment but have already suffered.

What nation has fled from its own homeland and its own place to its ancestral religion, except for the Jews? They have suffered this as the most disgraceful, even if they have sinned greatly, for nothing is like what they have done against Jesus.

Book 2, Section 9

After this, the Jew says: how could we consider him a god, since he did not show anything of what he promised? And when we accused him and judged him, we thought he deserved punishment. He was hiding and running away, and he was caught in the most shameful way, betrayed by those whom he called his disciples. And yet, he claims to be a god. He says he is neither able to flee nor to be taken away.

Least of all, he is thought to be a savior and a son of the greatest God by those who were with him and by all who used him as a teacher. To this, we say that we do not think the visible and physical body of Jesus is God. And what do I mean by body? Not even the soul, about which it is said, "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death."

But just as, according to the Jewish view, the one who says, "I am the Lord, the God of all flesh," and "Before me, no other god was formed, nor will there be one after me," is believed to be God, using the organ of the soul and the body of the prophet, so too the Greeks say: "I know the number of the grains of sand and the measure of the sea."

And I understand the mute, and I hear the god speaking through the Pythia, and thus we say that the word of God and the Son of God is in Jesus, saying: "I am the way, the truth, and the life," and "I am the door," and "I am the living bread that came down from heaven."

And if there is anything else similar to these, we accuse the Jews of not considering him a god, even though he is often testified to by the prophets as having great power and being God according to the God and Father of all. For we say that in the creation of the world according to Moses, the Father commanded, saying, "Let there be light," and "Let there be a firmament," and the rest of what God commanded to be made.

And he also said, "Let us make man in our image and likeness." And having commanded the word to create all things, as the Father instructed him. And we say this not by imposing our views but believing the prophecies coming from the Jews, in which it is said about God and his creations: "For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm."

If God commanded and the creations were made, who could fulfill such a command from the Father, or who, to put it this way, could be the living word and "truth"? For the one in Jesus saying, "I am the way, the truth, and the life," does not know of anything described in the gospels that exists outside the soul and body of Jesus, as is clear from many sources.

John the Baptist prophesied that the Son of God was not yet standing in that body and soul, but was coming everywhere, saying about him: "Among you stands one you do not know, who comes after me." If, therefore, he understood that the Son of God was only where the visible body of Jesus was, how could he say: "Among you stands one you do not know"?

And Jesus himself, raising the minds of his disciples to think greater about the Son of God, says: "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them." Such is his promise to the disciples, saying: "And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

We say these things without separating the Son of God from Jesus; for the soul and body of Jesus have become one with the word of God. For if, according to Paul's teaching, "the one who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with him," then how much more is the union with the word of God?

This one indeed showed among the Jews "the power of God," doing such wonders that were thought to be magic by Celsus and by the Jews of that time. I do not know where they learned about Beelzebul, "the prince of demons," casting out "the demons." He rebuked them for saying the most absurd things, our Savior, there, saying that the kingdom of evil has no end. This will be clear to those who wisely engage with the gospel writing, which is not the time to discuss now.

Book 2, Section 10

What did Jesus promise and not fulfill? Let Celsus present evidence. But he will not be able to, especially since he thinks he can bring accusations either from hearsay, or from the gospel readings, or from Jewish stories against Jesus or us.

But since the Jew says again that we accused him and judged him, let them show how he was accused by those seeking false testimony against him; otherwise, the great accusation against Jesus would not exist. The accusers said, "This man said, 'I can destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.'" But he was speaking about the temple of his body. They thought they were hearing him speak about the stone temple, which was honored by the Jews.

Or should the temple of the Word, wisdom, and truth be honored? Let someone show how Jesus was shamefully hiding while teaching. For whoever is worthy of shame, let them be presented. But since he says he was caught, I would say that if being caught is to be unheard of, Jesus was not caught; for he did not prevent himself from being handed over to men at the right time as "the Lamb of God," to take away "the sin of the world."

Knowing all that was coming upon him, he went out and said to them, "Whom are you seeking?" They answered, "Jesus of Nazareth." He said to them, "I am he." And Judas, who was betraying him, stood with them. When he said to them, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground. Again, he asked them, "Whom are you seeking?" They said, "Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus answered, "I told you that I am he; therefore, if you seek me, let these go."

But also, to the one wanting to help him, he struck "the servant of the high priest" and cut off "his ear." Jesus said, "Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"

If someone thinks the gospels are fabrications, how much more are the fabrications of those from hatred and enmity towards him and the Christians, while the truth is shown in the genuine disposition towards Jesus? For how much patience and resistance did the disciples of Jesus endure until death, with a disposition that reshaped what was not true about their teacher?

And it is very clear to those who are grateful about what they have been convinced of regarding what they wrote, that they believed him to be the Son of God.

Book 2, Section 11

Then, he was betrayed by those whom he called his disciples. The Jew speaking through Celsus learned from the gospels, mentioning many disciples but focusing on one, Judas, to make the accusation seem stronger. However, he did not include everything written about Judas, since Judas fell into conflicting judgments about the teacher and did not fully keep his shame towards the teacher.

For the one who betrayed him gave a "sign" to the crowd that had come to arrest Jesus, saying, "Whomever I kiss, he is the one; seize him," trying to save some of his own honor. For if he did not save it, he would have handed him over with boldness and without pretense. This will not convince everyone about Judas's choice, that with greed and wickedness he had some mixed motive in his soul from the words of Jesus that had been born in him, having a hint of goodness.

It is written that "seeing that Judas, who betrayed him, was condemned, he repented and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, 'I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.' They said, 'What is that to us? You see to it.' And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed and went and hanged himself."

If the greedy Judas, who stole from the poor, returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, it is clear that he was able to feel some remorse from the teachings of Jesus, not completely despising what he had learned from Jesus.

Or should we say that the visible actions do not fully show Judas's complete rejection of Jesus, and those around Celsus will only say that one of the disciples betrayed him, and they will add that he betrayed him with his whole soul? This is impossible, as all the writings make him an enemy, both believing and disbelieving.

If we need to present some negative argument about Judas, we will say that in the book of Psalms, the whole 108th psalm contains a prophecy about Judas, beginning with: "O God, do not keep silent, for the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of deceit have opened against me."

It prophesies that Judas, one of the apostles, separated himself because of his sin, and another was appointed in his place, as shown in "and let another take his office." But if he was betrayed by one of the disciples, it is worse than Judas, who seemed to pour out all he heard from Jesus's words.

What does this have to do with the accusation against Jesus or Christianity? And how does this prove the word to be false? We have defended ourselves about these things and previously, showing that Jesus was not caught while fleeing but willingly gave himself up for all of us. Therefore, if he was bound, he was bound willingly, teaching us not to act without thought but to take these things up for piety.

Book 2, Section 12

I think such things are childish, because a good general, leading many thousands, was never betrayed, nor was a wicked bandit leader, who seems to be helpful to those around him. But he himself was betrayed by those under him, neither as a good general nor as one who deceived his disciples, even if he acted like a bandit, thus creating goodwill among those who were deceived.

For one could find many stories about generals betrayed by their own and bandits captured for not keeping their agreements with them. But let it be that no general or bandit was ever betrayed; what does this have to do with one of Jesus's students being his betrayer?

Since Celsus brings up philosophy, let us ask whether he thinks that Plato accused Aristotle, who graduated twenty years after listening to him, of the immortality of the soul, while Plato called his ideas "teretisms"? And let us also wonder if he thinks that Plato was no longer capable in dialectics or able to present what he had thought, since Aristotle graduated from him, and therefore Plato's teachings are false?

Or can it be that Plato was indeed true, as those who study him might say? Was Aristotle wicked and ungrateful towards his teacher? But even Chrysippus seems to touch on Cleanthes in many of his writings, innovating beyond what was established by him, while still being a young teacher with beginnings in philosophy.

Yet, Aristotle is said to have studied under Plato for twenty years, and Chrysippus spent a considerable time with Cleanthes. But Judas did not spend even three years with Jesus. From the writings in the lives of philosophers, one could find many such things, which Celsus accuses Jesus of through Judas.

The Pythagoreans built empty tombs for those who, after being urged to pursue philosophy, returned to their private lives; and this does not make Pythagoras and his followers weak in argument and proof.

Book 2, Section 13

After these things, the Jew speaking through Celsus says that he has much to say about what happened regarding Jesus, and that it is true and not similar to what is written by the disciples of Jesus, but he willingly leaves those things out. So what are the true things that the Jew speaking through Celsus leaves out? Or does he seem to use clever rhetoric, pretending to have much to say but actually having nothing outside of the gospel to support his claims, able to strike the listener as true and clearly accuse Jesus and his teaching?

He accuses the disciples as if they were fabricated, saying that he predicted and foretold everything that happened to him. And this is true, even if Celsus does not want it to be, as we will show from many other prophetic statements made by the Savior, in which he foretold things to the Christians and to the generations that came later.

And who would not be amazed at the prediction that "you will be brought before governors and kings for my sake, as a testimony to them and to the nations," and if there is anything else he said about his disciples being persecuted? For what doctrine among humans is punished, so that one of those accusing Jesus would say that he saw the impious or the false doctrines being accused and thought to honor this by supposedly foretelling about him?

If it were necessary for some doctrines to be brought before "governors and kings," who else would it be necessary for other than the Epicureans, who deny all providence, or those from the Stoa, who do not claim to offer prayers or sacrifices to the divine? But someone might say that even Samaritans are persecuted for their own piety.

To which we would say: the Sicarii are punished for their circumcision, as they are seen as cutting off the established laws and only removing what is allowed to the Jews. And it is not to be heard that a judge, inquiring whether the Sicarius, fighting for this supposed piety, will be released if he changes his life, but if he remains, he will be taken to death. For it is enough that the circumcision is shown as a reason for his removal.

But Christians alone, according to what their Savior said, "you will be brought before governors and kings for my sake," are allowed to confess their faith before judges until their last breath, swearing to return home and live safely.

See if it is not said with great authority that "everyone who confesses me before men, I will also confess before my Father who is in heaven; and everyone who denies me before men," and the following. And let us rise to the words of Jesus saying these things, and see if what was prophesied has not yet happened, unless you say that the unbelievers are right, that he is babbling and speaking in vain (for what is said will not happen), or doubting whether to agree with his words unless it is that if these things are fulfilled and the teaching of the words of Jesus is established, as he foresees that governors and kings will put to death those who confess Jesus, then we will believe that he, having received great authority from God, is to sow this word among the human race and persuade them to hold it.

Who would not be amazed at the words of him teaching then and saying: "This gospel will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to them and to the nations," and seeing that what he said has been proclaimed, the gospel of Jesus Christ, under heaven "to Greeks and barbarians, wise and foolish"? For every nature of humans has been conquered by the powerful spoken word; and there is no race of people that has escaped receiving the teaching of Jesus.

But the unbeliever speaking through Celsus about Jesus, that he predicted all that happened to him, should consider how he also foretold the fate of Jerusalem and all of Jewish worship that would happen to it by the Romans. For surely his acquaintances and listeners will not say without writing that the teaching of the gospels was handed down and left to the disciples without written records about Jesus.

It is indeed written in them, "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near." And at that time, there were no armies surrounding Jerusalem, encircling and besieging it. For this began while Nero was still reigning and continued until the leadership of Vespasian; during which time his son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, as Josephus writes, because of James the Just, the brother of Jesus called Christ, as the truth presents, because of Jesus Christ of God.

Book 2, Section 14

However, Celsus could have accepted or allowed that he predicted the things that would happen to him, but he seems to want to belittle this, claiming that it was done through magic, saying that many knew what would happen to them from oracles, whether from birds, sacrifices, or astrology. But he did not want to accept this as greater, while he seems to accept that the forces were created, perhaps blaming it on the pretense of magic.

Flegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth of the Chronicles, gave some foreknowledge about certain future events to Christ, getting confused in what he said about Peter as if it were about Jesus, and he testified that according to what was said by him, the things spoken came to pass. But even he, while speaking about the foreknowledge, seemed to declare that the teachings of the fathers were not empty of a higher power.

Book 2, Section 15

Celsus says that the disciples of Jesus, having nothing clear to rely on, thought up the idea that he knew everything beforehand, not having learned or wanting to learn from the honesty of those who wrote, who acknowledged and foretold to the disciples of Jesus that "you will all be offended this night," and that they were truly offended, as well as the prophecy to Peter: "Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times." And that Peter denied him three times.

For if they were not honest, but as Celsus thinks, writing fictions, they would not have written about Peter denying or the disciples being offended. For who would challenge the story, saying that it happened this way? And yet, according to what is reasonable, it should have been kept quiet by those wanting to teach people to despise death for the sake of the confession of Christianity.

But now, seeing that the word will have power over people, they set forth such things, and I do not know how they would not harm those encountering them or give any excuse for denial.

Book 2, Section 16

Celsus says that the disciples wrote about Jesus in a very foolish way to avoid the truth. He claims that it's like someone saying a just person is doing wrong, or saying a holy person is a murderer, or saying an immortal person is dead, and then attributing these statements to someone who supposedly predicted them. His example is not fitting, since it is not strange for someone to show how one should live, even to the point of dying for piety, without anything useful coming from it for all people.

He then thinks that every confession of suffering confirms the accusation, but he does not see how much has been said about this by Paul and the prophets. He seems to overlook that someone in the heresies might think Jesus suffered things he did not actually suffer. For he did not know what was said, nor did he say that it seemed to the impious that these things were suffered, but rather he admits that he truly suffered.

But we do not agree with the idea that what seems to be suffering is the same as true suffering, so that his resurrection might not be false but true. For if someone truly died and rose again, then he truly rose again; but if someone only seems to have died, he did not truly rise.

Since the unbelievers mock the resurrection of Jesus Christ, we can also mention Plato, who says that Er the Armenian rose from the dead after twelve days and reported what happened in the underworld. For among the unbelievers, the stories about the breathless Heracleides will not always be useless. Many are said to have returned from the dead, not only on that day but also on the next.

So what is so surprising if someone who did many extraordinary things for humanity, and in such a clear way, cannot be denied by those who witness these events? And regarding his own death, he had something more, so that the soul might willingly leave the body and return again.

When he wanted to, it is written by John that Jesus said, "No one takes my soul from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it up again." Perhaps for this reason, he left the body before it decayed, so that it would not be broken like the legs of the robbers who were crucified with him.

For the soldiers broke the legs of the first and the other who was crucified with him; but when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. So we ask, where is the proof of what was foretold? And how can a dead person be immortal? Let the one who wants to learn understand that it is not the dead who are immortal, but the one who rises from the dead.

So not only is the dead not immortal, but the Jesus who died was not immortal either, since he was going to die. For no one who is going to die is immortal, but immortal is the one who will no longer die. "But Christ, having risen from the dead, dies no more; death no longer has dominion over him." And even if they do not want to understand how these things are said, they do not grasp the meaning.

Book 2, Section 17

It is very foolish to think that any wise being, whether god, demon, or human, would not foresee such things happening to him. If he could foresee them, why did he not avoid them? Socrates, for example, knew he would die after drinking the hemlock, and he could have escaped from prison if he had listened to Crito. But he chose, as it seemed reasonable to him, to die philosophically rather than live unphilosophically.

Similarly, Leonidas, the Spartan general, knowing he would die with those at Thermopylae, did not choose to live in shame, but said to those with him, "Let us feast as if we will dine in the underworld." Those who care to gather such historical accounts will find many examples.

So what is so surprising if Jesus, knowing what would happen, did not avoid it but faced what he anticipated? Paul, his disciple, upon hearing of the events that would happen to him, went up to Jerusalem, despite the dangers, encouraging those who were weeping for him and trying to stop him from going to Jerusalem. Many among us, knowing this, chose to die for their faith in Christianity rather than deny it and keep their possessions, willingly choosing death for the sake of piety.

Book 2, Section 18

Next, the Jewish writer Celsus says something very foolish. He asks how, if Jesus predicted both the betrayer and the one who would deny him, they did not fear him as a god, so that one would not betray him and the other would not deny him. The very wise Celsus does not see the problem here. If Jesus knew everything as a god, then it would have been impossible for him to be betrayed or denied.

If it were possible for one to not betray and the other to not deny, then the statements about who would betray and who would deny would no longer be true. If he foresaw the betrayal, he would have seen the wickedness of the one who would betray him, and this would not change based on his foreknowledge.

Again, if he saw the weakness of the one who would deny him, which would lead to his denial, he would have predicted that he would deny him. But this weakness would not have changed so easily from his foreknowledge. So why did they themselves betray and deny him without thinking of him?

It was shown that the one who betrayed him did not care at all about his teacher, and it is equally shown about the one who denied him, who, after denying, went out and wept bitterly.

Book 2, Section 19

Moreover, it is also foolish to think that if a person is plotting against someone and senses danger, they would not warn those who are plotting against them. Many have warned others about plots against them.

Next, he seems to draw a conclusion from this: since these things were predicted, they must have happened, which is impossible. But since they did happen, the prediction is proven false. For it is impossible for those who heard the predictions to still betray or deny him.

The conclusion is turned upside down: since these things were predicted, they happened. We say that they happened as possible, and since they happened, the prediction is shown to be true. What is said about the future is judged by the outcomes. Therefore, what was said by him is proven false.

It is shown that the prediction is false, and it is pointless for Celsus to say this, for it is impossible for those who heard the predictions to still betray or deny him.

Book 2, Section 20

After this, let us see how he says: "Since he is a god, he predicted these things, and it was necessary for what was predicted to happen." Therefore, god has his own disciples and prophets, with whom he shared meals and drank, leading to this outcome.

So they became impious and wicked, when he should have benefited all people, especially those close to him. Would a man who shared a table with someone still plot against him? And what is even more strange, the god himself plotted against those at the table, making them betrayers and wicked.

In addition, since you want to respond to Celsus's seemingly cheap arguments, we will say this: Celsus thinks that what was predicted must happen because it was foretold. But we say that the one who made the prediction is not the cause of what will happen just because he said it would happen; rather, what will happen would happen even if it had not been predicted, and the cause lies with the one who knows beforehand.

This whole idea falls within the foreknowledge of the one making the prediction. It is possible for something to happen or not happen, and one of these will be true. We do not say that the one who knows beforehand, taking away the possibility of it happening or not happening, is saying something like this: "This will certainly happen, and it cannot happen otherwise."

This applies to all predictions about what is within our control, whether according to divine writings or Greek histories. The so-called clever argument is just a sophism. It is not a sophism in the case of Celsus, but it is a sophism according to sound reasoning.

To illustrate this, I will use the prophecies about Judas from scripture or the Savior's foreknowledge about him as the betrayer. From Greek histories, I will refer to the oracle concerning Laius, allowing that it is true in this case, since it does not harm the argument.

About Judas, it is said in the eighty-first psalm, which begins: "God, do not be silent about my praise; for the mouth of the sinner and the mouth of the deceitful have opened against me." And if you keep in mind what is written in the psalm, you will find that, as it was foreseen, he would betray the Savior, and thus he is both the cause of the betrayal and deserving of the punishments mentioned in the prophecy because of his wickedness.

For it says: "Instead of remembering to show mercy, he pursued a poor and needy man." So he could not remember to show mercy and not pursue the one he pursued. But being able, he did not act, but betrayed, making him deserving of the punishments mentioned in the prophecy.

And to the Greeks, we will use the same approach concerning Laius, whether with the same words or with equivalent phrases written by the tragic poet. It is said to him from the one who knows beforehand about what is to come: "Do not sow the seeds of children by the violence of demons; for if you have children, the one born will kill you, and your whole house will be ruined by blood."

And in this, it is clearly shown that it was possible for Laius not to sow "the seeds of children"; for the oracle would not have commanded him to do what was impossible. It was possible for him to sow, and neither of these was forced upon him.

He followed the path of not being careful and sowed "the seeds of children," suffering from what happened in the story of Oedipus and Jocasta and their sons in tragedy. But the so-called clever argument, being a sophism, is said in relation to the sick person as a sophism that discourages him from seeking the doctor for health, and the argument goes like this:

If it is destined for you to rise from illness, whether you bring in the doctor or not, you will rise; but if it is destined for you not to rise from illness, whether you bring in the doctor or not, you will not rise. Either it is destined for you to rise from illness or not to rise; therefore, it is pointless to bring in the doctor.

But charmingly, this argument is compared to something like this: If it is destined for you to have children, whether you come together with a woman or not, you will have children; but if it is destined for you not to have children, whether you come together with a woman or not, you will not have children.

For just as it is impossible for one who does not come together with a woman to have children, it is pointless to assume that coming together with a woman is necessary. So if rising from illness happens through the doctor, it is necessary to bring in the doctor, and it is false to say, "You bring in the doctor in vain."

All these points we have made in response to what the very wise Celsus said: "Since he is a god, he predicted, and it was necessary for what was predicted to happen." For if everything is heard instead of being forced, we will not give him credit; for it was possible for it not to happen.

If he says everything will happen instead of it being, that does not prevent it from being true. Even if it is possible for it not to happen, it does not harm the argument. For he did not follow what was predicted about Jesus truly being the cause of the betrayal or the denial, which became acts of impiety and wickedness.

For seeing his wicked character, the one who knows us said, "What was in the man?" and seeing what he would dare, because of his greed and his uncertain thoughts about the teacher, he said with many others: "The one who dipped his hand with me in the dish, he will betray me."

Book 2, Section 21

Look at the foolishness and the outright falsehood of Celsus's statement. He claims that a person who shares a table with someone would not plot against him; if a person would not plot against another, then certainly a god who shared a meal would not become a betrayer.

For who does not know that many who have shared meals have plotted against those they dined with? The histories of both Greeks and non-Greeks are full of such examples. The poet from Paros even mocks Lycambes, saying that he broke an agreement after sharing "salt and a table." He says to him: "You swore a great oath, both salt and table."

For those who care about learning from history, they will find many examples of this and will leave behind the most important lessons about how to live. They will provide more examples showing how those who shared a table have plotted against them.

Book 2, Section 22

Then, as if gathering together proofs and arguments, he said this: and what is even more absurd, the god himself plotted against those at the table, making them betrayers and wicked.

For how could Jesus have either plotted against his disciples or made them into betrayers and wicked people? He would not be able to show this unless he believed in a certain sequence of events. This is something that anyone could easily argue against.

Book 2, Section 23

After this, he says that if these things were given to him, and he was obedient to the Father, it is clear that for a god who wants to do something, what he does is neither painful nor distressing.

And he himself did not see that he was standing right in front of him. For if he was given what he was obedient to, since these things were given to him, and he was obedient to the Father, it is clear that he was obedient, and it was not possible for the things presented by the punishers to be painful. For pain is not voluntary.

But if for one who wants to do something, what is presented is neither painful nor distressing, how could he have been obedient? He did not see that once he took on a body through birth, he accepted it and became capable of suffering and of the distressing things that happen to those in bodies, unless we say that the distressing things are not voluntary.

Just as he willingly took on a body, which was not of any other nature but human flesh, so he also took on the painful and distressing aspects of it. For the Lord was not able to avoid suffering, since he was subject to the things presented to him that were distressing and painful.

We have already explained above that if he wanted to avoid falling into the hands of men, he would not have come. But he came because he wanted to, for it was preordained that he would die for all people, which was necessary.

Book 2, Section 24

Next, wanting to show that the events that happened to him were painful and distressing, he asks: "What then does he lament and grieve over, and pray to escape the fear of destruction?" He speaks like this: "O Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me."

And in this, see the wickedness of Celsus, who, not accepting the truth of the Gospels, thinks he can silence the accusations against them. He believes that the Gospels do not mention how Jesus laments. He twists the words, saying, "Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me," but he does not show the respect and greatness of Jesus toward the Father.

What is written next shows that Jesus was obedient to the Father's will about the suffering he was to endure. He pretends to have read something that is similar to those who speak wickedly about the divine writings. They say things like "I will kill," but they often forget "I will live."

So, those who heard "I will strike" do not see "and I will heal." It is like a doctor who, after causing pain and suffering, removes what harms and hinders health, restoring the body to its proper health.

But they do not hear the whole statement, "for he causes pain and again restores." Instead, they only hear "he causes pain." Thus, the Jew exposed by Celsus, saying, "O Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me," does not see the preparation and readiness of Jesus for his suffering.

These things, having much wisdom from God, are rightly passed down as Paul called them "perfect." He says, "But we speak wisdom among the perfect." So, for the present, we remind ourselves briefly of what is useful for the matter at hand.

Book 2, Section 25

We said earlier that some of the sayings of the firstborn in Jesus, like "I am the way, the truth, and the life," are similar to others. But there are also sayings of the human being as he is understood, like "Now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth I heard from the Father."

Here, he describes both his human weakness and the readiness of his spirit. The weakness is shown in "Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me," while the readiness of the spirit is shown in "Yet not as I will, but as you will."

If we need to keep the order of what was said, note that first he speaks according to the weakness of the flesh, and later about the readiness of the spirit. For the first saying is one, "Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me," while the second is more, "Not as I will, but as you will," and "My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, let your will be done."

It is important to note that he does not say, "Let this cup pass from me," but speaks piously and with respect, saying, "Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me."

I know of someone who explains that the Savior, seeing how the people and Jerusalem will suffer because of the wrongs done to him by the Jews, wishes to spare the people from what they were about to suffer. He says, "Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me," as if he were saying: since by my drinking this cup of punishment, the whole nation will be left to you, I pray that if it is possible, let this cup pass from me, so that your part does not dare to leave me completely.

But if, as Celsus says, nothing painful or distressing happened to Jesus at this time, how could those after him use his example to endure painful things for piety? Would they not be suffering only the human things, while he only appeared to suffer?

Book 2, Section 26

Furthermore, the Jew mentioned by Celsus says to the disciples of Jesus that they have made these things up. He claims that they could not even convincingly cover up their falsehoods. He will say that it was easy to hide such things without even writing down their beginning.

For who could accuse us of these things if they are not found in the Gospels, while they claim that Jesus spoke such things according to the situation? Celsus did not see that it is not possible to be deceived about Jesus as God and as prophesied, and that those who made things up clearly knew that they were not true.

So, either they did not create these things, but thought of them in this way and wrote them down without lying, or they wrote them down while lying and did not think about them, nor did they believe that he was God.

Book 2, Section 27

After this, he says that some of the believers, coming in a drunken state, change the Gospel from the original text in many ways, threefold and fourfold, so that they can deny the accusations against them.

But I know of no others who have changed the Gospel except those from Marcion and those from Valentinus, and I think also those from Luke. What is being said here is not a fault of the word itself, but of those who dared to tamper with the Gospels.

Just as the sophists, the Epicureans, the Peripatetics, or whoever else might be the false teachers are not guilty of true philosophy, so those who alter the Gospels and introduce foreign heresies are not guilty of true Christianity, which is based on the teachings of Jesus.

Book 2, Section 28

After this, the Jew mentioned by Celsus criticizes Christians for using the prophets to proclaim things about Jesus. We will respond to what has been said above and what he needed to say.

He claims that he is careful with people and that he should present the prophecies and gather their probabilities to show the apparent contradiction in the use of the prophetic texts. For it seems to him that it is not wise to take such a significant topic and twist it for a few words, especially since he says that many others could apply the prophecies much more convincingly than to Jesus.

He should have carefully established this as the strongest proof against the Christians and shown how the prophecies could apply much more convincingly to others than to Jesus. But he did not realize that if it were possible for someone to say this about Christians, it might be possible for outsiders to say it about the prophetic writings.

Now, what Celsus has added is something the Jew would not have said. The Jew would not agree that the prophecies could apply much more convincingly to many others than to Jesus. Instead, he tries to present his own view of each case to challenge the Christian interpretation. He does not speak entirely convincingly, but he tries to make such an argument.

Book 2, Section 29

Having reached this point, we have already discussed that Christ is prophesied to come twice among humans. Therefore, we no longer need to defend ourselves against what the Jew claims, that the prophets say he will be a great and powerful lord over all the earth, all nations, and armies.

I think he spoke in a Jewish manner and, in their anger, without proof, he might mock Jesus plausibly. But they did not announce such a destruction. Yet neither the Jews, nor Celsus, nor anyone else has been able to prove that such destruction turns so many people away from evil and toward a life of virtue and self-control.

Book 2, Section 30

Celsus also dismissed the idea that God and the Son of God can be established from such symbols and rumors, or from such lowly evidence. He should have refuted the rumors and presented the lowly evidence with reason, so that if anything seemed plausible, the Christian could argue against it.

What he said about Jesus was met with a response as if it were about someone great, but he did not want to see that this was the response. The clarity about Jesus is like the sun, which, while shining on everything else, first shows itself. Thus, the Son of God should have been made known.

We could say that he has indeed done this: "Righteousness rose in his days, and there was a multitude of peace," starting from his birth, preparing the nations through his teaching, so that they might become one under the Roman king. This was not to make the mixing of nations more difficult for the apostles of Jesus, as Jesus commanded them to go and teach all nations.

It is clear that during the reign of Augustus, Jesus was born, so that he might be named in this way, uniting many under one kingdom. It would have been a hindrance for Jesus' teaching to spread throughout the world if there were many kingdoms, not only because of what has been said but also because people would be forced to fight for their homelands everywhere.

This was happening before the times of Augustus and even earlier, when there was a need for war among the Peloponnesians and Athenians, and others against each other. So how could this peaceful teaching be maintained and not allow enemies to defend themselves, unless the state of the world changed everywhere to become more peaceful during Jesus' coming?

Book 2, Section 31

After this, he accuses Christians of being clever in saying that the Son of God is self-existent, and he thinks he can strengthen this accusation. Since they claim the Son is God, they do not show a pure and holy word, but rather a man who was shamefully taken and punished.

And about this, it has already been said above in summary against Celsus' accusations, where it was shown that the "firstborn of all creation" took on a human body and soul, and that God commanded about such things in the world, and that he was created.

And that the one who received the command was the Word of God. Since the one speaking these things to Celsus is a Jew, it is not surprising that we use the phrase, "He sent his Word and healed them, and rescued them from their destruction," which we mentioned above.

But I, along with many Jews and wise people, have not heard anyone praising the Word as the Son of God, as Celsus said, and this is wrapped up in the face of the Jew saying: if the Word is indeed the Son of God, then we praise him.

Book 2, Section 32

It has been stated to us that Jesus can be neither a fraud nor a magician; therefore, it is not necessary to repeat what has been said, so we do not fall into the same redundancies as Celsus.

In accusing the genealogy, he does not name anything that Christians seek or that is brought as accusations regarding the disagreements in the genealogies. For Celsus, who claims to know everything about Christians, does not truly understand the scriptures.

He says that those who trace their lineage back to the first man and the kings of the Jews are being foolish. He seems to think it is noble to claim that the carpenter's wife would not know such a lineage. But what does this have to do with the argument?

Let's say she did not know; what does it matter to the points being made? But let her be ignorant; how could it be that she did not know, since her lineage did not go back to the first man and was not connected to those who ruled among the Jews?

Or does Celsus think that the poor must come from the poorest ancestors or that kings must come from kings? Therefore, it seems pointless to dwell on this argument, especially since even in our times, some who are rich and famous have come from Mary, while others considered the poorest have become leaders among nations and kings.

Book 2, Section 33

And what does he say? That Jesus acted nobly like a god, looking down on humans, laughing, and playing with what happened? We should ask him from where we would respond to this.

If we consider the noble and the strange in what happened to him, it could be from the Gospels. They say, "The earth shook, and the rocks were split, and the tombs were opened," and "the curtain of the temple was torn from top to bottom," and "darkness came" at the time of day "when the sun was eclipsed."

But if Celsus believes the Gospels, he thinks he can accuse Christians. Yet he does not believe in those who declare the divinity in Jesus, so we will say to him: "O this one, either he disbelieves everything and should not accuse anyone, or believing everything, he is amazed at the Word of God becoming human and wanting to benefit all of humanity."

The noble work of Jesus is that even to this day, those whom God wants are healed in his name. And regarding the time of Tiberius Caesar's reign, under whom Jesus was crucified, he also wrote about the great earthquakes that happened then, as Flavius recorded in the thirteenth or fourteenth of the Chronicles.

Book 2, Section 34

Playing, as he thinks, the Jew who is with Celsus writes about Jesus, quoting Euripides' Bacchae: "The spirit will free me when I want." So, not all Jews are fond of Greek literature. But let's say one of the Jews has become a lover of literature; how then does Jesus, since he did not free himself while bound? Could he not be freed?

For according to my writings, Peter, while bound in prison, was freed by an angel who released his chains, and Paul, along with Silas, was freed in Philippi, Macedonia, while bound to a "stake" by divine power, when "the doors of the prison were opened."

But it is likely that Celsus laughs at these things or has not read the story at all. For he would seem to say that some magicians also free bonds with spells and open doors, in order to compare the actions of magicians with what is told among us.

But he does not even see that he has condemned himself. He says that something happened to him, like Pentheus, when he was mad or torn apart. He did not see that Pilate was not like that, who "knew that it was out of envy that the Jews delivered him up," as the Jewish nation has been condemned by God, torn apart and scattered throughout the earth beyond the tearing of Pentheus.

And why did he also willingly send the matter about Pilate's wife? She had seen a dream and was so moved by it that she sent to her husband and said: "Have nothing to do with that righteous man; for today I suffered much because of him in a dream."

Again, while remaining silent about the things that show Jesus' divinity, Celsus mocks what is written in the Gospel about Jesus. He mentions those who mocked him, putting on a purple robe and a crown of thorns, and holding a reed in his hand. So, Celsus, from where did you learn these things? Was it from the Gospels?

Do you see these things as worthy of mockery, while those who wrote them did not understand that you would laugh and others like you would take them as an example of scorn and ridicule against the one who willingly died for piety? Rather, you should marvel at their truthfulness and at the one who willingly suffered for humanity and endured all with patience and kindness. For it is not unwritten that he was distressed or thought something shameful because he was condemned.

Book 2, Section 35

But to this: why is it that now, not before, he shows something divine and saves himself from this shame, and justifies those who insult him and his father? It should be said that it is similar to speak this way to the Greeks, introducing providence and accepting divine signs.

So why does God not punish those who insult the divine and deny providence? For if the Greeks defend themselves against these things, we will say similar or even stronger things.

Indeed, there has been a divine sign from heaven: the sun that was eclipsed, and other strange things. They show that the one who was crucified had something divine and more than most.

Book 2, Section 36

Then Celsus says: "What does he say about the body being impaled? What kind of ichor flows, like that which flows for the blessed gods?" He plays, but we, from the serious Gospels, even if Celsus does not want to, will show that the mythical and Homeric ichor did not flow from his body.

But after he had died, "one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and blood and water came out. And the one who saw it has testified, and his testimony is true. And he knows that he tells the truth."

Now, the blood of other dead bodies congeals, and pure water does not flow, but the strange thing about the dead body of Jesus was that "blood and water" flowed from his side.

If he brings accusations against Jesus and Christians from the Gospel, he does not even interpret the words well. While he remains silent about the things that show Jesus' divinity, he wants to hear the divine signs.

Let him read the Gospel and see that "the centurion and those with him who were keeping watch over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things that were happening, were greatly afraid, saying: 'Truly this was the Son of God.'"

Book 2, Section 37

After this, he takes words from the Gospel, which he thinks he can use to accuse, and he insults Jesus with the vinegar and gall, as if he were a man who was driven to drink and did not endure his thirst, as many a chance man often does.

This is told in a specific way in the narrative, but now it could have a more general response to the questions raised, saying that even about this, the prophets spoke beforehand.

For it is written in the sixty-eighth (and also) eighth psalm from the perspective of Christ: "And they gave me gall for my food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink."

Let the Jews say: who is the one speaking these things in the prophet? And let them show from history the one who received "gall" for his food and was given "vinegar" to drink. Or if they dare to say who they think will appear as Christ in these things.

So we can say: what then does it matter that what was prophesied has already happened? For what was said so long ago is enough, along with other prophetic predictions, to move the thoughtful person who examines all things to agree that it was prophesied about Christ and Jesus, the Son of God.

Book 2, Section 38

After this, the Jew says to us: "So you accuse us, O most faithful ones, because we do not consider this one to be a god, nor do we agree with you that he endured these things for the benefit of men, so that we might despise punishments?

And we will say that we accuse the Jews, who are raised in the law and the prophets that announce Christ beforehand, since neither the things brought against them by us prove that this one is the Christ.

They provide a defense for not believing the proof, neither believing in the prophecy that has been clearly presented in those who were taught by him, and after the time of his embodiment, that he endured these things for the benefit of men.

Having the purpose of the first appearance, he does not judge men and does not teach and testify about the deeds, nor does he punish the wicked and save the good.

But he strangely sows his own word and with some greater divine power to all of mankind, as the prophets also presented these things.

Moreover, we accuse them, since they did not believe in the existing power shown, but said, 'He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons.' They claim that he has expelled the demons from the souls of men.

We also accuse him of being so loving toward humanity that he did not overlook not only a city but not even a village in Judea, so that he might proclaim the kingdom of God everywhere. They slander him, accusing him of being defeated and wandering in a lowly body; for it is not lowly that so many endured for the benefit of those who are able to hear everywhere."

Book 2, Section 39

How is it not a direct lie that the Jew, according to Celsus, says that he convinced no one while he lived, not even his own disciples, and endured such things?

From where did the envy arise among the Jewish high priests, elders, and scribes against him, or from the crowd that was persuaded to follow him into the wilderness, not only held by the following of his words but also amazed by the powers that struck those who did not believe in the following of his word?

How is it not a direct lie that he did not even convince his own disciples, who, at that time, were somewhat humanly fearful (for they were not yet ready for courage), nor did they reject what was said about him as concerning the Christ?

For Peter, after denying him, feeling what had happened, "went out and wept bitterly." The others, struck by the despair that came upon him (for they were still amazed by him), were strengthened by his appearance to believe even more firmly than before that he was the Son of God.

Book 2, Section 40

And Celsus, having suffered something unphilosophical, does not see the superiority among humans as being in a saving word and pure character.

But in the context where he has taken on a human form and has taken on mortality, he does not die, or if he does die, it is not a death that can serve as an example for those who, from his work, are willing to die for piety and to speak boldly about it to those who are mistaken regarding piety and impiety.

They think that the pious are the most impious, while those who are misled about God and apply their unwavering idea about him to anything rather than God are considered the most pious.

Especially when they rush to eliminate those who, with the clarity of the one God, dedicate themselves completely with all their soul "even unto death."

Book 2, Section 41

Moreover, Celsus accuses Jesus through the Jewish perspective, saying that he did not show himself to be free from all evils.

What evils, then, let Celsus say, did Jesus not show himself to be free from? If he claims that Jesus has not been cleansed from the main evils, let him clearly present an example of evil in him.

But if he thinks that poverty and the cross and the plots against him by unreasonable people are evils, it is clear that Socrates also suffered evils, not being able to show himself free from evils.

As there is a whole group of poor philosophers among the Greeks who willingly accepted poverty, many Greeks know from the writings about Democritus, who left his wealth behind, and about Crates, who freed himself by giving up the money given to him by the Thebans for all his possessions.

But even Diogenes lived in great simplicity, and among those who have any sense, even if only moderately so, Diogenes was in bad circumstances.

Book 2, Section 42

Furthermore, since Celsus wants to say that Jesus is not without blame, let him show it.

Which of those who are pleased by his words has truly written about Jesus being blameworthy? Or, if he does not accuse him based on these things, let him show from where he learned to say that Jesus is not without blame.

Jesus did what he promised and benefited those who listened to him. And always seeing the things he said being fulfilled before they happened, the "gospel being preached" throughout the whole world, and his disciples going to "all nations" to proclaim his word, and also that they would be brought before "governors and kings" for no other reason than his teaching, we have believed in him and continue to strengthen our faith in him.

I do not know from which greater and clearer sources Celsus wanted to make his claims about Jesus being blameworthy.

It seems that, not understanding the words of Jesus as a man, he wanted nothing human to suffer or to become an example for people about enduring what happens.

And if these things seem to Celsus to be pitiable and most shameful, since he knows that pain is the greatest of evils and pleasure is the perfect good, which none of the philosophers who speak of providence and acknowledge courage as a virtue have accepted.

Therefore, Jesus did not undermine faith in him because of what he endured, but rather he strengthened it among those who want to show courage.

In his teachings, he said that truly living the blessed life is not here but "in the age to come," while living in the present age is a burden or the first and greatest struggle of the soul.

Book 2, Section 43

After these things, he says to us that you will not say about him that he did not persuade those here and was sending them to Hades to persuade those there.

And if he does not want this, we say that even while in the body, he persuaded not a few, but so many.

Because of the number of those who were persuaded, he was plotted against, and becoming bare of body, he mingled with souls in their naked bodies, turning those who wanted to him or those he saw, through whom he knew he could speak more effectively.

Book 2, Section 44

Next, he says that you will not claim about him that he did not persuade those here and was sending them to Hades to persuade those there.

And if he does not want this, we say that even while in the body, he persuaded not a few, but so many.

Because of the number of those who were persuaded, he was plotted against, and becoming bare of body, he mingled with souls in their naked bodies, turning those who wanted to him or those he saw, through whom he knew he could speak more effectively.

But I do not know how he says so naively that if you find strange excuses, on which you were laughed at, do you really think you are defending yourselves? What prevents others, who have been judged more wretched, from thinking these angels are greater and more divine?

That there is nothing similar between Jesus, who suffered the things written about him, and those who freed others from demons through magic or any other crime is clear.

For no one can present the work of magicians turning souls away from the many sins of humans and the evil that comes from them.

Since he compares him to robbers, the Jew from Celsus says that anyone could say the same about shameless robbers and about a murderer being punished, that this one was not a robber but was a god.

For he foretold to the robbers that he would suffer such things as they did.

Let us first say that we assume he would suffer such things as Jesus, and we speak boldly about him as if he had come to us from God.

Secondly, we say that these things are somehow foretold in the gospels, since "he was counted among the lawless," and among the lawless, a robber was thrown into prison, while they wanted to release Jesus, and they crucified him between two robbers.

And always among the true disciples and those who testify to the truth, Jesus is crucified with robbers and suffers the same condemnation from people.

And we say that if these people have something in common with robbers, those who endure these things for their piety toward the Creator, to keep it sincere and pure according to the teaching of Jesus, accepting every hardship and all deaths, it is clear that Jesus, the father of such teaching, is rightly compared by Celsus to robbers.

But neither did he die socially, nor did they suffer these things for their piety, and they alone among all humans, because they were shown the way to divine honor, are not unjustly killed, nor did Jesus act impiously.

Book 2, Section 45

Pay attention to the superficial talk about the disciples of Jesus, in which it says: then those who were living with him and listening to his voice, using him as a teacher, did not die with him or suffer for him, nor were they persuaded to despise his punishments, but they even denied being his disciples. Now, you are dying with him.

And in this, the less complete disciples who are still being brought in are believed to have sinned and are written about in the gospels, so that he can accuse the word. But after their sin, they boldly spoke against the Jews and suffered countless things from them, and in the end, they died for the teaching of Jesus, which he keeps silent about.

For Jesus did not want to hear what Peter was saying: "When you grow old, you will stretch out your hands," and the following, which the scripture says: "This he said, signifying by what death he would glorify God."

Not that James, the brother of John, the apostle of the apostle, was killed by Herod because of the word of Christ "by the sword."

But neither did Peter nor the other apostles, who boldly acted on the word, and as they "went out from the council" after being beaten, "rejoicing that they were counted worthy to be dishonored for the name," and they were raising many things told by the Greeks about the endurance and courage of those who philosophized.

Therefore, this teaching of Jesus was especially strong among those who heard him, teaching to despise the life that is surrounded by many and to strive for the life that is similar to the life of God.

Book 2, Section 46

How does the Jew speaking against Celsus not lie when he says that he only took ten sailors and tax collectors and not all of them? For it is clear that even the Jews would agree that he did not take just ten, nor a hundred, nor a thousand, but at times five thousand and at other times four thousand.

And he took so many that they followed him even into the wilderness, where only a crowd of believers in God through Jesus could gather, and in those places, he showed them not only words but also deeds.

But we are forced to make a similar point, since we are careful not to assume that he exceeds some of the accusations made against him.

And in the present argument, therefore, according to the order of the writing, he says: if while living he persuaded no one, but after his death, those who wanted to were persuaded by so many, how is this not extraordinary?

It is necessary to say in response that if after his death they are persuaded, not just once but many times, how much more reasonable would it be for him, while alive, to convince many more with a stronger and more powerful message and deeds?

Book 2, Section 47

He takes for himself as our response to his question, saying: "By what reasoning do you think of him as the son of God?" For he has made us respond that we are brought to this conclusion, since we also know the punishment he received for the removal of the evil of the father.

For we have been brought to many others, of whom we have previously spoken in detail, and with God's help, we will explain not only in relation to the supposed true words of Celsus but also in many other cases.

And as we say that we consider him the son of God, since he was punished, he asks: "What then? Were not many others punished, and not less shamefully?"

In this, Celsus acts similarly to the most despicable of the enemies of the word, thinking that he follows the story about Jesus, who was crucified, and that we honor those who were crucified.

Book 2, Section 48

Often, Celsus, unable to argue against the powers that Jesus is said to have performed, accuses them of being magic. And many times, we have responded to his words as best as we could.

And now he says that we seem to respond that we believe him to be the son of God because he healed the lame and the blind. He also adds: "As you say, he raises the dead."

So, that he healed the lame and the blind, for this reason, we consider him Christ and the son of God, is clear to us from what is also written in the prophecies: "Then the eyes of the blind will be opened, and the ears of the deaf will hear; then the lame will leap like a deer."

And that he raised the dead is not a fabrication of those who wrote the gospels, since if it were a fabrication, many would have been recorded as having been raised, and those who had been dead for a long time would still be in their tombs. But since it is not a fabrication, it is very few who are mentioned, like the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue (about whom I do not know how it was said: "She is not dead but sleeping," saying something about her, which was not true of all who die), and the only son of the widow, whom he raised out of compassion, setting up the ones carrying the dead body, and the third, Lazarus, who had been in the tomb for four days.

And we would say even more about these things to those who are more grateful, especially to the Jew, that just as "many lepers were in the days of Elisha the prophet, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian," and "many widows were in the days of Elijah the prophet, and to none of them was Elijah sent except to the widow of Zarephath in Sidon."

For it was worthy of the great miracle that happened through the prophet in the bread, according to some divine judgment. So, many were dead in the days of Jesus, but only those whom the word knew to be suitable for resurrection were raised, so that the events done by the Lord would not only be symbols of some things but also bring many to the wonderful teaching of the gospel.

And I would say that according to the promise of Jesus, the disciples have done "greater" things than those that Jesus did in the physical realm. For the eyes of the blind are always opened to the soul, and the ears of the deaf hear eagerly about the virtues of God and the blessed life that comes from him.

And many lame people, as the scripture named it, "inside" the man, now healed by the word, do not simply walk again but "leap like a deer," a creature that is stronger than all the poisons of the snakes. And these healed lame people receive from Jesus "authority to tread" with their feet on the evils "of snakes and scorpions" and indeed "over all the power of the enemy, and they will not be harmed; for they have become stronger than all evil and the poisons of demons.

Book 2, Section 49

So, Jesus, turning to his disciples, warns them not to pay attention to any magician or to those who claim to perform great wonders by any means (for his disciples did not need this). But he turns to those who call themselves the Christ of God and who are trying to deceive themselves with various fantasies. He said: "If anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ' or 'There he is,' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. Behold, I have told you beforehand. So if they say to you, 'Look, he is in the wilderness,' do not go out; if they say, 'Look, he is in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. For just as lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man."

And he says: "Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'"

Celsus, wanting to associate the wonders of Jesus with human magic, says with these words: "O light and truth," he openly declares with his voice, just as you have written, because others will come to you using similar powers, wicked and sorcerers, and some Satan will name such things. Thus, he himself is not free from this, as these things are not divine but the works of evil.

Being pressed by the truth, he also revealed the deeds of others and exposed his own. How then is it not foolish to consider God and the sorcerers as the same? For what is more evil among these than to think that he uses the same testimony as them? He himself has confessed that these are not of divine nature but are signs of some deceivers and wicked men.

See then if Celsus is not clearly shown to be a wicked speaker, for there is a difference between what Jesus said about those who perform "signs and wonders" and what Celsus, the Jew, claims. For if Jesus simply told his disciples to be on guard against those who promise wonders without specifying who they are, what would they say about themselves? Perhaps his suspicion would have some ground. But since Jesus warns us to be on guard against those who claim to be "the Christ," which the sorcerers do not do, and also says that some will perform evil deeds in the name of Jesus, it is more likely that the magic and all their assumptions are introduced, while the divinity of Christ and the divinity of his disciples is that someone using his name could perform something and not know how it was done by some power to pretend that he is the Christ, doing similar things to those of Christ and others in the name of Jesus doing what seems similar to his genuine disciples.

Book 2, Section 50

And Paul also makes it clear in his second letter to the Thessalonians how the "man of lawlessness, the son of destruction, the one who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sits in the temple of God, showing himself as if he is God."

And again he says to the Thessalonians: "And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains it will do so until he is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord God will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming, whose coming is by the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing."

He explains the reason why the lawless one is allowed to appear in life, saying: "Because they did not receive the love of the truth in order to be saved. And for this reason, God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

Let someone then say to us, if it is possible for any of the things in the gospel or those from the apostle to provide hints of magic being foretold in that place. And it is also possible to take from Daniel the prophecy about the Antichrist.

But he lies about the words of Jesus, since he does not say: "For others will come using similar powers, wicked and sorcerers," he claims that he has said such a thing. For the power of those in Egypt is not the same as that of Moses by divine grace, but the end shows that the works of the Egyptians were magic, while those of Moses were divine.

Thus, the works of the Antichrists and those pretending to have powers are said to be "lies," while those of Christ and his disciples bear fruit that is not deception but the salvation of souls. For who can reasonably say that living a better life and reducing the evils day by day is becoming a victim of deception?

Book 2, Section 51

Celsus claims that Jesus said that some Satan will devise such things. But he also twists the words, saying that Jesus is not divine, but that these things are the works of evil. For he has made something similar to the same kind of thing, while it is actually different. Just as a wolf is not the same as a dog, even if it seems to have something similar in body shape and voice, nor is a weasel like a dove; in the same way, nothing done by the power of God is similar to what happens through magic.

Moreover, we will say this against the wickedness of Celsus: Are powers indeed produced by magic from evil demons, while no power is accomplished by divine and blessed nature? But has the life of humans brought forth the worse, while it has never allowed the better? And this seems to me to be something that should be pointed out everywhere, that where something worse is made to seem similar to the better, there is always something better from the opposite.

So it is also with those performing magic. It is necessary that what happens in life comes from divine energy. And it follows that both can be denied or one can say that the other is better, especially to agree that the worse is the one that is true. If someone claims that things happen through magic, they should not claim that things happen through divine power. It seems to me that this is similar to saying that there are clever tricks and plausible words that fail to reach the truth, pretending to present the truth, while there is no truth among humans, and dialectic is foreign to the tricks of sophists.

If we once accept that magic and sorcery are at work by evil demons, charming people with strange tricks and those obeying human sorcery, then it must also be found among humans that there is something from divine power. Why should we not examine the lives and morals of those claiming to have powers, whether they lead to harm for people or to the correction of morals? Who serves demons through certain spells and magic, and who, becoming pure and holy in spirit and body, receives something divine from God for the benefit of humans and encourages belief in the true God?

If we must seek not to be swept away by the powers, who performs such things from the better and who from the worse, so that we do not slander everything or marvel at everything as divine and accept it? How is it not clear from the events concerning Moses and Jesus, with all the nations standing together with their signs, that these were done by divine power as it is written that they accomplished? For neither trickery nor magic could have formed a whole nation, surpassing not only idols and those set up by humans but also all created nature, rising up to the uncreated God, the source of all.

Book 2, Section 52

Since the one speaking these things to Celsus is a Jew, we might say to him: "But you, what do you believe about the things written by you as being done by God through Moses? Do you try to accuse those who speak against them as being done through magic, just like the works of the wise men of Egypt? And do you claim that the things from Jesus, which you acknowledge, are not divine, while you accuse them as if they were imitating the Egyptians? For if the end and the whole nation were gathered together because of the great signs done by Moses, showing that he was the one who did these things, how much more will this be shown in Jesus, who performed greater works than Moses?

For Moses led those from the nation, who were descendants of Abraham and kept the laws of circumcision and the customs of Abraham, out of Egypt, giving them the laws you believe are divine. But this one, having dared to do something greater, introduced a new way of life according to the gospel, along with the ancestral laws and customs.

And just as it was necessary for Moses to be believed not only by the council but also by the people, through the signs that are written that he performed, why should it not also be necessary for Jesus? In order to be believed by the people who have learned about "signs and wonders," he would need to request such powers, which, because they are greater and more divine, would set him apart from the Jewish mythology and the human traditions among them.

Would it not be accepted that the one teaching and performing these things is greater than the prophets? For how could he not be greater than the prophets, being proclaimed by the prophets as the Christ and savior of humankind?"

Book 2, Section 53

And all that the Jew speaking to Celsus says to those who believe in Jesus can be related to the accusations against Moses. So he either claims that there is no difference or that the magic of Jesus is similar to that of Moses, as both are said to be guilty of the same crimes. For example, concerning Christ, the Jew speaking to Celsus says: "But oh light and truth! Jesus openly declares these things with his own voice, as you have written. For there will also be others using similar powers, evil ones and sorcerers."

As for Moses, the unbeliever might say to the Jew, whether he is Egyptian or anyone else: "But oh light and truth! Moses openly declares these things with his own voice, as you have written. For there will also be others using similar powers, evil ones and sorcerers."

For it is written in your law: "If a prophet arises among you or one who dreams a dream and gives you a sign or wonder, and the sign or wonder comes to pass, which he spoke to you, saying: 'Let us go and serve other gods,' whom you have not known, and let us serve them, you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer."

And while the one accusing Jesus claims that some Satan is devising such things, the one relating this to Moses will say that a prophet dreaming is devising such things. Just as the Jew speaking to Celsus says about Jesus that he is not divine, but that these things are the works of evil, so the one disbelieving Moses will say the same, that even Moses is not divine, but that these things are the works of evil.

And he will do the same regarding this matter. Being pressed by the truth, he will reveal both the actions of others and will expose his own. When speaking to the Jew, one might ask: "How then is it not ridiculous to consider the same works as coming from God for the prophet and from sorcerers?"

One might say to him, based on the words of Moses: "How then is it not ridiculous to consider the prophet of God and his servant as coming from the same works as sorcerers?" Since Celsus, lingering in the place, has added what I have stated about those who are said to be using similar powers, we might ask: "What more can be said about these others than to consider them as evil?"

We will add to what has been said: "What more can be said about those whom Moses forbids to listen to, showing signs and wonders, than to consider them evil or to think of Moses, from whom others have accused him of signs and wonders?" Saying more of the same, in order to seem to strengthen the argument, he says: "These things he himself has admitted are not of divine nature but are signs of deceivers and wicked men."

So who is he? You, oh Jew, say that Jesus is the one, while he who accuses you claims that he is subject to the same crimes as Moses.

Book 2, Section 54

After these things, the Jew speaking to Celsus says to us, as if to keep the point made to the Jew from the beginning: "To whom then have you been brought, or because he said that he would rise after dying?" And this will be similarly related to the matter of Moses as mentioned before.

For we will say to him: "To whom then have you been brought, or because he wrote about his own death such things: 'And Moses, the servant of the Lord, died there in the land of Moab by the word of the Lord. And they buried him in the land of Moab, near the house of Peor. And no one knows his burial place to this day.'"

Just as the Jew accuses that he said he would rise after dying, the one speaking about Moses will say the same, that "Moses also wrote that no one knows his burial place to this day," showing off and boasting that his burial is unknown to the human race.

Book 2, Section 55

After these things, the Jew says to his fellow citizens who believe in Jesus: "Come now, and let us believe this. How many others perform such wonders, taking advantage of the gullible listeners?"

He mentions Zamolxis among the Scythians, the servant of Pythagoras, and also Pythagoras in Italy and Rhamses in Egypt. He speaks of how this one "shares power" in the underworld with "Demeter" and brings a "gift," a golden hand from her. He also mentions Orpheus among the Odrysians, Protesilaus in Thessaly, Heracles at Taenarum, and Theseus.

But we should consider, has anyone truly risen after dying in body? Or do you think the stories of others are myths, while yours have been cleverly or convincingly invented, especially the voice at his death, and the "earthquake" and the darkness?

For while living, he could not help himself, yet dead, he rose and showed signs of punishment. Who saw this? A woman, as you say, and perhaps someone else from the same magic, either having dreamt something or having been misled by his will, which has happened to many.

Or perhaps, more likely, he wanted to impress others with this wonder and provide an excuse for other deceivers. Since the one speaking these things is a Jew, we defend our Jesus against the Jew, also relating the story of Moses and saying to him: "How many others perform such wonders like Moses, taking advantage of the gullible listeners?"

It is even more possible to compare Zamolxis and Pythagoras, who performed wonders, than the Jew. He does not seem very eager to learn about the histories of the Greeks. The Egyptian, disbelieving the strange things about Moses, might likely mention Rhamses, saying that he is much more believable to have descended into the underworld and shared power with Demeter, showing a golden hand as a sign of having been there and then returning.

He wrote that he entered "into the darkness, where God was." And that he alone approached God, unlike the others. For he wrote: "And Moses alone drew near to God; the others did not draw near."

So we, the disciples of Jesus, say to this Jew: "Defend to us your accusations against our faith in Jesus, and tell the Egyptian and the Greeks: What will you say about the charges you brought against Jesus? Would you bring up Moses? Even if you struggle to defend Moses, just as he has a striking story and clear accounts about him, you will find yourself in a position where you must defend Jesus as being more divine than Moses."

Book 2, Section 56

Since the Jew speaking to Celsus claims that the heroic stories about those who went down to the underworld and returned are just wonders, he suggests that these heroes were hidden for a time and then revealed themselves again.

He mentions Orpheus among the Odrysians, Protesilaus in Thessaly, and Heracles at Taenarum, saying that they are said to have come back from the underworld. But let us show that the story of Jesus cannot be compared to these.

Each of these heroes could choose to hide from the sight of people and then return to those they had left behind. But Jesus was crucified in front of all the Jews, and his body was taken down in view of the crowd. How could it be said that he is like those heroes who went down to the underworld and returned?

We say that no one should use the stories of heroes who are thought to have gone down to the underworld as a defense for Jesus being crucified. If Jesus died a shameful death, it is clear that he was seen dead by all the people of the Jews. Then, if he truly rose from the dead, he would have had the opportunity to be compared to the heroes and to have a similar story told about him.

So, let no one suggest other reasons for Jesus' crucifixion that could allow him to be said to have died publicly on the cross, so that no one can claim he secretly escaped the sight of people and seemed to have died, but did not really die, and then later appeared again, rising from the dead.

It is clear and evident that the attempt by his disciples to teach about his resurrection was risky, as they devoted themselves to a teaching that they could not easily fabricate about Jesus rising from the dead. They not only prepared others to despise death but also did this themselves long before.

Book 2, Section 57

But pay attention, lest the Jew speaking to Celsus, as if unable to rise from the dead, claims that no one can rise from the dead in body. But we should consider this: if anyone truly rose from the dead in body, the Jew would not have said these things.

He believes in what is written in the third book of Kings and the fourth about the children, where one was raised by Elijah and the other by Elisha. For this reason, I think Jesus has been known not to any other people but to the Jews, who have experienced the extraordinary.

With the testimony of those who believe in what happened to him and what is told about him, they will accept that this one, about whom greater and more extraordinary things happened, was greater than all those others.

Book 2, Section 58

Since the Jew presented Greek stories about those who seemed to perform wonders and about those who supposedly rose from the dead, he says to those Jews who believe in Jesus: "Do you think the stories of others are myths, while yours are cleverly or convincingly invented, especially the voice at his death?"

We will say to the Jew that we consider the stories he presented to be myths. But the writings we have in common with you, in which not only you but also we are honored, we do not say are myths at all.

For this reason, we believe in those who wrote about those who rose from the dead, as not being fanciful, and about the one here who was foretold and prophesied and rose again. This one, rising from the dead, is more extraordinary than those others, because those were raised by prophets like Elijah and Elisha, but this one was raised by no prophet, but by the Father in heaven.

Therefore, the resurrection of this one is greater than the resurrection of those. For what has happened in the world from the resurrections of children by Elijah and Elisha is nothing compared to the resurrection of Jesus that is being proclaimed. Is it believed through divine power?

Book 2, Section 59

He thinks that the earthquake and the darkness are wonders. About these, as much as possible, we have already explained, mentioning Phlegon, who recorded that such things happened at the time of the Savior's passion.

And that while he was alive, he did not help himself, but when dead, he rose and showed the signs of punishment, and his hands were as they were pierced. And we ask him, what did he do to help himself? If it was for virtue, we would say that he certainly helped himself, for he did nothing strange, nor did he speak or act wrongly, but truly "like a sheep he was led to slaughter, and like a lamb silent before the shearer."

And the Gospel bears witness that "he did not open his mouth." But if he helped himself from the middle and physical things, we say that we have shown from the Gospels that he willingly came to these things.

Then, after saying these things from the Gospel, that he showed the signs of punishment, rising from the dead and showing his hands as they were pierced, he asks and says: "Who saw this?" And speaking of Mary Magdalene, who is said to have seen him, he says: "A woman, a passerby."

As you say. And since it is not only she who is recorded to have seen Jesus risen, but also others. And about these things, the Jew Celsus speaks slanderously. And if anyone else from the same magic.

Book 2, Section 60

Then, as this is possible, I say that there is some imagination about the dead as if they were living. He suggests, like an Epicurean, that according to some state of mind, those who dream something or are misled by their own desires have reported such things.

He says that this has already happened to countless people. And even if it seems to be said in the most terrible way, it is still a necessary belief. Thus, the soul has endured the fate of the dead, and it is not in vain that it has believed in its immortality or even in its existence, as this belief has been taken up.

As Plato says in his work about the soul, "shadowy apparitions" have appeared at the graves of those who have already died. Therefore, what happens about the souls of the dead becomes "phantoms" from something underlying, that is, from the soul that remains in the body called egg-shaped.

But Celsus, not wanting such a thing, wants to dream something and imagines it according to his own desires, which is not unreasonable to believe as a dream. But the existence of those who are not completely sane or are out of their minds or melancholic is not convincing.

And knowing this, Celsus spoke of the woman as a passerby, which the recorded story does not show, from where he takes his accusations about the events.

Book 2, Section 61

So, Jesus was indeed after death, as Celsus thinks. He sends out an illusion of the wounds on the cross and is not truly such a wounded person, as the Gospel teaches.

Some people want to accuse him, and Celsus believes this. Others do not believe. Jesus called one of the doubting disciples, who thought the event was impossible. For that disciple claimed to have seen him, as if it were not impossible for the soul of the dead to appear.

But he no longer thought it was true that he had risen in the body. Therefore, he said, "Unless I see, I will not believe," and he also added, "Unless I put my hand into the print of the nails and touch his side, I will not believe."

These words were spoken by Thomas, judging that the body of the soul could be seen by the senses. "Everything," he said, "in size and appearance and voice, often resembles a body."

And Jesus, having called Thomas, said, "Bring your finger here and see my hands. And bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving but believing."

Book 2, Section 62

And indeed, all the prophecies about him were fulfilled, including this one, and the things that happened to him and the events that occurred were all very strange. For it was foretold by the prophet from the face of Jesus: "My flesh will dwell in hope; for you will not abandon my soul to Hades, nor will you allow your holy one to see corruption."

And at his resurrection, it was as if there was some transition from the heaviness of the body before the suffering to the appearance of the soul in such a body.

Therefore, when "his disciples and Thomas" were together, Jesus came while the doors were locked and stood in the middle and said, "Peace be with you." Then he said to Thomas, "Bring your finger here," and so on.

And in the Gospel of Luke, while Simon and Cleopas were talking "to each other" about all the things that had happened, Jesus came and walked with them. But their eyes were kept from recognizing him. He said to them, "What are the words you are exchanging as you walk?"

And when "their eyes were opened, and they recognized him," then the scripture says, "he became invisible to them."

So, if Celsus wants to share other illusions and other visions about Jesus and those who saw him after the resurrection, it seems more strange to those who wisely and thoughtfully examine the matters.

Book 2, Section 63

After this, Celsus, not lightly dismissing the written words, says that if Jesus truly wanted to show divine power, he should have appeared to those who harmed him and condemned him, and to everyone.

For it truly seems to us, according to the Gospel, that he did not appear after the resurrection in the same way he did before, publicly and to everyone. But it is written in the Acts: "For forty days he was seen by the disciples, speaking about the kingdom of God." In the Gospels, it is not said that he was always with them.

But at one time, for eight days, he appeared "in the midst of them with the doors locked." And Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians, writes that he did not appear to them in the same way as before his suffering. He says, "For I delivered to you first what I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that, he was seen by over five hundred brothers at once, of whom most remain until now, but some have fallen asleep. After that, he was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Last of all, he was seen by me as one born out of due time."

Therefore, there are indeed great and wonderful things that are not only of great value to the many who believe but also to those who are advancing greatly in understanding. In these, the reason could be shown for the risen one not appearing in the same way as before.

From many others, as in such a writing addressed to Christians and their faith, see if we can reasonably add a few things from what we have heard in the defense.

Book 2, Section 64

Jesus was one but was greater in thought. And he did not appear the same to everyone who saw him. That he was greater in thought is clear from the statements "I am the way, the truth, and the life," and "I am the bread," and "I am the door," and many others.

That he did not appear the same to those who saw him is also clear. For as those who saw him were leaving, it will be clear to those who are present why he did not take all the apostles with him when he was about to be transformed on the high mountain, but only Peter, James, and John. They alone were allowed to see his glory at that time.

They were able to see and hear Moses and Elijah speaking with him, and the voice from the cloud above. But I think that even before going up to the mountain, where only the disciples approached him, he taught them about the beatitudes. When he was down the mountain, "after evening had come," he healed those who were brought to him, freeing them from all sickness and weakness.

He did not appear the same to those who were suffering and asking for his help as he did to those who were able to go up the mountain with him. But even if he explained the parables privately to his own disciples, he spoke them in secret to the crowds outside.

The listeners who heard the explanations of the parables were better off than those who heard the parables without explanations. In the same way, the eyes of the soul are different from the eyes of the body. I believe that even Judas, who would betray him, did not look the same to those who were with him. He said, "The one I kiss, he is the one."

I think the same goes for the Savior, as he said, "I was with you daily in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me." Therefore, we, who are speaking of Jesus, see not only his hidden divine nature but also his transformed body, which he showed when he wanted and to whom he wanted.

We say that those who did not put off "the principalities and powers" of Jesus and had not yet died "to sin" could see him. But those who had put off "the principalities and powers" and no longer had anything to be seen by the many could not see him, even those who had seen him before.

Therefore, being careful with them, he did not appear to everyone after rising from the dead.

Book 2, Section 65

And what do I say to all? For he was not always with the apostles and the disciples, nor did he always appear to them. They were not able to see him continuously. For his divine nature was brighter after he completed his mission, which Peter, as the "firstfruits" of the apostles, was able to see, along with the twelve, after Matthias took the place of Judas, and then "over five hundred brothers at once."

"After that, he was seen by James, then by all the other apostles." Perhaps even by the seventy. "Last of all, he was seen by Paul, as one born out of due time." How he said: "To me, the least of all saints, this grace was given." And perhaps "the least" is equal to "one born out of due time."

Just as no one would easily blame Jesus for not taking all the apostles up the high mountain but only the three mentioned, when he was about to be transformed and show the brightness of his garments and the glory of Moses and Elijah speaking with him.

So, no one would reasonably blame the apostolic words that say Jesus was not seen by everyone after the resurrection. But he was seen by those whose eyes were opened to see his resurrection.

I think it is useful for the defense of the matters at hand to mention what is said about him: "For this reason, Christ died and rose again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living."

For see in these words that "Jesus died, that he might be Lord of the dead," and "he rose again, that he might be Lord not only of the dead but also of the living." And I know that the apostle speaks of the dead, over whom Christ reigns.

He mentions them in his first letter to the Corinthians: "For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible." And for the living, he speaks of them as being changed, different from the raised dead, and he also says about them: "And we shall be changed."

Next, he mentions that "the dead will be raised first." But in his earlier letter to the Thessalonians, he presents the same difference in other words. He says that there are others who are asleep and others who are living, saying: "We do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, so that you do not grieve like the rest who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, God will bring with him those who sleep in Jesus. For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will not precede those who are asleep."

We have set forth the explanation of these matters in the places we have discussed in our previous letter to the Thessalonians.

Book 2, Section 66

And do not be surprised if not all the believing crowds see Jesus' resurrection. When Paul was writing to the Corinthians, he said, "For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified."

This is also true: "For you were not able to bear it then, and you are still not able to, for you are still fleshly." Therefore, the word, which judges all things by divine wisdom, wrote about Jesus, showing himself to most people only once before his suffering, and this was not always.

But after the suffering, he did not appear in the same way, but with some judgment, measuring what was necessary for each person. Just as it is written, "God appeared to Abraham" or to some of the saints, and this "appeared" did not happen all the time but at intervals, and it was not shown to everyone.

In the same way, I understand that the Son of God was seen in a similar way to those who saw God, according to judgment.

Book 2, Section 67

So we have defended ourselves as best as we could in such a writing, if indeed he wanted to express divine power to those who harmed him and to the one who condemned him, and to all in general. Therefore, it was not necessary for him to appear to the one who condemned him or to those who harmed him.

For Jesus spared both the one who condemned him and those who harmed him, so that they would not be struck with "blindness," like those in Sodom were struck when they were trying to get to Lot's house to see the angels.

And this is shown by what happened: "And the men stretched out their hands and brought Lot to themselves into the house, and they shut the door; and they struck the men at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great; and they wore themselves out seeking the door."

Therefore, Jesus wanted to reveal his divine power to each of those able to see it, and to show them according to what they could understand. And he did not protect himself from being seen for any other reason than because of the powers of those who were not able to see him.

And Kelsus was mistaken, for he did not fear any man after dying, and, as you say, being a god, he was not sent for this reason, to remain hidden. For he was sent not only to be known but also to remain hidden, for not everything that was known about him was known by all.

But something about him escaped them; for some did not know him at all. And he opened the "gates of light" to those who had become "sons of darkness" and "night," and gave himself to become "sons of day" and "light."

And the Savior, our Lord, came to us more as a good doctor for those full of sins than for the righteous.

Book 2, Section 68

Let us see how the Jew from Kelsus says that if this was truly a demonstration of divinity, then he should have immediately become invisible from the moment of the cross.

And this seems to me similar to the words of those who oppose divine providence and create other things for themselves that are not real, saying that it would have been better if the world had been like this, as we have written.

For where they can write, they are shown to be worse by making their own world worse with their writing. But where they think they cannot make things worse, they show the things that are impossible by nature, making themselves laughable.

And here, it is not impossible to come to be in a more divine nature, so that when he wants to, he can become invisible. And it is clear from what has been written about him that some, not paying attention to some of the writings, will accuse the word, thinking they are getting something false.

It is written in the Gospel of Luke that after the resurrection, "taking the bread, Jesus blessed it and broke it, and gave it to Simon and Cleopas." And when they took the bread, "their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he became invisible from them."

Book 2, Section 69

We want to show how it would have been more useful for the whole plan if he had become invisible right away from the cross. The events that happened to Jesus do not just have a friendly statement and history, but they all hold the truth. Each of them is shown to be a symbol to those who understand the writings better.

Just as his being crucified has the clear truth in "I am crucified with Christ" and in the saying "God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world is crucified to me and I to the world," his death was necessary because "he died once for sin" and because the righteous say, "being conformed to his death," and "if we died with him, we will also live with him."

So his burial reaches those who are conformed to his death and those who were crucified with him and died with him, as Paul says, "For we were buried with him through baptism and raised with him." We also have the accounts of the burial and the tomb and the one who buried him written more clearly in other places.

There, we will speak about these things first. But now, the pure linen cloth, in which the pure body of Jesus was wrapped, and the new tomb, "which was hewn from the rock," by Joseph, "where no one had ever lain." Or as John says, "in which no one had yet been laid."

And consider whether the agreement of the three evangelists can move anyone, as they took care to write about the hewn or carved tomb in the rock, so that anyone examining the words of the writings will see something worthy of discussion about the newness of the tomb, which Matthew and John described, and about no dead person being there according to Luke and John.

For it was necessary for him to be unlike the other dead, but to show signs of life even in death, showing water and blood, so that thus I may name him dead in a new and pure tomb. Just as his birth was purer than any birth because he was born not from mixing but from a virgin, so also his burial should have this purity.

Through the symbolic meaning shown in placing his body in a new tomb, not built from hewn stones and not having a natural union, but joined in one and all in a single hewn rock.

So the things of the narrative and the rise from the events that have been written are significant. And someone might tell the story more greatly and divinely, presenting such things in a previous order.

But the words could also be interpreted this way: that according to the one judging, it was necessary for him to remain hanging on the cross and to keep the following in the situation, so that as a man he would be seen as having died as a man and buried.

But even if it was written in the Gospels that he became immediately invisible from the cross, Kelsus and the unbelievers would have mocked the writing and would have accused it, saying, "What then happened after the cross that he became invisible? Why did he not do this before he suffered?"

If they think they have learned from the Gospels that he did not become immediately invisible from the cross, they would accuse the word. Not as they imagined, that he should have become immediately invisible from the cross, but as the truth has been recorded, how is it not reasonable to believe them also in his resurrection, and how he, when he wanted, "stood in the midst" of the disciples when the doors were shut, and at another time, giving bread to two of the acquaintances, "he became invisible from them" after he spoke to them?

Book 2, Section 70

From where does Kelsus say that Jesus was hiding? For he says about him, "Who has ever been sent as an angel, needing to announce what has been commanded, and hides?" For he was not hiding when he said to those seeking to arrest him, "Every day I was in the temple teaching openly, and you did not seize me."

In response to what Kelsus repeatedly says, we will defend ourselves once against what has been said before. It is written above that when he was believed in the body, he preached openly to all. But when he provided strong faith by rising from the dead, he appeared secretly to only one woman and to his own followers.

But it is not true that he appeared to only one woman; for it is written in the Gospel of Matthew that "after the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone."

And after a little while, Matthew says, "And behold, Jesus met them," (clearly referring to the mentioned Marys) "saying, 'Rejoice.' And they came and held his feet and worshiped him."

It is also said that while being punished, he was seen by all, but after rising, he was seen by one, when we are defending against the claim that he was not seen by all.

And now we will say that the human aspects of him were visible to all. But the divine aspects (I do not mean those that relate to others but those that differ) were not visible to all.

Also, pay attention to the contradiction in Kelsus's statement about himself. He says that he appeared secretly to one woman and to his followers, but while being punished, he was seen by all.

What does he think should have happened? Let us listen. He thinks that while being punished, he should be seen by all, but after rising, he should be seen by one. For how can he explain the opposite of what should have happened?

Book 2, Section 71

Jesus taught us that no one knows the Father except the Son, and that no one has ever seen God. The only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, has made him known. He has proclaimed the things about God to his true disciples, and we find traces of these in the writings, which give us reasons to speak about God.

Wherever we hear, "God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all." And also, "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

But there are many things for which the Father sent him. Those who want to learn should look at the prophets who spoke about him and the evangelists. They will also learn much from the apostles, especially Paul.

This one enlightens the pious but punishes the sinners, which Kelsus did not see. He will enlighten the pious and either have mercy on the sinners who repent.

Book 2, Section 72

After this, he says: If he wanted to be hidden, why was there a voice from heaven proclaiming him to be the Son of God? But if he did not want to be hidden, why was he punished or why did he die? And does he think that this shows a disagreement in the writings about him? He does not see that he neither wanted everything about himself to be known by all nor did he want everything about himself to be hidden.

The voice from heaven proclaiming him to be the Son of God and saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased," was not recorded as being heard by the crowds, as Kelsus the Jew thought, but it was heard only by those who went up with him to the highest mountain.

For such is the divine voice, heard only by those whom the speaker wants to hear. I do not yet say that it is not always a sound that is struck or a sound of air, or whatever is said about the voice of God. Therefore, it is heard by a better and more divine sense of hearing.

And when the speaker wants his voice not to be heard by all, the one who has better ears hears God, while the deaf person does not perceive the voice of God speaking to the soul.

So, why was the voice from heaven proclaiming him to be the Son of God heard? And if he did not want to be hidden, why was he punished or why did he die? We have already said enough about his suffering in the earlier parts.

Book 2, Section 73

After this, Kelsus the Jew presents something that does not follow. For he does not follow what he wanted us to learn from the punishments and to despise death, while he openly calls everyone to light after rising from the dead.

For he first called everyone to light, saying, "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest." And for this reason, he came, as it is written in the blessings and in the following teachings, in parables, and in conversations with the scribes and Pharisees.

The Gospel according to John contains all that he taught, showing Jesus not just in words but in great actions. And it is clear from the Gospels that "his word had authority," and because of this, they were amazed.

Book 2, Section 74

And Kelsus the Jew adds to all this: Therefore, we do not need any other witness than your own writings. For you contradict yourselves, and we have shown that many things have been said in the writings of the Jew, whether about Jesus or about us.

And I do not think he has shown how we contradict ourselves, but he only assumes this. Since the Jew adds that, "O highest and heavenly one, what god among men is unbelieving?" it should be said to him that according to the law of Moses, God clearly appeared to the Hebrews, not only through the signs and wonders in Egypt, but also through the crossing of the Red Sea, the pillar of fire, and the cloud of light.

And when the Ten Commandments were proclaimed to all the people, they were believed by those who knew. For if they had believed what they saw and heard, they would not have made a calf, nor would they have changed their glory into the likeness of a calf eating grass. They would not have said to one another about the calf, "These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt."

And see if it is not true that with such great wonders and so many appearances of God, they were still unbelieving throughout the wilderness, as it is written in the law of the Jews. And according to the strange coming of Jesus, they did not fall under the words spoken with authority to him and the strange things he did before all the people.

Book 2, Section 75

And I think these things are enough to show the Jews' unbelief towards Jesus, as this follows what has been written about the people from the beginning. For I would say to the Jew speaking with Kelsus: What god among men is unbelieving when he appears to those who hope for him? Or what is not recognized by those who have long awaited?

Why do you, O people, want to respond to our questions? What greater powers do you think exist than those we have shown you in Jesus? If the wonders in Egypt and in the wilderness are greater than what we say Jesus has done among you, then it is clear that you are acting like those who have disbelieved in greater things and despised the lesser.

This is what we imply about Jesus. If the things said about Jesus are equal to those written by Moses, what stranger has appeared to a people who disbelieve at both beginnings of events? For the beginning of the law was with Moses, where the sins of the unbelievers and wrongdoers are recorded. And the beginning of the second law and covenant is said to have come through Jesus.

And you testify that your unbelief in Jesus makes you sons of those who disbelieved in the divine appearances in the wilderness. And what our Savior has said to you, who have disbelieved him, is that "You are witnesses and agree with the works of your fathers." And the prophecy saying, "Your life will hang before your eyes, and you will not believe in your life," is fulfilled in you. For you did not believe in the life that has been given to the race of men.

Book 2, Section 76

Kelsus did not find it appropriate to attribute such things to the Jew in his words, which would not come from the laws and prophetic writings. For he criticizes Jesus by saying such things about him; he threatens and mocks lightly when he says, "Woe to you" and "I tell you beforehand." In these statements, he openly admits that he is unable to persuade, which no god or wise man would suffer.

But see if this does not turn back against the Jew. For God threatens in the legal and prophetic writings and mocks when he says, "Woe," not less than what is in the Gospel. For example, what is in Isaiah that says, "Woe to those who join house to house, and field to field"? And "Woe to those who rise early in the morning and pursue strong drink"? And "Woe to those who draw sin along with cords of deceit"? And "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil"? And "Woe to those who are mighty in drinking wine"? And you would find many other similar things.

How is it not similar to what he says about the "Woe to the sinful nation, a people heavy with sin, a brood of evildoers, sons of lawlessness"? These are the same kinds of threats. They are not less than what Jesus has said. Is there not also a great threat that says, "Your land is desolate. Your cities are burned with fire. Strangers devour your land before your eyes, and it is desolate, overthrown by foreign nations"?

How are there not also mockeries in Ezekiel against the people? There the Lord says to the prophet, "You dwell among scorpions." Therefore, O Kelsus, do you not realize that the Jew you have created speaks about Jesus, saying that he threatens and mocks lightly when he says, "Woe to you" and "I tell you beforehand"?

Do you not see that the very things he accuses Jesus of saying could be said by the Jew about God? For in similar ways, God is found in the prophets, as the Jew thinks, threatening to persuade. I would also say that those who think the Jew has rightly accused Jesus of threats and mockeries are mistaken.

We could defend ourselves better regarding the things that are thought to be mockeries and threats by Jesus. And we could also defend the law of Moses better, since we have been taught more wisely by Jesus to understand the legal writings than the Jew. But even the Jew, if he sees the intention of the prophetic words, could stand before God without lightly threatening and mocking him by saying "Woe" and "I tell you beforehand."

How could God say such things about the turning back of men, which Kelsus thinks no wise man would say? And Christians, knowing one God, the one in the prophets and the Lord, will present the reasonableness of the supposed threats and the things said by Kelsus as mockeries.

And little will be said to Kelsus, who claims to be wise and to know our things: What if, when Hermes speaks to Odysseus in Homer, he says, "Why, poor one, do you come alone to the shore?" Would he not accept a defense, saying that he speaks such things to Odysseus about turning back?

For it is flattering and charming to speak like the Sirens, who are said to be around the bones, saying, "Come here, great Odysseus, bring great glory to the Achaeans." But if the prophets among me and Jesus himself speak about the turning back of those who hear, saying "Woe" and what you think are mockeries, nothing is arranged for the hearers through such words, nor does it bring them as a remedy like a Paean.

Unless you want to see God or the divine nature speaking to men, examining the things of his own nature and not seeing them any longer. What is fitting for those who are being governed and led by his word to promise and to speak to each according to their own character?

How is it not ridiculous to say that he is unable to persuade regarding Jesus and to share this not only with the Jew? There are many such things in the prophecies. But also with the Greeks, among whom each has not been able to persuade those plotting against him or the judges or the accusers to cease their wickedness and to be led through philosophy to virtue?

Book 2, Section 77

After this, the Jew says to him: Clearly, according to the Jews' belief, we hope to be raised in the body and to have eternal life. And the example and leader of this will be the one sent to us, showing that it is not impossible for God to raise someone in the body.

We do not know if the Jew will say that the expected Christ is an example of the resurrection in himself; but let it be, let him think and say this. And we will respond to the one who has spoken, saying from our own writings: "O this one. Have you read those things in which you assume to accuse us? But have you not examined the resurrection of Jesus, and that he is 'the firstborn from the dead'? Or since you do not want to say these things, have they not been said?

Since the Jew still speaks and adds to Kelsus about the resurrection of the bodies, I do not think it is timely to discuss this with someone who both believes and says that there is a resurrection of bodies, whether he is able to argue well about this or not, but rather is telling a myth.

So I will speak these things to the Jew in response to Kelsus. But after this, he says: "Where is he then? So that we may see and believe, we will ask him: Where is he now, the one who speaks in the prophets and has done great things? So that we may see and believe that he is a part of God."

Or is it allowed for you to defend why God does not always appear to the race of the Hebrews, but for us, the same defense is not given regarding Jesus, once he has risen and persuaded his disciples so much that through what they suffer, they show everyone that seeing eternal life and the resurrection shown to them both in word and deed makes them play with all the hardships of life?

Book 2, Section 78

After this, the Jew says: "Did he come for this, so that we may disbelieve? To whom he will say: 'He did not come for this, to work disbelief among the Jews, but knowing that it would happen, he foretold it and joined it to the disbelief of the Jews regarding the calling of the nations.' For through their 'failure, salvation has come to the nations,' about which Christ says in the prophets: 'A people whom I did not know served me; to a nation that did not call on my name, I said, Here I am.' And it is clear that the Jews, after they rejected Jesus, were punished for what they had done.

Let the Jews say, if they accuse us: 'How wonderful is the providence and kindness of God, punishing those who are deprived of Jerusalem and the so-called holy place and the most sacred worship.' For whatever they say in defending the providence of God, we will more strongly argue that it is a wonderful providence of God, using the sin of that people to call those from the nations through Jesus, the strangers to the 'covenants' and outsiders to the promises, into the kingdom of God.

And the prophets also foretold this, that because of the sins of the Hebrew people, God would choose not a nation but people from everywhere, and 'the foolish things of the world' he would choose to make the wise nation in the divine words, taking away from those the kingdom of God and giving it to these.

It is enough for now to present the prophecy from the song of Deuteronomy about the calling of the nations as it is written. It is said from the mouth of the Lord: 'For they have provoked me to jealousy with what is not God; they have angered me with their idols; so I will provoke them to jealousy with those who are not a nation; I will anger them with a foolish nation.'"

Book Three

Then the Jew concludes on all these matters about Jesus: "He was indeed a man, and such a one. The very truth shows this, and the word demonstrates it. I do not know if a man, daring to spread his worship and teaching throughout the whole world, can become an atheist and be greater than all those who oppose his teaching, including kings, leaders, and the Roman Senate, as well as all the rulers and the people everywhere.

How can a human nature, having nothing better in itself, turn so many people around? And it is not surprising if not only the wise but even the most foolish, those caught up in passions, and those who are more difficult to turn to reason, are changed to be more sensible. But since Christ was the power of God and the wisdom of the Father, he has done these things and continues to do them, even if neither Jews nor Greeks want it.

Therefore, we will not cease to believe in God according to the teachings of Jesus Christ and to turn those who are blind about true worship, even if those who are truly blind mock us as if they are enlightening us, whether they are Jews or Greeks. Those who join with them accuse us of leading people astray.

It is good to lead people to become sensible instead of reckless, or to progress toward wisdom instead of remaining foolish, and instead of being unjust, to become just, or to move toward justice, and instead of being cowardly and base, to become brave and strong, especially showing this in the struggle for piety toward the God who created all things.

So, Jesus Christ came not through one prophet but was proclaimed by all. And this was Kelsus's ignorance, to attribute to the Jewish figure one prophet who spoke about Christ. And since the Jew who is with Kelsus has entered, saying that he has stopped speaking according to his own law, he has said other things that are not worth remembering.

And here I will stop the second part of what was dictated to me regarding his writing. But with God giving and the power of Christ present in our souls, we will attempt in the third part to engage with what Kelsus has written next."

Book 3, Section 1

"In the first part of the writings against the boastful Kelsus, he has written a true account about our book composed for him, as you commanded. Most faithful Ambrose, we have divided the introduction and will examine each of the mentioned points. We have reached the speech of the Jew concerning Jesus.

In the second part, we responded to everything as we were able, addressing the arguments of the Jew who is with him. In this third part, we will present a discourse in which we intend to struggle against what is laid out as from his own perspective. He claims that Christians and Jews argue very foolishly with each other. He says that there is no difference in our dialogue about Christ, which he calls a fight of the shadow of a donkey.

He thinks there is nothing serious in the discussions between Jews and Christians. Both believe that a savior, sent by divine spirit, was prophesied for the human race. However, they no longer agree on whether the prophesied one has come or not. For Christians believe that Jesus has come according to the prophecies, while most Jews are so reluctant to believe in him.

They accuse those who, at that time, conspired against Jesus, and now they criticize those who support the accusations made by the Jews against him, claiming that he was made up by some sort of magic, as if he were the one prophesied to come."

Book 3, Section 2

"Let Kelsus and those who agree with him say to us if it seems like the prophets of the Jews spoke about the birthplace of the one who would lead those who live well and those who take part in the divine, and about a virgin who would conceive Emmanuel, and about signs and wonders that would be done by the one who is prophesied.

And he says, 'His word runs swiftly,' as if 'it will go out to all the earth,' the sound of his apostles. What will happen to him when he is condemned by the Jews, and how will he rise again? Did the prophets really say these things without any credibility? Did they not only speak but also demand that their words be written down?

Is it possible that the Jewish nation, having long ago taken a land of its own, could have some prophets recognized as true and others as false without any credibility? And was there nothing among them to count the words of the prophets as trustworthy alongside the sacred writings of Moses?

Can those who accuse us of being naive claim that the Jewish nation could stand firm without any promise of prophecies among them? And that the nations believed that each one could receive oracles and prophecies from their own gods, while these alone, the ones who were taught to despise all the gods of the nations as not gods but demons (since their prophets said, 'All the gods of the nations are demons'), had no one to prophesy about the one who was to come and could not draw those who desired knowledge of the future to turn to the gods of others?

Therefore, if it is not necessary for an entire nation to be taught to despise the gods of others, how could they have produced prophets who were greater than those who appeared and surpassed all the oracles everywhere?"

Book 3, Section 3

"Then, everywhere or in many places, miracles happened, as he himself later mentions Asclepius healing and predicting future events for all the cities dedicated to him, such as Trikka, Epidaurus, Cos, and Pergamum. And he mentions Aristides from Proconnesus, and someone from Clazomenae, and Cleomedes from Astypalaea.

But only among the Jews do they claim to be dedicated to the God of all. There was no sign or wonder that would support and strengthen their faith in the creator of all things, along with the hope of living a greater life. But how could this be? For they would immediately turn to worship the demons they consulted and healed, leaving behind the God they believed in up to that point, who never showed himself to them.

If this did not happen, but instead they endured countless things to avoid renouncing Judaism and the law associated with it, sometimes suffering in Assyria, sometimes in Persia, and sometimes under Antiochus, how could it not be that the strange histories and prophecies are constructed from appearances to those who do not believe, claiming that such things were not fabrications, but rather something divine, as if a pure spirit were present in the souls of the prophets?

All the effort for virtue taken on by them moved them to prophesy, some about their own times and others specifically about a savior who would come for the human race."

Book 3, Section 4

"If these things are so, how do the Jews and Christians argue with each other about the shadow of a donkey, examining the prophecies in which they both believe, whether the one who was prophesied has come or is still expected? Even if Kelsus were to argue that Jesus is not the one the prophets announced, the search for the meaning of the prophetic writings is still about the shadow of a donkey.

This is so that it can be clearly shown who the one being proclaimed is, what he was prophesied to be like, what he would do, if he would come, and when he would appear. In the previous sections, we mentioned a few prophecies from many that indicate Jesus is the prophesied Christ.

Therefore, it is not the Jews or Christians who are mistaken about the prophets speaking from God, but those who are mistaken about the expected prophesied one, who is said to be of a certain nature according to the true words of the prophets."

Book 3, Section 5

"Next, Kelsus thinks that the Jews, being of Egyptian descent, left Egypt and, having become proud about their common beliefs and practices in Egypt, say that they suffered the same things as the Egyptians did. This was because those who believed in Jesus as the Christ caused both groups to become a source of new ideas by arguing among themselves.

What Kelsus has done in this matter should be examined. The ancient Egyptians had many disagreements with the Hebrew people, especially when a famine struck Judea and they came to Egypt. They suffered as if they were strangers and refugees, and they believed that the whole nation should have suffered under divine care. They agreed that none of those who had taken them in had wronged them.

After being struck by divine punishments, they were barely released from their unjust servitude. Therefore, being self-interested and preferring their own kind over just strangers, they have left no accusation unspoken against Moses and the Hebrews. They do not completely deny the great powers attributed to Moses but claim that these were due to magic and not divine power.

Moses, however, was not a magician but a pious man, dedicated to the God of all, and he shared in a higher spirit. He established laws for the Hebrews as he was inspired by the divine, and he wrote down the events as they were true."

Book 3, Section 6

Kelsus, therefore, does not fairly examine what is said by the Egyptians and the Hebrews. Instead, he is biased, influenced by the flatterers of the Egyptians. He agrees with those who wronged the strangers but claims that the wronged Hebrews left Egypt, not seeing how such a large and rebellious crowd of Egyptians could exist.

The beginning of the rebellion led to the formation of a nation that changed its language, so that those who had previously used the Egyptian language suddenly began to speak the Hebrew dialect. Even if we assume they left Egypt hating it and its language, how could they then use the dialect of the Syrians or the Phoenicians more than the Hebrew language, but instead created a new Hebrew dialect from both?

This leads me to conclude that it is false to say that the Egyptians, being of that race, rebelled against the Egyptians, left Egypt, and came to Palestine, which is now called Judea. For the Hebrew language was their native tongue before they went down to Egypt, and the Hebrew letters were different from those of the Egyptians. Moses used these letters to write the five sacred books that the Jews believe in.

Book 3, Section 7

Similarly, it is false to say that the Hebrews began their rebellion from the Egyptians, and that the Jews rebelled against their own people during the time of Jesus and followed him. Kelsus and those who agree with him cannot show any evidence of rebellion among Christians.

Even if there was a rebellion among Christians, it would have started with the Jews, who had the means to take up arms for their own people and to fight against enemies. The lawgiver of the Christians would not have allowed the killing of any person, teaching that it is never right for his followers to act violently, even if that person were the most unjust (for he did not think it right to allow any killing according to his divine law).

Nor would Christians, starting from a rebellion, have made laws that allowed them to be killed "like sheep" without ever being able to defend themselves against their pursuers. However, if we look deeper into the matter, we can say that those who came out of Egypt strangely adopted the so-called Hebrew language all at once. As one of their prophets said, "When they came out of the land of Egypt, they heard a language they did not know."

Book 3, Section 8

And so it must be shown that those who left Egypt with Moses were not Egyptians. If they were Egyptians, their names would have been Egyptian, as names are related to each language. But since their names were Hebrew, it is clear that they were not Egyptians (for the writings about the Hebrews are full of Hebrew names and those established in Egypt). It is evident that the claim made by the Egyptians is false, that they were Egyptians who left with Moses from Egypt.

It is clear that the descendants of the Hebrews, according to the history written by Moses, used their own dialect, from which their names were given to their children. Regarding Christians, since they were taught not to defend themselves against enemies, they kept a gentle and humane law. Therefore, even if they had the power to fight, they did not do so. This was received from God, who always fought for them and at times stopped those who wanted to attack and kill them.

For the sake of remembrance, so that those who are struggling for piety may become more tested and despise death, a few, very few, have died for the piety of Christians, with God preventing their entire nation from being attacked. For he wanted to establish it and fill the whole world with this saving and most pious teaching. Again, so that the weaker may breathe easier from the fear of death, God foresaw the believers, scattering all plots against them by his will, so that neither kings nor local leaders nor the people could easily destroy them.

These points relate to what Kelsus said about the rebellion beginning with the Jews and later leading to the Christians.

Book 3, Section 9

Since he clearly lies in the following, let us bring forth his words: if all people wanted to be Christians, these would no longer want to be. That this is a lie is clear from the fact that Christians do not neglect to spread their message throughout the whole world. Some have even made it their work to go around not only cities but also villages and farms, so that they may prepare others to be pious toward God.

No one would say that they do this for wealth, as they often do not even take what they need for food. If they are ever forced by this poverty, they are satisfied with just their needs, even if they want to share more with others and give what is beyond their needs.

Now, perhaps, when many are coming to the message, and wealthy people and some in positions of power, as well as noble and gentle women, accept those who come from the message, someone may dare to say that they lead some in the teaching about Christians. However, in the beginning, when the danger was greatest for those teaching, it is reasonable to suspect such a thing.

Even now, there is more unpopularity among others compared to the respect given to those who share the same beliefs, and this is not true for everyone. Therefore, it is a lie that if all people wanted to be Christians, these would no longer want to be.

Book 3, Section 10

Look at what he says is the proof of this: he claims that at the beginning, there were few and they all thought the same. But as they spread into a crowd, they again divide and split, each wanting to have their own factions. For this reason, they were lacking from the start.

It is clear that in comparison to the later crowd, the early Christians were few, although they were not everywhere few. For the crowd that followed Jesus, stirred up by jealousy and inciting the Jews against him, was in the thousands, with five thousand and four thousand men following him, not counting the number of women and children.

Such was the call in the words of Jesus that not only men wanted to follow him into the wilderness, but also women, who were not held back by their supposed weakness in following the teacher into the wilderness. And there were very young children, either following their parents or perhaps even being led by his divinity, so that divinity might be sown in them.

They followed along with those who had given birth to them. But let it be that there were few at the beginning; what does this have to do with the idea that Christians would not want to persuade all people about the message?

Book 3, Section 11

He also says that everyone thought the same, but in this, he does not see that from the beginning there have been disagreements among the believers about the divine books. Even among the apostles who preached and those who saw Jesus teaching his lessons, there was much questioning among the Jewish believers about the Gentiles coming to the message. They wondered whether they should keep Jewish customs or remove the burden of clean and unclean foods, as it was not urgent for those leaving their homeland among the nations and believing in Jesus.

In Paul's letters, written during the time of those who saw Jesus, we find some discussions about the resurrection and whether it has already happened and about the day of the Lord, whether it has come or not. There were also those who were turning away from empty talk and the oppositions of false knowledge, which some, promising about the faith, have shipwrecked. This shows that from the beginning there have been some variations in beliefs, not yet, as Kelsus thinks, many believers having come into being.

Book 3, Section 12

Then, since he accuses us of the divisions within Christianity, saying that as they spread into a crowd, they again divide and split, each wanting to have their own factions, he claims that they are also criticized by the crowd for this. He says that they are still sharing in the name, if they indeed share, but they are ashamed to leave this behind, while the rest have scattered in different directions.

We should say that for no matter what, if the beginning is not serious and useful for life, different sects arise. For since medicine is useful and necessary for the human race, there are many questions about how to treat the body, and for this reason, there are more recognized sects in medicine among the Greeks. I believe there are also among the barbarians, as many as claim to practice medicine.

Moreover, since philosophy promises truth and knowledge of what is, and teaches how we should live for our benefit, there are many questions about this, and for this reason, many sects have arisen in philosophy, some of which are more notable than others. Judaism also has been a reason for the rise of sects due to the different interpretations of the writings of Moses and the prophetic words.

Thus, since Christianity has appeared as something serious to people, not only to those who are more enslaved, as Kelsus thinks, but also to many among the Greeks who love learning, they have necessarily faced not only divisions and hostile sects but also the serious study of understanding Christianity and the many philosophical ideas.

This led to the different interpretations of those who believed to be divine words, with sects arising from those who were amazed at the beginning of the message and how some were led to disagreements with one another. But no one would reasonably avoid medicine because of the sects within it, nor would someone hate philosophy while considering its many sects as a reason to do so. Therefore, we should not judge the sacred books of Moses and the prophets because of the sects among the Jews.

Book 3, Section 13

If this is the case, how can we not defend ourselves in the same way regarding the divisions among Christians? About this, Paul has wonderfully said, "For there must also be divisions among you, so that those who are approved may be made known among you." Just as in medicine, the approved doctor is known through training in various sects and carefully examining the differences, and just as the one who is advancing in philosophy learns from many, so I would say that the one who carefully studies the sects of Judaism and Christianity becomes the wisest Christian.

But the one who criticizes the teachings because of the sects could also criticize Socrates' teaching, from which many schools have arisen that do not think the same. One could also criticize Plato's doctrines because of Aristotle, who departed from his teachings with new ideas.

It seems to me that Kelsus has recognized some sects that do not share in the name of Jesus. Perhaps he has heard about those called Ophites and Cainites, or some other similar group that has arisen from Jesus' teachings. However, this does not affect the message of the Christians.

Book 3, Section 14

After this, he says: "Their sign is even more wonderful." The more it stands without any basis, the more it is worthy of being examined. But there is a worthy basis in the division and the benefit from it, as well as the fear from outside; these things strengthen their faith.

We should also say that our sign is not based on any human reasoning, but rather on divine action, so that its origin is God. The prophets teach people to hope for the coming of Christ, who saves humanity. For as much as this is not truly proven, even if it seems to be challenged by the unbelievers.

The word stands as the word of God, and Jesus, being the Son of God, is shown both before becoming human and after becoming human. I say that even after the incarnation, he is always found to those who have the sharpest eyes of the soul, most fitting for God, truly coming down to us, not from human understanding as his origin or from what follows, but from the appearance of God, who established Judaism first and then Christianity with various wisdom and powers.

The division is also challenged, as it is thought to be the beginning of the benefit for those who have turned back and improved through this word.

Book 3, Section 15

That the fear from outside does not hold our sign is clear from the fact that this has already ceased to be a concern for a long time. It is likely that the fear related to this life, which arises for believers, will also stop when those who slander the word in every way think that the reason for the current division among so many believers is this.

In not being attacked by the leaders, just like in ancient times, we have learned from the word not to be shaken in peace and not to give ourselves over to despair, nor to lose heart when being attacked by the world, but to remain in love towards God, who is all in all, in Jesus Christ.

We should clearly present the seriousness of our beginning and not hide it as Kelsus thinks. When we show contempt for idols and all images to those who are first introduced to our faith, we should lift their thoughts from serving created things instead of God to the Creator of all.

We should openly present the prophesied one, both from the many prophecies about him and from the teachings that are carefully handed down to those able to hear, more wisely than the gospels and the apostolic voices.

Book 3, Section 16

What various fears do we gather or what fears do we create, as Kelsus writes without proof? Let whoever wants to present them. If he is not talking about the judgment of God and the judgment of humans based on what they have done, with teachings and various arguments from the scriptures and from reasonable discourse, then what fears does Kelsus want to mention?

And yet, truthfully, Kelsus says in his later writings that neither these teachings nor mine nor any other human's should be dismissed regarding the punishment of the unjust and the reward of the righteous. So what fears? If you remove the discussion about punishment, are we creating fears among people?

But even if he says that we are misleading people by mixing in the old teachings, we should ask him: what old teachings are we mixing in? Whether it is from the Greek tradition, which teaches about the courts beneath the earth, or from the Jewish tradition, which prophesies about the life to come, he would not be able to show that we are misled by the truth, as many of us try to believe with reason, living by such teachings.

Book 3, Section 17

He wants to compare our faith to the practices of the Egyptians. Among them, there are bright temples, groves, grand gates, and beautiful buildings, as well as marvelous shrines and proud tents, along with superstitious and mysterious rituals. But when one goes inside, they see worshiped animals like cats, monkeys, crocodiles, goats, or dogs.

What is the equivalent of the solemnity of the Egyptians for us? What is the equivalent of worshiping irrational animals inside their grand gates? Are the prophecies and the one true God, along with the teachings against idols, not solemn? Is Jesus Christ, who was crucified, really comparable to the worship of irrational animals?

But if he says this (for I think he will say nothing else), we will respond that there is much more in what has been said about Jesus than in the earlier practices. For what seems to have happened to him as a human has been beneficial and brings salvation to the whole world.

Book 3, Section 18

Then, the Egyptians, who speak solemnly about the irrational animals and claim that these are symbols of their god, send out a fantasy to those who have learned these things, so that they do not think they are in vain. But in our teachings, from what is called a gift by Paul, in the "word of wisdom through the Spirit" and in the "word of knowledge according to the Spirit," we present to those well-educated in Christianity something that Kelsus does not seem to recognize, not only from these but also from what he later says in his accusations against the Christian system.

He claims that while all others are wise, they alone call the foolish and the enslaved people, about whom we will discuss in due time. They are made according to their place.

Book 3, Section 19

And he says that we laugh at the Egyptians. Yet, while they provide many riddles and not insignificant ones, they teach that the honors of irrational animals are eternal ideas, contrary to what most people think. It is foolish to bring in the honors of goats and dogs from the Egyptians into the stories about Jesus.

To this, we will say: "O noble one, while you rightly praise the Egyptians for their many and significant riddles and unclear stories about their animals, you do not justly accuse us as if you believe we have nothing to say, but rather that everything we say is worthless and trivial.

When we explain the matters concerning Jesus according to the wisdom of the word, we will speak to those who are perfect in Christianity. About this, Paul teaches that he speaks wisdom among the perfect. This wisdom is not of this age nor of the rulers of this age who are being brought to nothing. But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, which God has hidden and prepared for our glory before the ages, which none of the rulers of this age has known."

Book 3, Section 20

And we say to those who agree with Kelsus that Paul was not claiming to speak a "wisdom" that is superior. But when he boldly says that he has nothing wise to offer, we will respond to him by saying: First, clarify what he means by these letters and examine the intention behind each word in them. For example, look at his letters to the Ephesians, the Colossians, the Thessalonians, the Philippians, and the Romans.

Show both that you have understood Paul's words and that you have some simple or foolish people in mind. For if he applies himself to careful reading, he will know well that he will either admire the man's mind, which thinks deeply in simple language, or, if he does not admire it, he will appear ridiculous, whether he is telling a story as if he understands the man's intention or trying to argue and twist what he thinks he has understood.

Book 3, Section 21

And I am not yet speaking about the keeping of all that is written in the gospels; each of these contains much that is hard to see, not only for most people but even for some of the wise. They have a very deep narrative of parables, which Jesus spoke to those "outside," keeping their clarity for those who have crossed the line, while to those who come to him "in the house," he explains them privately.

And he will be amazed, having understood, what the term "outside" means for some and others "in the house." And again, who would not be astonished by the changes of Jesus, going up a mountain with such words or actions or by his own transformation? But when he is down, healing the sick and those who cannot follow him, where do his disciples go?

Now, let us tell of the truly serious and divine things of the gospels or of Christ in Paul. That is, of wisdom and of the word, not a mind that is unfit. But these things are sufficient against Kelsus's unphilosophical mockery. He compares the inner and secret things of the church of God to the Egyptian animals, like cats or monkeys or crocodiles or goats or dogs.

Book 3, Section 22

And the buffoon Kelsus, leaving behind no form of mockery and ridicule about us, names in our discussion the Dioscuri, Heracles, Asclepius, and Dionysus, who are believed by the Greeks to be gods from among men. And he says that we cannot accept these as gods, claiming that they were men and the first of them.

Yet, many have shown great deeds above those of men. But concerning Jesus, he says that he was killed by his own followers, and he accuses us of saying that he was seen, and these are just shadows. To this, we will say that Kelsus has not clearly presented that we do not honor these as gods (for he feared the opinion of those who would pray to them in writing, thinking him an atheist if he spoke against the apparent truth).

He neither pretended nor believed them to be gods himself; for we would have responded to each of them. Therefore, let us say these things to those who do not consider them to be gods. Are they not the beginning? But, as some think about the human soul as being quickly destroyed, so was the soul of these men destroyed; or according to the opinion of those who say they remain or that they are immortal, they remain as such, or they are immortal, and they are not gods but heroes; or are they not even heroes but simply souls?

If you think they are not, then we must construct an argument about the soul. But if they are, then we must accept the argument about immortality, not only from the Greeks who speak well of it but also according to what is pleasing to divine teachings. And we will show that it is not possible for these many gods to have come into being in a land and part that is better after their release from here, bringing with them the stories about them, in which much of Heracles' debauchery is written, and his servitude to Omphale, and the story of Asclepius being struck by lightning from Zeus.

And the stories about the Dioscuri will be told, as sometimes they are alive and sometimes they are dead; yet they receive equal honor with the gods, often dying. How then do they think it reasonable for any of these to be considered a god or a hero?

Book 3, Section 23

But we show about our Jesus from the prophetic writings and then compare the history about him with the histories about those others. There is no mention of any wrongdoing by him. For even those who plotted against him and sought to bring "false witness" against him found no possibility in their "false witness" to accuse him of wrongdoing. But his death came from the plots of men and had nothing in common with the lightning strike against Asclepius.

What is serious about the frenzied Dionysus, dressed in women's clothing, that he should be worshiped as a god? And if those defending these figures resort to allegory, we must examine the allegories individually to see if they are healthy, and also whether they can have substance and are worthy of respect and worship, being torn apart by Titans and cast down from the heavenly throne.

But our Jesus, who was seen by his own followers (for I will use the name given by Kelsus), was truly seen, while Kelsus slanders the account by saying he was seen as a shadow. And let us examine the histories of those others alongside the history of Jesus.

Does Kelsus want those accounts to be true while dismissing these accounts written by those who witnessed and demonstrated the reality of what they saw and showed their disposition towards his word? And who would reasonably want to look closely at those accounts while carelessly doubting the accounts about him?

Book 3, Section 24

And again, when it is said about Asclepius that many people, both Greeks and non-Greeks, often claim to have seen and still see him, not as a phantom but as one who heals and does good and predicts the future. Kelsus thinks we should believe this and does not accuse those who believe in Jesus.

If we believe these things, then when it comes to the disciples and those who have witnessed the great works of Jesus, we should agree with the clear awareness of their own consciousness, seeing their cleverness. As far as it is possible to see consciousness from writings, we are called simple-minded by Kelsus, who does not have the ability to present something unanswerable, as he claims.

A multitude of Greeks and non-Greeks testify to Asclepius. For if he thinks this is serious, we clearly show an uncountable multitude of Greeks and non-Greeks testifying to Jesus. Some show signs of receiving something through this faith in a more extraordinary way in which they heal.

They call upon no other than the God of all and the name of Jesus along with the history about him when they pray for healing. For through these, we have seen many freed from severe conditions, seizures, madness, and countless other things that neither humans nor demons have healed.

Book 3, Section 25

In order to show that a certain demon, called Asclepius, heals bodies, I could say to those who marvel at such things or at the oracle of Apollo that if healing is a middle ground, it is not just for the noble but also for the lowly. And the knowledge of the future is also a middle ground (for the one who predicts does not always show something noble).

Show how those who heal or predict are not at all lowly but are instead shown to be somewhat noble and not far from being thought of as gods. But they will not be able to prove that those who heal or predict are noble. Many are said to be healed who are unworthy of life, whom even a wise doctor would not want to heal while they are living in a disgraceful way.

And in the oracles of the Pythia, you would find some things that are not reasonable. I will mention two examples: Cleomedes, the boxer, was ordered to be honored with equal honors. I do not know what he ever saw that was noble in his boxing, nor did he honor Pythagoras or Socrates with the honors of boxing.

But even saying "the servant of the Muses," he referred to Archilochus, a man who showed his poetic talent in a very bad and shameful way, presenting a shameful and impure character. As for being "the servant of the Muses," they are thought to be gods. He proclaimed someone as pious.

I do not know if the one who happens to be pious would say that he is not adorned with moderation and virtue, and a respectable person would say such things as those who are not noble in Archilochus's iambs. If nothing divine is shown from the healing of Asclepius and the prophecy of Apollo, how could anyone reasonably think otherwise?

In order to show that these things are so, how could one honor them as gods? Especially when through the mouth of the Pythia, the so-called prophetess, the prophetic spirit enters through women, Apollo, the pure one, comes from a mortal body. But we do not think anything like this about Jesus and his power. For the body born from the virgin was made from human material, capable of human wounds and death.

Book 3, Section 26

Let us also see what Kelsus says next, presenting strange things from histories that seem unbelievable on their own but are not doubted by him as far as his wording goes. First, he talks about the Proconnesian Aristæus, saying that Aristæus, who vanished in a mysterious way from humans, later appeared clearly and was seen in many places around the world, bringing wonderful news.

He mentions that Apollo came to the Metapontines and assigned Aristæus a share among the gods, but no one considers him a god anymore. It seems that the story is taken from Pindar and Herodotus. It is enough now to present the words of Herodotus from the fourth book of his histories, which say this about him: "And I have said where Aristæus, who said these things, was from. I will tell the story I heard in Proconnesus and Cyzicus. They say that Aristæus was one of the citizens, not inferior to anyone, who entered a bathhouse in Proconnesus and died.

The bathkeeper called the workers to tell them about the dead man. As the news spread throughout the city, they thought Aristæus was dead. A man from Cyzicus, arriving from the city of Artace, came to dispute with those who said he was dead. He happened to meet those going to Cyzicus and arrived to speak.

He disputed strongly about this, while those related to the dead man were present at the bathhouse, bringing offerings as if he were to be buried. When the house was opened, neither living nor dead Aristæus was found. After seven years, he appeared in Proconnesus to compose these verses, which are now called by the Greeks the "Arimaspea," and after composing them, he vanished a second time.

These cities say these things. I know that the Metapontines in Italy say that after the second disappearance of Aristæus, forty-two years passed, as I found out while gathering information in Proconnesus and Metapontum. The Metapontines say that when Aristæus appeared to them, he ordered a temple of Apollo to be built and to set up a statue of Aristæus, who was named after Proconnesus.

They say that Apollo alone came to the land of the Italians, and that Aristæus, who is now, followed him; at that time, when he followed the god, he was a raven. After saying these things, he vanished, but the Metapontines say they sent to Delphi to ask the god what the appearance of the man was. They told the Pythia to believe the vision, and those who were persuaded would better understand.

And they, having received these things, made it happen. And now there stands a statue named after Aristæus beside the statue of Apollo, and around him are laurel trees; the statue is set up in the marketplace. So much for Aristæus."

Book 3, Section 27

It should be said about the history of Aristæus that if Kelsus presented it as history, he should not also show his own agreement with it as true, otherwise we would have responded differently to his argument. Since he claims that Aristæus vanished in a mysterious way and then appeared clearly, being seen in many places around the world and bringing wonderful news, and also that Apollo assigned Aristæus a share among the gods, it seems he is presenting this as true.

How can he accept these stories while rejecting the strange accounts written by the disciples of Jesus? Does he not think these are either wonders or fabrications? How can he accuse others of believing unreasonable things about Jesus while he himself seems to have believed so much in these tales?

Does he provide any proof or construction to show that these things happened? Do Herodotus and Pindar seem to him to be truthful, while those who died studying the teachings of Jesus and left behind writings about such matters are said to be fabrications, myths, and wonders?

So, placing yourself between the writings about Aristæus and those about Jesus, see if it is not from the outcomes and the benefits to morals and reverence toward the god of all that it can be said that one should believe in the accounts of Jesus, which are not to be dismissed, rather than those about Proconnesian Aristæus.

Book 3, Section 28

What does providence want to achieve with the strange stories about Aristæus, and how does it intend to benefit humanity with such things, as you think? You cannot say. But when we tell the story about Jesus, we do not just bring a random defense about what happened; we show that God has chosen to establish through Jesus a message of salvation for humanity.

This is confirmed by the apostles, like the foundation of the building of Christianity, and in the following years, many healings in the name of Jesus and other significant appearances take place. What about Apollo, assigning Aristæus a share among the gods? What does he intend to do, and what benefit does this honor bring to the Metapontines if they now consider a recently human man to be a god?

But the offerings to Apollo, our god, seem to you to be worthy, while the prophecies from the one true God and his holy angels, which were foretold before Jesus lived among humans, do not move you to wonder at the prophets who were inspired by the divine spirit? Many years before, it happened that the coming of Jesus was proclaimed so widely that the whole Jewish nation was waiting for the expected arrival of Jesus, and many of them acknowledged Christ and believed he was the prophesied one.

But those who did not believe, disregarding the gentleness of the teachings of Jesus, even attempted to oppose him, daring to challenge what his disciples wrote truthfully and gratefully, without hiding the strange history surrounding him, which many thought brought shame to the Christian message.

For Jesus himself and his disciples wanted not only those who came to believe in his divinity and his wonders to do so, but they also recognized that he took on human nature and experienced human circumstances, showing that he was both divine and human. They saw that from him, a divine and human nature began to intertwine, so that humanity could become divine through its connection with the divine. This is not only true for Jesus but also for all who live according to his teachings, leading them to friendship with God and communion with him, living according to all that Jesus taught.

Book 3, Section 29

According to Kelsus, Apollo wants to assign Aristæus a place among the gods for the Metapontines. However, the Metapontines thought that the story of Aristæus, a man who may not have been very important, was more impressive than the oracle about him as a god or someone worthy of divine honors. Because of this, they did not want to believe Apollo, and thus no one considers Aristæus to be a god.

Now, if we speak about Jesus, it was beneficial for humanity to accept him as the Son of God, a god who came in a human soul and body. This did not seem useful to those who believed in the physical nature of demons and thought they were gods. Therefore, the demons on earth, along with those who were not educated about demons, were seen as gods.

But those who served them wanted to prevent the spread of Jesus' teachings. They saw the offerings and the incense, which they enjoyed, being removed because of the strength of Jesus' teachings. But God, who sent Jesus, removed all the plots of the demons everywhere in the world for the return and correction of humanity, allowing the gospel of Jesus to prevail and establishing churches everywhere that opposed the superstitious, immoral, and unjust practices.

Such things were happening in the churches of the cities. The churches that were taught by Christ were like "lights" in the "world." Who would not agree that those who are less worthy from the church are much better than those in the communities of the cities?

Book 3, Section 30

The church of God, you could say, is gentle and stable in Athens, as it seeks to please God above all. But the assembly of the Athenians is divided and cannot be compared to the church of God there. The same can be said about the church of God in Corinth and the assembly of the Corinthian people, and also about the church of God in Alexandria and the assembly of the Alexandrians.

If someone listens to this with understanding and examines the matters honestly, they will be amazed at how the one who planned and was able to establish churches of God everywhere has done so, living among the churches of each city. Thus, if you examine the will of the church of God along with the will of each city, you will find out which members of the church are worthy, if there is a city of God, to live in that city.

But the members everywhere do not have any worthiness that exceeds the order of the church, which they think is superior to the citizens, according to their own customs. So, you should compare the leader of the church in each city with the leaders of the city. You will see that even among the very unsuccessful members and leaders of the church of God, it is no easier to find someone who stands out in virtue than among those who are more successful in the cities.

Book 3, Section 31

If this is the case, how is it not reasonable to think about Jesus, who was able to establish so many things, that there was indeed a divine nature in him, unlike Aristæus in Proconnesus? Even if Apollo wants him to have a place among the gods, Kelsus says that no one considers the Hyperborean Abaris to be a god, even though he had such power that he could shoot arrows.

What does the gracious divine nature want with Abaris, to have such power given to him? Is it to benefit humanity? Or what could he himself gain from having such power? It must be accepted that these things are not mere fabrications but happened through some kind of demonic cooperation.

But if my Jesus is said to be taken up "in glory," I see the plan that those who witnessed him recognize that the teacher who performed these things became God. So that they strive not for human teachings but for divine teachings, as much strength as they can offer to the one true God, doing everything for the sake of pleasing him, so that they may receive their due reward in the divine court based on how they lived in this life, whether well or poorly.

Book 3, Section 32

After this, Kelsus also spoke about the Clazomenian, adding to his history: do they not say that his soul often left the body and wandered around as a disembodied spirit? And people did not consider him a god. To this, we might say that perhaps some wicked demons arranged for such stories to be written down (for I do not believe that they actually happened).

This is so that the prophecies about Jesus and the things said by him could be dismissed as fabrications similar to those stories, or as having no more significance than others, so that they are not greatly admired. My Jesus spoke about his own soul, not in the human way of being separated from the body, but according to the extraordinary power given to him. He said, "No one takes my soul from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it up again."

For he had the authority to lay it down. When he said, "Father, why have you forsaken me?" and "With a loud cry, he gave up his spirit," he anticipated those who were being crucified. They broke the legs of those crucified to prevent them from suffering longer. He took "the soul" when he appeared to his disciples, saying to the unbelieving Jews, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days." And "he was speaking about the temple of his body."

And the prophets proclaimed such things through many words, saying, "Yet my flesh will dwell in hope; for you will not abandon my soul to Hades, nor let your holy one see corruption."

Book 3, Section 33

Kelsus showed that he read more Greek histories, mentioning also the story of Cleomedes from Astypalaea. He told how Cleomedes sank into a chest and was not found inside it; instead, he supposedly vanished due to some demon's influence when some people cut open the chest to capture him.

If this is a fabrication, as it seems to be, it cannot be compared to the stories about Jesus. For in the case of those stories, there is no sign of divine nature in the lives of those people, while in the case of Jesus, there are the churches that benefit people, the prophecies spoken about him, the healings done in his name, and the wisdom and knowledge found among those who seek to understand his teachings.

They rise above mere belief and investigate the mind in the divine scriptures according to the teachings of Jesus, who said, "Search the scriptures," and according to the will of the teacher Paul, we should "know" each one "how to respond." Also, he said, "Always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you."

But if he wants to allow that it is not a fabrication, let him say so. What does the power beyond a human want to do with a demon's influence to vanish from the chest? If it presents something worthy and deserving of God's gift to Cleomedes, we can judge what should be said to him. But if he struggles to find a plausible explanation, it is clear that the reason for not finding a story is either to slander those who did not accept it and to accuse the history of being untrue, or to say that some demon created a similar deception to those shown by sorcerers regarding Cleomedes, whom Kelsus thinks was somehow divine. Thus, he suggests that he vanished from the chest due to some demon's influence.

Book 3, Section 34

I believe that Kelsus only knew these few stories. And to make it seem like he is intentionally leaving out similar ones, he said that there could be others like these. Let's say that there are indeed more like these that do not benefit humanity at all. What would each of them contribute to the work of Jesus and the wonders surrounding him, about which we have spoken more?

After this, does he think we have made something similar to what he claims, that those who were captured and died worshipped Zalmoxis among the Getae, Mopsus among the Cilicians, Amphiaraus among the Thebans, and Trophonius among the Lebadeans? In these cases, we will show that he is not rightly comparing us to those mentioned before.

For they built temples and statues for the ones they worshipped, while we have taken the honor due to the divine away from such things. (As if they were more fitting for demons, I do not know how they are established in a certain place, whether they are preoccupied with some rituals or brought there through magic, as if they were living there.) We have placed Jesus, who has moved our minds away from all that is physical.

He is not only perishable but also destined to perish, and he leads us to honor the one true God with prayers, which we offer to him as he stands between the nature of the uncreated and that of all created beings. He brings us the blessings from the Father and carries our prayers to the one true God as our high priest.

Book 3, Section 35

I wanted to ask how he can say such things and still speak properly. Are these people he mentioned nothing at all? Is there no power in Lebadea regarding Trophonius, or in Thebes concerning Amphiaraus, or in Acarnania about Amphilochus, or in Cilicia about Mopsus? Or is there someone among these, whether a demon, a hero, or even a god, who does something greater than a human?

If he claims that there is nothing other than a demon or divine being regarding these, then let him admit his own opinion now. Being an Epicurean and not thinking the same as the Greeks, he neither knows demons nor honors gods like the Greeks do, and he should be shown that he has foolishly accepted the previously mentioned things as true and has brought in the following claims.

But if he says that the ones mentioned are either demons, heroes, or gods, he should see that he is trying to create something he does not want, as if Jesus were something like that. Therefore, he has hesitated to present himself as superior to many humans. If he accepts this, let him see if he will not be forced to say that he is stronger than those he has compared himself to.

For no one prevents those from honoring others, but he himself boldly claims that he is stronger than all of them while rejecting their honors as those of wicked demons and places "taken on earth." Since they cannot touch the purest and most divine place, where the evils from the earth and the many troubles within it do not reach.

Book 3, Section 36

After this, regarding the stories about the boy Antinous (I mean the stories about the young man Antinous and the honors given to him in the city of Antinous in Egypt), he thinks that these do not take away from the honor due to Jesus. Let us also discuss this as if it were said in good faith.

What does the life of the boy Antinous have in common with our serious Jesus, who even those who have accused him many times and spoken falsehoods about him have not been able to say anything about him that suggests he was even slightly immoral? But even if someone were to examine the matters concerning Antinous fairly and without bias, they would find the reasons for believing he did something in the city of Antinous are linked to Egyptian magic and rituals after his death.

This is also reported about other temples by the Egyptians, where they have established demons that are said to be prophetic or healing, often tormenting those who seem to have suffered from unclean things or from touching a dead human body, so that they seem to be deceived by the many and uneducated.

Such is the case with the one considered a god in the city of Antinous in Egypt, whose virtues some people falsely claim to be more than human, while others, deceived by the demon established there, believe they owe something divine to Antinous. Such are also the mysteries they perform and the supposed prophecies, which are very far from those of Jesus.

For the magicians do not gather to honor a king or a ruler, thinking they have made him a god, but the creator of all has made him worthy of honor with a truly powerful presence, not just to those who wish to please humans, but also to demons and other unseen powers. These powers even now show themselves either fearing the name of Jesus as greater or respectfully accepting it as a ruler according to their own laws.

For if he did not have a divine nature given to him, demons would not flee just at the mention of his name when they are being attacked.

Book 3, Section 37

The Egyptians, having been taught to honor Antinous, would accept him if you compare him to Apollo or Zeus, honoring Antinous by placing him among them. In this, Kelsus clearly lies when he says that if you compare him to Apollo or Zeus, they will not accept it.

But Christians have learned that their eternal life comes from knowing "the only true God" and the one he sent, "Jesus Christ." They also learn that all the gods of the nations are demons, and regarding sacrifices and blood and the offerings from sacrifices, they are deceived by those who do not flee to the one true God. The divine and holy angels of God are of a different nature and purpose than all the demons on earth.

These angels are known only to a few who have sought the truth carefully and diligently. If you compare them to Apollo and Zeus or any of those worshipped with incense and blood and sacrifices, they will not accept it. Some, due to their great simplicity, do not know how to explain what they do, but they hold on to what they have received with gratitude. Others, with more serious and deeper arguments, as a Greek might say, speak of God and those honored by God through the only-begotten Word of God, thus sharing in divinity.

There is much to say about the divine angels and about those who are deceived by falsehood and call themselves gods or angels of God or good demons or heroes, arising from a good human soul. Such Christians are truly those who, like many in philosophy, believe they are in the truth, or they have made themselves wise with plausible words or have been led by others' arguments and have foolishly accepted them.

Because of such reasons, it is thought that among humans, it is impossible to find anyone who can be trusted as a god, except for the one who is the ultimate judge, who has deeply understood these matters and has revealed them to only a few, Jesus Christ.

Book 3, Section 38

Regarding Antinous or any other like him, whether among the Egyptians or the Greeks, belief is, in this way, unfortunate. But concerning Jesus, one could either think he is fortunate or that he has been examined in a tortured way, appearing fortunate to many but examined in a tortured manner by very few.

If I say that there is some belief, as many would name it, fortunate, and I refer this to the one true God who knows the reasons for each person's life, the Greeks would also say that among those considered wise, fortune is often the cause, such as with teachers of this kind and those who fall among the better ones, while there are also those teaching opposing beliefs and regarding the upbringing of the better ones.

For many have had their upbringing in such ways that not even the thought of receiving from the better ones is allowed, but always from early childhood, either being among immoral men or masters or in some other situation that prevents the soul from looking up to good fortune. The reasons for these things are likely to be found in discussions about providence, but it is not easy for them to fall upon humans.

I thought it good to mention these things in passing because belief, in whatever way it is held, makes a difference. It would be necessary to speak of the differences in beliefs among humans due to their various upbringings, whether they believe they are more fortunate or unfortunate. From this, it can be concluded that those who are more thoughtful would be more logical and would add to the many doctrines the so-called fortune and the so-called misfortune.

But there is enough said about these matters.

Book 3, Section 39

Next, we must consider what Kelsus says. He claims that our belief about Jesus leads our soul to a certain agreement. Truly, belief gives us such an agreement. But see if this belief presents something praiseworthy, when we believe in the one true God, acknowledging that he leads us to such belief and saying that he is not godless for having dared and succeeded in such things.

We believe in the choices of those who wrote the Gospels. Considering their reverence and awareness, shown in the writings, there is nothing false, deceptive, or cunning in them. For it is clear to us that souls would not know such things without learning them.

What the clever sophistry among the Greeks teaches has much probability and sharpness. And the rhetoric used in the courts is also clever. Thus, they could shape things in such a way that they could have faith and a life that corresponds to that faith.

I think that Jesus chose to use such teachers of doctrine so that there would be no room for the suspicion of clever arguments, but rather it would clearly show to those who understand that the pure intention of the writings, which has much to say, is worthy of a divine power, much more than any cleverness in words and phrases or the Greek techniques of argumentation.

Book 3, Section 40

But see if he does not shift the things of our faith from common ideas, changing the opinions of those who listen with understanding. For even if distortion has been able to gather much teaching, it has implanted in many the idea about statues as gods and about those made of gold, silver, ivory, and stone as worthy of worship.

However, common sense requires us to understand that a god is not at all made of perishable material or formed from lifeless matter by humans, like something made "in the image" or any symbols of that. Therefore, it is immediately said about statues, "that they are not gods," and about such creations, that they are not comparable to the creator, who is the one who created and holds everything and governs all.

And immediately, as if recognizing what is related, the rational soul rejects what it once thought to be gods and takes up the natural filter toward the creator. Because of this filter toward him, it rightly accepts the one who first presented these things to all nations through the disciples he sent with divine power and authority to proclaim the word about God and his kingdom.

Book 3, Section 41

Since he accuses us, I do not know how many times, that we believe Jesus, who is from a mortal body, to be God and that we seem to act piously in this. It is excessive to speak more about this, for more has already been said above. Nevertheless, let those who accuse know this: the one we believe and are convinced from the beginning is God and the Son of God, is the same as the self-logos, the self-wisdom, and the self-truth.

His mortal body and the human soul within him are not only in communion with him but also united and transformed into the greatest things we say have been taken up and have shared in his divinity, having been changed into God.

But if someone stumbles over our words about his body, let them pay attention to what the Greeks say about the nature of matter, which is often debated regarding the quality that the creator wants to give it, and how often the earlier qualities are set aside for better and different ones.

For if such things are healthy, what is so wonderful about the quality of the mortal body of Jesus being changed by God's will into a heavenly and divine quality?

Book 3, Section 42

Not as a dialectician, then, did Kelsus say that the human body of Jesus is more perishable than gold, silver, and stone. For according to the precise word, neither is the imperishable more imperishable than the imperishable, nor is the perishable more perishable than the perishable. But if it is more perishable, we still say that if it is possible to change the quality of any material, how can it not be possible for the flesh of Jesus to be changed into a quality such as it should be in the heavenly and higher places, no longer having the weaknesses of the flesh that Kelsus called impure?

Nor am I saying this philosophically; for what is truly impure comes from evil. The nature of the body is not impure; for in the nature of the body, the generative aspect has the evil of impurity. Then, since he takes up our defense, he says about the change of his body that if he puts this off, then he will be God. So why not more so Asclepius, Dionysus, and Heracles?

We should ask: what did Asclepius, Dionysus, or Heracles do that was so great? And what examples do they have to show that they improved their character and became better from their words and their lives, so that they became gods? For after reading many stories about them, let us see if they were cleansed from immorality, injustice, foolishness, or cowardice. And if nothing like that is found in them, then Kelsus's argument would be strong, equating those mentioned with Jesus. But if it is clear, and even if something is said about them as being better, there are many things written about them that are far from the correct word.

How then can you reasonably say that they, having put off their mortal bodies, became gods more than Jesus?

Book 3, Section 43

After this, he says about us that we mock those who worship Zeus, since his tomb is shown in Crete, and yet we honor the one who came from the tomb. Not knowing how the Cretans do such a thing. So see that he defends the Cretans and Zeus and his tomb. Hinting at indirect suggestions, he says that the myth about Zeus was made up, but he accuses us, admitting that our Jesus was buried and claiming that he arose from the tomb, which the Cretans no longer tell about Zeus.

Since he seems to gather together the story of Zeus's tomb in Crete, we say that just as the Cretans do this without knowing, so too did the Cyrenian Callimachus, having read many poems and nearly all of Greek history, know no change in the stories about Zeus and his tomb. Therefore, he also accuses the Cretans in the hymn written to Zeus, saying: "Cretans are always liars; for a tomb, O lord, the Cretans built for you; but you will not die. For you are always."

And the one who said, "But you will not die, for you are always," denying the tomb of Zeus in Crete, tells of the beginning of death happening to Zeus. The beginning of death is the birth on earth; he says this: "And in Phrygia, Rhea bore you after being loved." He should have seen that, as he denied the birth of Zeus in Crete because of his tomb, he should notice that he followed the story of his birth in Arcadia, which also includes the death of the one born.

Callimachus also says such things about these: "Zeus, they say you were born in the Idaean mountains, Zeus, but you were born in Arcadia; which of them, father, lied? Cretans are always liars." And so on. To these things, Kelsus has led us. Ignorant about Jesus and agreeing with what is written, that he died and was buried, but thinking that it is a fiction that he arose from the dead, and these things were foretold by many prophets and were many signs of his appearance after death.

Book 3, Section 44

Then, next, Kelsus speaks about us, saying that the teachings of Jesus are thought to be by a few Christians. He believes they are not wise, but rather ignorant, claiming that they say such things: let no educated person come near. Let no wise person, let no sensible person; for these things are considered bad by us. But if someone is ignorant, if someone is foolish, if someone is uneducated, if someone is childish, let them come boldly. For these are worthy of their own god, admitting that they are clearly only able to persuade the foolish, lowly, insensible, slaves, women, and children.

And in addition to this, we say that just as if someone were teaching about Jesus regarding self-control and saying, "Whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart," he sees that a few of those Christians are thought to be living without restraint. It would be very blessed for them to be called according to the teaching of Jesus, but it would be very unreasonable if the accusation against them was attached to the word.

Thus, if the word of Christians is found no less than that of wisdom, it will be blamed on those who gather together in their ignorance and say that these things are not what Kelsus wrote (for he does not so shamelessly write). Even if some are private individuals and ignorant, they say other things that are much less and discourage the practice of wisdom.

Book 3, Section 45

That the word wants us to be wise, it should be shown from both the ancient and Jewish writings, which we also use. No less, it should also come from the writings after Jesus that are believed to be divine in the churches. It is written in the Pentecost psalm of David in his prayer to God, saying, "You have made known to me the hidden and secret things of your wisdom." And if someone were to look into the psalms, they would find the book full of many wise sayings.

Solomon, too, when he asked for wisdom, received it; and the traces of his wisdom can be seen in the writings, having great insight in few words. In them, you would find many praises of wisdom and encouragement to take up wisdom. Thus, Solomon was so wise that the Queen of Sheba, having heard his "name" and the "name of the Lord," came to "test him with riddles." She "spoke to him everything that was in her heart. And Solomon answered all her words; there was not a word hidden from the king that he did not explain to her."

And the Queen of Sheba saw all the wisdom of Solomon and what he had done, and she said to the king, "The report that I heard in my land about you and your wisdom is true. I did not believe those who spoke to me until I came and my own eyes saw it. And behold, the half was not told to me; you have added wisdom and goodness beyond what I heard."

It is written about him that "the Lord gave Solomon wisdom and very great understanding, and breadth of heart like the sand on the seashore. And the wisdom of Solomon was greater than the wisdom of all the ancient men and greater than all the wise men of Egypt." And he was wiser than all men, and he spoke three thousand proverbs, and his songs were five thousand. He spoke about trees, from the cedar of Lebanon to the hyssop that grows out of the wall. He also spoke about animals and birds; and all the people came to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and about all the kings of the earth who heard of his wisdom.

Thus, the word wants to make those who believe wise, so that it may reveal the understanding of the listeners through riddles, through what are called dark sayings, through parables, and other problems. And one of the prophets, Hosea, says at the end of his words, "Who is wise and will understand these things? Or prudent and will know them?" Daniel and those with him, who were taken captive, excelled so much in the studies they pursued in Babylon that they were shown to be ten times better than all the wise men around the king. It is also said in Ezekiel to the prince of Tyre, who was very wise, "Are you wiser than Daniel? There is no secret that is hidden from you?"

Book 3, Section 46

If you come to the writings after Jesus, you would find that the crowds of believers listen to the parables as if they are outside, and they are worthy only of the outer words. But the disciples learn the stories of the parables "individually," for "to his own disciples he explained everything," Jesus preferred them over the crowds who were judging his wisdom.

He promises to those who believe in him that he will send "wise men and scribes," saying, "Behold, I will send to you wise men and scribes, and some of them you will kill and crucify." And Paul, in the list of the gifts given by God, first placed the word of wisdom and second, as if it were lower, the word of knowledge, and third, perhaps, faith. And since he prepared the word for the great works, therefore he places "works of power" and "gifts of healing" in the lower part next to the logical gifts.

Stephen, in the Acts of the Apostles, testifies to the great learning of Moses, having received from the ancient writings and not having reached many. For he says, "And Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians." And for this reason, it was also suggested in the great signs that he did not do these things according to the promise of God but according to the teachings of the Egyptians, being wise among them.

For thinking such things about him, the king called the magicians of the Egyptians and the wise men and the sorcerers, who were shown to be nothing compared to the wisdom in Moses, above all the wisdom of the Egyptians.

Book 3, Section 47

But it is likely that what is written in the first letter to the Corinthians by Paul, as he speaks to the Greeks who are greatly impressed by Greek wisdom, has stirred some up, as if the word does not want wise people. But let the one who thinks such things listen. Just as the word says that those who slander people are not wise about the things that are understood and unseen and eternal, but only about the things that can be sensed, claiming that they are wise of the world.

Thus, many doctrines exist that gather together matter and bodies, saying that everything is bodies, and that nothing else exists besides these, whether it is called invisible or named incorporeal. It says that "the wisdom of the world" is being made useless and foolish, and the wisdom of this age. But those who transfer the soul from these things to the blessedness that is with God and to his so-called kingdom teach to despise all the visible and sensed things as temporary and to hurry toward the invisible and to look at the unseen, saying that this is "the wisdom of God."

Being loving, Paul speaks about some wise men among the Greeks, in which they are truthful, saying, "For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks." And he testifies that they knew God, saying that this was not denied to them, in which he writes, "For God made himself known to them."

I think he is hinting at those who rise from the visible to the intelligible, when he writes that "the invisible things of God are seen through the creation of the world, being understood by the things that have been made." His eternal power and divine nature leave them without excuse, because although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks.

Book 3, Section 48

Perhaps also from the saying, "Look at your calling, brothers, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many powerful, not many noble are called; but God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God chose the weak and the despised things of the world, and the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, so that no flesh may boast in his presence," some have been stirred up to think that no educated or wise or sensible person comes to the word.

And to such a one, we would say that it is not said that no one is wise "according to the flesh," but "not many wise according to the flesh." And it is clear that in the description of those called bishops, Paul wrote what kind of person a bishop should be, saying that he must be able "to refute those who oppose," so that he may silence the vain talkers and deceivers through the wisdom in him.

And just as a single man is preferred over a married man for the role of bishop, and he must be "above reproach" and "sober," not such a one who is "not sober" and "self-controlled," and "orderly," even if he is a little disorderly, so he wants the one who is to be appointed as bishop to be able to teach and able to "refute those who oppose."

How then does Celsus rightly accuse us, saying that no one should come who is educated, no one wise, no one sensible? But let the one who wants to come be educated and wise and sensible; yet still let anyone who is uneducated, foolish, untrained, and simple come. For the word promises to heal such people, making them all worthy of God.

Book 3, Section 49

But it is a lie that the divine word wants to persuade only foolish, lowly, insensitive people, slaves, women, and children. For the word calls these people in order to improve them; it also calls those who are much different from them. For Christ is "the Savior of all people," and "especially of believers," whether they are wise or simple.

And he is "an atonement" "to the Father" "for our sins," not only for ours but also for the whole world. Therefore, it is excessive to want to defend ourselves against the words of Celsus that say such things. For what is wrong with being educated and caring for the best words and being sensible and seeming to be so? What prevents this from knowing God? And why would it not be more useful through this to reach the truth?

So truly being educated is not bad; education is a path to virtue. However, even among the educated, counting those who hold false beliefs, even the wise of the Greeks would not say this. Again, who would not agree that caring for the best words is good? But who are we to call the best words, or the true ones that encourage virtue?

It is also good to be sensible, but not merely to seem so, as Celsus said. And being educated does not prevent knowing God; rather, it helps to be educated and to care for the best words and to be sensible. And it is more fitting for us to say this than for Celsus, especially if he is challenged as an Epicurean.

Book 3, Section 50

Let us see how things are with him next. But we indeed see those in the marketplaces showing off the most impressive things and gathering crowds, and they would never pass by the gathering of wise men, nor would they dare to show off their own things among them. But wherever they see young men and a crowd of busy and foolish people, there they push and adorn themselves.

But look at how he slanders us by comparing us to those in the marketplaces who show off the most impressive things and gather crowds. What exactly do we show off that is so impressive? Or what do we do that is similar to them, those who encourage others through readings and through stories about the readings, urging them toward the piety of the one true God and the virtues that go along with it?

And surely the philosophers would pray to gather such listeners, calling them to the good, which some of the Cynics have done, speaking publicly to those who happen to be around. So do they also say that these people, not gathering those who are thought to be educated but calling them from the streets and gathering listeners, are similar to those in the marketplaces who show off the most impressive things and gather crowds?

But neither Celsus nor anyone who thinks the same way accuses those who, according to appearances, move the hearts of people with their words and speak to private crowds.

Book 3, Section 51

But if those people are not blamed for doing this, let us see if Christians gather even better crowds for goodness and virtue. For the philosophers who speak publicly do not judge their listeners. But whoever wants to stand and listen can do so. Christians, on the other hand, try as much as they can to reach those who want to hear, and they invite them individually.

When the listeners seem ready to live well before entering the public assembly, they bring them in, having first gathered a group of those just starting out and who have not yet received the symbol of being cleansed. They do not want anything else but what seems good to Christians. Among them, some are arranged to encourage the lives and behaviors of those who come, so that they may keep away those who show off and bring in those who are not like that, accepting them wholeheartedly and preparing them to be better every day.

And what kind of guidance do they have regarding those who sin, especially the immoral ones, whom the people similar to Celsus keep away from the common gathering, just like those in the marketplaces who show off the most impressive things? The Pythagoreans, for example, built a solemn school for the dead of their philosophy, thinking of them as having become dead. But these people mourn those who have been defeated by immorality or some strange thing, as if they were dead.

And as if they had risen from the dead, if they show a significant change, they may later join those who were first brought in. They do not belong to any beginning or authority of what is called the church of God, claiming that those who have come after hearing the word have stumbled.

Book 3, Section 52

Now look at what Celsus says after this. He seems to see those in the marketplaces showing off the most impressive things and gathering crowds, as if he has falsely claimed and compared them. He says that those he compares us to, who show off the most impressive things in the marketplaces, would never pass by the gathering of wise men, nor would they dare to show off their own things among them.

But wherever they see young men and a crowd of busy and foolish people, there they push and adorn themselves. In doing this, he does nothing but insult us, similar to how women in the streets speak badly of each other. For we do everything we can to make our gathering be one of wise men, and we dare to bring forth the best and divine things among the public discussions when we have capable listeners.

But we hide and keep quiet about the deeper matters when we see those who come together and ask for simpler words, which are called "milk."

Book 3, Section 53

For it is written by Paul in his letter to the Corinthians, who were Greeks and not yet cleansed in their habits: "I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not able to take it. And even now you are still not able, for you are still fleshly. For where there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly and walking like mere men?"

This same Paul knows that some food is for a more mature soul. He compares the food of those just starting out to milk for infants, saying, "And you have become in need of milk, not solid food. For everyone who partakes of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their senses trained to discern good and evil."

So, would these people, believing what has been well said, think that the good things of the word would never be spoken in the gathering of wise men? But wherever they see young men and a crowd of busy and foolish people, would they bring forth the divine and serious things among them and adorn themselves in front of such people?

But it is clear to anyone examining the whole purpose of our writings that Celsus, being hostile to the private gatherings, speaks falsely about the Christians.

Book 3, Section 54

We agree that everyone wants to be taught by the word of God, even if Celsus does not want this, so that we can also share the appropriate encouragement with young people and show them how to live well. How can they take up a free spirit and be refined by the word? Those among us who advocate for Christianity say that it should be owed to "Greeks and barbarians, wise and foolish." They do not deny that even the foolish need their souls to be healed, so that as much as possible they can leave ignorance and hurry toward wisdom.

They listen to Solomon saying, "But the foolish set their hearts," and, "Whoever among you is the most foolish, let him turn to me, for wisdom calls out to the needy." "Come, eat my bread and drink the wine I have mixed for you; leave foolishness behind so that you may live and gain understanding."

I could also say these things in response to Celsus's words: do those who study philosophy not call young people to listen? And do they not encourage young people from a bad life to strive for better things? Why do they not want to encourage the busy people to think? Or should we accuse philosophers of calling the busy people to virtue, like Pythagoras did with Zamolxis and Zeno did with the Persian, and those who encouraged Epictetus to study philosophy yesterday and the day before?

But for you, O Greeks, it is allowed to call young people, busy people, and foolish people to philosophy; yet when we do this, we are not acting unkindly, but we want to heal every rational nature through the word and bring them closer to the God who created everything. Therefore, these points are more relevant to Celsus's insults than to accusations.

Book 3, Section 55

Since he has added other things to the insults against us, let us also examine these and see whether Christians behave badly or if Celsus does with what he says. He claims, "We see in their own homes quarrelsome people, cobblers, and those who are the most uneducated and rude, who do not dare to speak in front of the older and wiser masters. But when they take their children privately and some foolish women with them, they go through wonders, saying that it is not necessary to pay attention to their father and to obey their teachers."

And they say that these people are foolish and worthless, knowing nothing good and unable to do anything good, filled with empty chatter, while they alone know how to live. If their children obey them, they will be blessed and show their home to be happy. At the same time, they say that if they see any of the teachers of education or wiser people passing by, the more cautious among them will avoid them, while the bolder ones will encourage the children to ignore them, whispering such things that when their father and teachers are present, they will not want or be able to explain anything good to the children, for they will turn away from their ignorance and rudeness, being completely corrupted and far gone in evil, punishing themselves.

But if they want, they should go away from their father and teachers along with the women and the children playing to the women's quarters or to the cobbler or the tanner, so that they can receive the perfect things. And by saying these things, they persuade them.

Book 3, Section 56

Look here at how he slanders those among us who teach the word and try in every way to lift the soul up to the creator of all things. He presents them as if they should despise all the things that can be seen and felt, while doing everything to achieve a share in the divine and to contemplate the invisible and blessed things with God and to be guided by God's own. He compares them to quarrelsome people in their homes, cobblers, tanners, and the most rude of men, calling children and foolish women to lowly things.

So that they may turn away from their father and teachers and follow these others. For which father, being wise, or which teachers, being serious, would we turn away the children and women from? Let Celsus show us and compare our children and women with those who come to our teachings, to see if any of them are better than ours.

And in what way are we called to turn children and women away from good and serious teachings to the worse? But he will not be able to show such a thing about us. On the contrary, we turn away women from the immorality and corruption that comes from being with the wrong people, and from all theater craziness, dancing, and superstitions.

We teach the young boys, who are just coming of age and full of desires, to be moderate, showing them not only the shame in what they might do wrong but also what will happen to the souls of those who are foolish, and what kind of punishment they will face.

Book 3, Section 57

What kind of teachers do we say are foolish and worthless, for whom Celsus stands as if they are teaching better things? Does he think that the good teachers of women do not speak nonsense, while those who promote superstition and immoral practices do? And are those who lead and guide the young not foolish and worthless, considering how often they act recklessly?

We, on the other hand, call upon the teachings of philosophers as much as we can for our piety, presenting what is excellent and sincere about it. Since Celsus said that we do not teach the foolish alone, we could respond to him: if you call us to turn away those already caught up in philosophy, you would not be speaking the truth. Your argument might seem convincing, but now, by saying we turn away good teachers from those who come to us, show us other teachers besides those of philosophy or those who teach useful things.

But he will not be able to show such a thing. We promise that those who live according to the word of God will be blessed openly and not secretly, focusing everything on Him and doing all things as if in the presence of God.

So are these teachings of quarrelsome people, cobblers, tanners, and the most uneducated and rude? But he will not be able to prove this.

Book 3, Section 58

Those who are similar to the quarrelsome people in their homes, cobblers, tanners, and the most uneducated and rude, when the father and teachers are present, will say nothing and will not be able to explain anything good to the children. To this we will say: whose father and whose teacher do you mean? If you mean one who accepts virtue and turns away from vice and embraces what is better, then we will say that we are very confident in teaching our children in front of such a judge.

But if we are silent in front of a father who encourages virtue and goodness while those teaching the opposite to healthy reasoning are present, do not blame us for that, for it is not reasonable to accuse us. You, at least, think that the teachings of philosophy are useless and unhelpful for the young, while handing them over to the children, you will not say anything about the worthless fathers.

But wanting to separate those who are encouraged to study philosophy from the wicked fathers, you will keep an eye on the times, so that the teachings of philosophy settle in the young. And we will say the same about the teachers. For if we turn away teachers who teach the indecent things of comedy and the immoral things of iambic poetry and other such things, which do not benefit either the speaker or the listeners, and do not know how to listen wisely to poetry and choose what is useful for the young, we do not feel ashamed to admit what we are doing.

But if you show me teachers who prepare the young for philosophy and train them in philosophy, I will not turn the young away from them, but I will try to raise them up as if in a complete education, leading them to the serious and high things of the Christian teachings, concerning the greatest and most necessary matters, showing and proving them to be philosophized by the prophets of God and the apostles of Jesus.

Book 3, Section 59

Then, after this, Celsus, feeling bitter about us, seems to be defending himself by saying such things: that I do not accuse him of anything more bitter than the truth being forced. Let someone consider this: those who call to other rituals proclaim these things: whoever has clean hands and a wise voice, and again others say: whoever is pure from all filth, and whoever's soul knows no evil, and whoever lives well and justly. These are what those promising purification from sins proclaim.

Let us listen to whom they call: they say, "Whoever is a sinner, whoever is foolish, whoever is a child, and simply put, whoever is unfortunate, this one will be accepted by the kingdom of God." Do you not mean the sinner, the unjust, the thief, the wall-breaker, the poisoner, the temple robber, and the grave robber? Who else would they call a robber?

And to this, we say that it is not the same to call those whose souls are sick to healing and those who are healthy to the knowledge and understanding of the divine. We, knowing both, at first call upon those who are sinful to come to the teachers of words so they do not sin, and the foolish to those who provide understanding, and the children to rise up in thought to the man, and the simply unfortunate to happiness or, which is more important to say, to blessedness.

But when those who are improving from those encouraged come to be cleansed by the word, and how much better they have lived, we call them to our rituals, saying, "For we speak wisdom in the perfect things."

Book 3, Section 60

And teaching that "wisdom will not enter a bad soul nor dwell in a body burdened by sin," we say: whoever has clean hands and, by this, lifting "holy hands" to God, and can perform the heavenly rituals, says: "The lifting of my hands is an evening sacrifice," let him come to us.

And whoever has a wise voice to meditate on the law of the Lord "day and night" and has "trained the senses through practice" to discern good from evil, let him not hesitate to approach solid logical teachings and suitable exercises of piety and all virtue.

Since "the grace" of God is "with all those who love immortality," let the teacher of the lessons of immortality be welcomed. Whoever is pure not only from all filth but also from lesser sins, let him be initiated into the mysteries of true piety according to Jesus, which are rightly handed down to the holy and pure.

Celsus says that whoever's soul knows no evil, let him come. But the one who leads to God through Jesus will say to the purified soul: whoever for a long time has known no evil, especially since he has come to the healing of the word, let him listen to what has been spoken privately by Jesus to his true disciples.

Thus, in what he contrasts, those who are initiated in Greek teachings with those who teach the things of Jesus, he does not know the difference between those called to the healing of the worthless and those called to the more secret things of the already pure.

Book 3, Section 61

Therefore, we do not call upon the unjust, the thief, the wall-breaker, the poisoner, the temple robber, and the grave robber, as Celsus names them, for the mysteries and communion of wisdom hidden "in a mystery," which God has destined for the glory of his righteous ones before the ages.

But we call upon them for healing, for in the divine nature of the word, there are different kinds of healing for those who are "ill." About this, the word says: "Those who are strong do not need a physician, but those who are ill."

There are also those who reveal the "mystery" to the pure in soul and body, "the revelation of a mystery, which has been kept silent for eternal times but has now been made known through prophetic writings and the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ," shining upon each of the perfect ones and enlightening them to the true knowledge of things.

But since Celsus brings up our crimes, let us ask whom he calls a robber among the most filthy of men. To this, we will say that a robber calls such people, using their wickedness against humans, whom he wishes to kill and plunder.

But a Christian, even if he calls those whom the robber calls, gives them a different calling, so that he may bind their "wounds" with the word and pour the healing remedies from the word upon the burning evil in their souls, similar to wine, oil, and ointment, and the other aids from the healing of the soul.

Book 3, Section 62

Then, because of slander, it is said and written that God has sent to those who live badly, calling them to repentance and the correction of their souls. Celsus claims that we say God has been sent to sinners, and he does the same, as if he were calling someone who lives badly in the city to be sent by the most compassionate king, the physician.

So, the word of God was sent as a physician to sinners and as a teacher of divine mysteries to those who are already pure and no longer sin. But Celsus, unable to distinguish this (for he did not wish to learn), asks: "Why was he not sent to the sinless? What wrong is it not to have sinned?"

To this, we say that if he refers to those who no longer sin, our Savior Jesus was sent to them too, but not as a physician. If he means the sinless who have never sinned (for he did not clarify in his statement), we will say that it is impossible for a person to be without sin.

We say this while excluding the person understood according to Jesus, "who committed no sin." Celsus speaks wickedly about us, claiming that God will accept the unjust if he humbles himself through wickedness, but he will not accept the righteous if he looks up to him with virtue from the beginning.

We say it is impossible for a person with virtue to look up to God, for it is necessary for evil to exist first among humans, as Paul also says: "But when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."

However, we do not teach about the unjust that it is enough for him to humble himself because of his wickedness to be accepted by God. But if he goes along, having recognized his earlier faults, "humble" in those and "adorned" in the later ones, God will accept him.

Book 3, Section 63

Then, not understanding how it is said, "Everyone who exalts himself will be humbled," and not knowing that the good and virtuous person walks "humbly and adorned," he claims that people, rightly judging those who mourn for their wrongdoings, stop their pitiful words so that they are judged more toward mercy than toward truth.

But God does not judge toward truth but toward flattery. What kind of flattery is this, and what pitiful word is made in the divine writings when the sinner says in his prayers to God: "I acknowledged my sin, and I did not cover my wrongdoing; I said: I will confess my wrongdoing to the Lord"?

But can it be shown that there is no turning back for such sinners who humble themselves before God in their prayers? And confused by the urge to accuse, he says the opposite: where he shows that he knows a sinless and righteous person, looking up to him with virtue from the beginning, but where he accepts what we say, that "Who is a completely righteous person, or who is sinless?"

For he accepts this, saying: it is indeed true that the human race is somehow made to sin. Then, since not all are called by the word, he says it should simply call everyone. If all sin, and we have shown above that Jesus said: "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest."

Therefore, all people are called "weary and burdened" because of the nature of sin, to find rest in the word of God. For God sent "his word and healed them and rescued them from their destruction."

Book 3, Section 64

Since he also says: "What then is this preference for sinners?" and similarly questions this, we respond that a sinner is not preferred over a sinless person. However, there are times when a sinner, feeling his own sin, is humble and thus is preferred over one who is thought to be less sinful, not considering himself a sinner but rather looking up to others whom he thinks are better than himself and feeling proud about it.

This shows those who wish to understand well the parable about the tax collector in the gospels: "Have mercy on me, a sinner," and about the Pharisee who boasted with a wicked thought, saying: "I thank you that I am not like other people, robbers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector."

For Jesus adds to both their words that "this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

Therefore, we do not blaspheme God nor do we lie, teaching that everyone should feel their own human weakness in relation to God's greatness and always ask from him what is necessary for our nature, which alone can fill what is lacking in us.

Book 3, Section 65

He thinks that we say such things to encourage sinners, as if no truly good and righteous man could be brought forward, and that for this reason we open the gates to the most wicked and lost. But if someone wishes to understand our gathering, we have more to present who are not from a very difficult life than those who have turned back from their lost sins.

For those who know better about themselves, wishing that what is preached about the rewards from God for the better is true, are more willing to accept what is said than those who have lived very wickedly, who are prevented from accepting that they will be punished by the judge of all.

What would be fitting for someone who has sinned so much and would not be brought before the right word by the judge of all? There are times when they even want to accept the word about punishment, but because of the hope in repentance, they are stubbornly held back from their habit of sinning, as if they have been made incapable of turning away from evil and can no longer easily turn to the established and right way of life.

Celsus, realizing this, does not know how to say such things in the following lines. And indeed, it is clear that no one can change those who are naturally inclined to sin and are accustomed to it. Perhaps they do not even have mercy; for it is very difficult to completely change one's nature. But those who are sinless are better companions in life.

Book 3, Section 66

And in this, Celsus seems to be completely wrong, not giving those who are naturally inclined to sin and are accustomed to doing so the chance for a complete change, thinking that they cannot be healed even from punishments. For it is clear that all people are naturally inclined to sin, and some are not only inclined but also accustomed to sinning. However, not all people are unacceptable for a complete change.

For there are those, according to every philosophical school and according to divine teaching, who are said to have changed so much that they serve as examples of the best life. Some bring up heroes like Heracles and Odysseus, and later Socrates, and more recently Musonius.

Therefore, Celsus has not only lied about us by saying that it is clear that those who are naturally inclined to sin and are accustomed to it cannot be moved by anyone toward a better change. But also, among those who have philosophized nobly and have not given up on the pursuit of virtue, it is possible for people to change.

But even if he did not present it with precision, he still spoke in a way that we can reasonably challenge him for not speaking healthily. For he said that those who are naturally inclined to sin and are accustomed to it cannot be changed by anyone. And we have turned around what is generally accepted from his words as possible for us.

Book 3, Section 67

It is likely that he wants to show that those who are naturally inclined to such sins and are accustomed to them cannot be changed by anyone, even by punishments. This is proven to be false by the history of those who have philosophized. For who among people would not place among the lost those who once endured to be humiliated by a master, standing on the roof, so that anyone wanting to shame him could do so? Such things are told about Phaedo.

And who would not say that the one who entered the most serious gathering of the esteemed Xenocrates, to insult a man whom even his companions admired, was the most disgraceful of all people? Yet, despite this, reason prevailed, and those people were turned around to achieve such a high level in philosophy.

So, it was deemed worthy by Plato to present the argument of Socrates about immortality and to show his calmness in prison, without worrying about the poison, but rather with complete peace of mind while discussing such deep matters, which even those who are very established and not disturbed by any circumstances can hardly follow.

And Polemon, who became very wise after being a reckless person, passed on the teachings of the serious discussions of Xenocrates. Therefore, Celsus does not speak the truth when he says that those who are naturally inclined to sin and are accustomed to it cannot be changed by anyone, even by punishments.

Book 3, Section 68

But the order, structure, and expression of the words from philosophy have made such things for those mentioned earlier. And they have lived badly in other ways. It is not surprising.

When we consider those whom Celsus says are private words, let us think of them as filled with the power of incantations, and let us see the words urging crowds from a life of indulgence to a stable life, from injustice to a better life, and from cowardice or weakness to a life so peaceful that they even despise death because of the piety shown in them. How can we not justly admire the power in them?

For the "word" of those who have brought these things forth and worked for them is meant to establish the church of God. But their "preaching" has come about through persuasion, not in the same way as the persuasion found in the wisdom promised by Plato or any of the philosophers.

These people are only human and have nothing else but human nature. But the proof given by the apostles of Jesus is from God, trustworthy from "spirit and power." Therefore, their word ran very quickly and sharply, even more so the word of God, changing many of those who are naturally inclined to sin and are accustomed to it.

These people could not be changed by any human punishment, but the word transformed them, shaping and molding them according to its own will.

Book 3, Section 69

Celsus says that it is very difficult to completely change human nature. But we, knowing that there is one nature of every rational soul and claiming that none is evil by the creator of all things, believe that many become bad because of their upbringing, their habits, and their surroundings. So, we are convinced that it is not only possible but also not very hard to change evil through the divine word, if only someone accepts that they must believe in God and do everything to please Him.

For with Him, there is no one who is both bad and good at the same time. Neither does the lazy man die the same way as the one who has worked hard. If it is very hard for some to change, the reason must be their reluctance to accept that God is a just judge over all that happens in life.

For it can be very powerful and seem very difficult, and to put it in extreme terms, it is almost impossible to choose and practice. Or if human nature wishes to walk toward goodness, it is stretched in the middle of the theater, and with so many heavy burdens, it cannot achieve this through effort and attention. But if it wishes to live according to virtue, it finds it impossible, even if it has previously been very bad.

But look, let not the one who says such things blame the creator of rational beings more than the beings themselves. If He has made the human nature capable of such difficult things, it is impossible for it to reach its own happiness.

But even this is enough, for it is very hard to completely change human nature. Next, he says that those who are without sin are better companions in life. He does not clarify who he means by those without sin, whether he refers to those who have always been so or those who have changed.

Those who have always been unable to change, and those who change are rarely found, becoming such through the saving word. They do not approach the word as they are; for without the word, it is impossible for a person to become completely without sin.

Book 3, Section 70

Then he argues as if we say that God can do everything, not seeing how this is said or what is included in it, and how it can be. About these things, it is not necessary to speak now, for he himself does not. And yet, he could stand by this claim persuasively.

Perhaps he does not even follow the reasoning that will be said, or he follows it but sees the response to what is being said. But according to us, God can do everything, which means that being God and being good and wise does not change.

Celsus says that without understanding, he questions how it is said that God can do everything, claiming that He would not want to do anything unjust, saying that He can do what is unjust but does not want to. But we say that just as what is naturally sweet cannot become bitter by its own nature, so too what is naturally light cannot become dark. In the same way, God cannot do injustice; for the power to do injustice is contrary to His divinity and all His power.

If something that exists can do injustice, then it can do so because it is inclined to do so, but God does not have in His nature the ability to do injustice at all.

Book 3, Section 71

After this, he takes on the belief that is not given by those who are more rational, perhaps thought by some foolish people, as if God, having served those who are pitiful, lightens the burdens of the bad and casts away the good who do not act in such a way, which is the most unjust thing.

For us, God does not lighten the burden of anyone who has not yet turned to virtue, nor does He cast away anyone who is already good. He does not lighten or show mercy to anyone who is pitiful beyond being pitied. To use a more common term, He does not show mercy to those who have condemned themselves for their sins, as if they were mourning and grieving for themselves as lost, just as they would for their past actions and showing a change that is worthy of notice.

God grants the grace of repentance to them. And to those who have changed from a very bad life, He gives forgiveness. For He brings virtue to their souls and removes the evil that had taken hold of them. And if there is no notable virtue, but there is some progress in the soul, this is also enough to push out and make disappear the stain of evil. So, it comes close to no longer being present in the soul.

Book 3, Section 72

Then, as if from the mouth of the teacher, he says such things: for the wise turn away from what we say. They are led astray and tripped up by wisdom. Therefore, we will also say about this that if wisdom is knowledge of "divine" and "human" matters and their causes, or as the divine word defines it, "a mist" of the power of God and "a reflection" of the eternal light and "a mirror" of God's energy and "an image" of His goodness, no one who is truly wise would turn away from what is said by a Christian scholar of Christianity, nor would they be led astray or tripped up by it.

For true wisdom does not lead one astray, but ignorance does, and it is only certain knowledge of what exists and the truth that comes from wisdom. But if you speak of something as wise that goes beyond the limits of wisdom and is mixed with some sophistries, we would say that truly, according to the wisdom you speak of, who turns away from the words of God is led astray by the most plausible arguments and is tripped up by them.

And since according to our teaching, "there is no knowledge of evil," I would call "knowledge" that which is in those who hold false beliefs and are deceived by sophistries. Therefore, I would rather call it ignorance than wisdom in such cases.

Book 3, Section 73

After this, he is again mocked by the one representing Christianity, and he claims that what is said about it is laughable, but he does not prove or clearly present what he says is laughable. And while being mocked, he says that no wise person is persuaded by the argument, being overwhelmed by the crowd of those approaching him.

He makes a similar point by saying that because of the many private citizens brought under the laws, no wise person is persuaded, for example, by Solon or Lycurgus or Zaleucus or any of the others, especially if the wise one is one who acts according to virtue. For just as the lawmakers have made it useful for them to be surrounded by such guidance and laws, so God, the lawgiver in Jesus, leads all people everywhere, including the unwise, in a way that they may be led to what is better.

As we have said above, the God who is in Moses says this: "They have provoked me to jealousy with what is not God; they have angered me with their idols; and I will provoke them to jealousy with those who are not a people; with a foolish nation I will anger them." And Paul also said: "God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise," referring generally to all those who seem to have advanced in knowledge but have fallen into godless polytheism. For "claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for images resembling corruptible man and birds and four-footed animals and reptiles."

Book 3, Section 74

He accuses the teacher of seeking the foolish. To whom we might say: who do you call the foolish? For according to the precise definition, every bad person is foolish. If you say that the bad are foolish, are you trying to bring forth bad people to philosophy or witty ones? But it is not possible to bring witty ones, for they have already engaged in philosophy; therefore, you are trying to bring forth the bad.

If you are seeking the bad, then you are seeking the foolish. And I, too, if I seek those who are called foolish, do the same. It is like a compassionate doctor seeking those who are suffering, in order to bring them help and heal them. But if you say that the foolish are those who do not run but are more monstrous than other people, I reply that I also try to improve them as much as possible.

However, I do not wish to gather the assembly of Christians from these. For I seek rather those who are more thoughtful and sharper, as they are able to follow the clarity of the riddles and the hidden meanings spoken in the law, the prophets, and the gospels, so that you have disregarded anything worthy contained in them, not having troubled the mind within them nor having attempted to enter into the intention of the writings.

Book 3, Section 75

After this, he says that the one teaching Christianity makes a similar claim about making bodies healthy while turning people away from the knowledge of real doctors, thus questioning his own private knowledge. To this, we would ask: which doctors do you say we are turning the private citizens away from? For you surely do not think that we are encouraging those who study philosophy to consider them as doctors, from whom we turn away those we call to the divine word.

So, it seems he cannot answer who the doctors are. Or is he forced to turn to the private citizens, who also foolishly chatter about many gods and whatever else private citizens might say? Thus, he will be proven wrong by taking the one who turns away from the knowledgeable doctors into his argument.

And to turn away those who are deceived by the philosophy of Epicurus and those considered Epicurean doctors, how could we not do this most wisely, avoiding a serious illness caused by the doctors of Celsus? This illness comes from denying providence and introducing pleasure as good. But let us also turn away from these doctors, who we encourage to follow our teachings.

From the Peripatetics, who deny providence and the relationship of the divine to humans, how could we not make the pious ones better and heal those who are troubled, convincing them to rely on the one true God, especially from the great wounds caused by the words of those considered wise?

But also, let us turn away others from the Stoic doctors who introduce a corruptible god and say that his essence is a changing body, which at times destroys everything and leaves only the god. How could we not free those who are persuaded by such evils? We will lead them to the pious teaching about relying on the creator and marveling at the father of Christian teachings.

Is it not the most compassionate and wise way to care for all of humanity? Even if we heal those who have the foolishness about reincarnation from doctors who lower the rational nature of humans to the irrational or the non-existent, how could we not make the souls of those persuaded by our words better?

We do not teach that the foolish should be given insensitivity or irrationality as a punishment, nor do we present any remedies that would bring pain and punishments to those who are called foolish by God. For the wise Christians live thoughtfully, caring for the simpler ones, just as the fathers cared for the little children.

We do not flee to the foolish and ignorant country folk, telling them: avoid the doctors. Nor do we say: be careful that someone might take hold of your knowledge. We do not claim that knowledge is bad, nor do we insist that it leads people away from the health of the soul.

But we would not say that anyone should be lost from wisdom, those who do not even pay attention to what I say. And if we teach, we say: pay attention to the God of all and to the teacher of his teachings, Jesus.

None of us is so arrogant as to say what Celsus attributed to the teacher's face, saying to the acquaintances: I alone will save you. So see how many lies he tells about us. But we do not say that the true doctors harm those they promise to heal.

Book 3, Section 76

And secondly, he brings an example against us, saying that the teacher among us acts similarly, as if someone who is drunk goes among the sober and accuses them of being drunk. Let him stand up and say from the writings: that Paul, the apostle of Jesus, was drunk and that his words were not sober, or from what John wrote that his thoughts do not come from a sober mind freed from the drunkenness of evil.

Therefore, no sober person teaching the Christian message gets drunk. But Celsus, foolishly mocking us, says these things. And who are we accusing of being sober? Let Celsus say. For all among us are drunk, those who speak to the lifeless as if they were gods.

And what do I mean by drunk? Rather, they are more awake. They hurry into the temples and worship the statues of gods or animals. No less mad are those who think that the things made by the lowly and the most worthless are constructed in honor of true gods.

Book 3, Section 77

After this, he compares the teacher to those who see, while accusing the learners of being blind, and he says that he blames those who see clearly as if they were blind. So, who should we say are the Greeks among us who do not see? Are they those who cannot look up and see the greatness and beauty of the creations in the world and realize that they should worship, admire, and honor only the one who made these things, and not anything made by humans that is taken as an offering to the gods?

Whether they worship the creator God alone or along with him, for it is not right to compare anything made with the infinite, which surpasses all created nature. It is the work of the blind to have such a mindset. So, we do not say that those who see clearly are blind or hardened, but rather that those who are blinded by ignorance of God go to the temples and the statues and the so-called sacred rituals, and we claim that their minds are blinded.

Especially when they live in impiety and immorality, doing things that are shameful and not seeking what is honorable, but doing everything worthy of disgrace.

Book 3, Section 78

After this, he blames us for many things, wanting to show that he has other things to say but keeps silent about them. His words go like this: "I blame these things and such things, so that I do not have to list everything, and I say that they are wrong for leading people to God, so that they may follow foolish hopes and look down on the better things, thinking that if they stay away from them, it will be better for them."

And to this, he might also say from the actions of those coming to Christianity that not all are wicked who follow the message, as much as the simpler and, as many would call them, unrefined people. For these are moved by the fear of the punishments that are announced, urging them to stay away from these things because of the punishments.

They try to give themselves to the piety according to Christianity; they are so held by the message that they fear the eternal punishments named in the message, thinking of all the torments and countless pains of death, and they look down on them. No one who thinks well would say that this is the work of wicked choices.

But how can self-control and moderation come from a wicked choice, or from sharing and community? Also, the fear of the divine, which the message encourages as useful for many, does not lead those who are not yet able to see what is good and choose it as the greatest good, above all promises. From this, it is not natural for someone living according to wickedness to be born.

Book 3, Section 79

But if someone thinks that there is more superstition than wickedness among many of those who believe in our message and accuses them of being superstitious, we will say to him that, just as one of the lawmakers said to the questioner, if he set the best laws for the citizens, he did not set the best laws all at once, but those that the people could follow.

So, it could be said from the teaching of the father of Christians that I set the best laws and teachings for the improvement of morals, which many could follow, not false threats of punishments, but true and necessary for the correction of those who oppose, and not all understanding the will of the punisher and the work of the pains.

For this is said for what is useful and according to the truth, and without concealment. However, generally, those who advocate for Christianity are not wicked. But we are not influenced toward the divine; for we speak about it in a way that is true and clear to many, while seeming unclear to those few who study the message.

Book 3, Section 80

Since Celsus says that those who follow Christianity go after foolish hopes, we will respond to him, accusing him of speaking about the blessed life and the relationship with the divine, that as far as he is concerned, those who accept the teachings of Pythagoras and Plato about the soul also follow foolish hopes, believing they can rise to the heavens and see the sights of the blessed.

But according to you, Celsus, those who accept the idea of the soul's immortality and live in such a way that they become heroes and spend time with the gods also follow foolish hopes. Perhaps even those convinced about the "outside" world as a form of death and having a mind that leads to it would also be said to follow foolish hopes by Celsus.

Therefore, let him no longer hide his own beliefs but openly admit to being an Epicurean, which is not easily dismissed among the Greeks and non-Greeks when it comes to the immortality of the soul or its continued existence or the immortality of the mind. He should show that these are just words, deceiving those who agree with them into following foolish hopes.

But those who are pure in their own philosophy are not following foolish hopes, either bringing good hopes or, which is more fitting for him, not creating any hope at all due to the complete destruction of the soul. If Celsus and the Epicureans do not say that the hope regarding their pleasure's end is foolish, which for them is the good, the stable condition of the body, and the reliable hope concerning it according to Epicurus.

Book Four

Do not suppose that I have improperly included those who have thought about the immortality or continued existence of the soul in the message of Christians when responding to Celsus. We will present a common understanding that the future blessed life will only belong to those who have true and pure piety according to Jesus and to the creator of all things.

Let anyone who wishes show what better things people should not despise. And let them compare what we have from God in Christ, that is, our message, wisdom, and all virtue. The ultimate blessing will come to those who live blamelessly and purely and who will have an undivided and inseparable love for the God of all, and they will meet the gift of God.

Let them show how the end of any philosophy among Greeks or non-Greeks or mysterious teachings is less than ours and not truly aligned with the gift of God or with those who have lived well. Or is it not by divine spirit that the souls of the pure prophets have been filled?

Let anyone who wishes demonstrate that those acknowledged by all human words are greater than those shown to be divine and revealed by divine inspiration. And who are we teaching to be better than those who accept these things? For if it is not burdensome to say, it is clear that nothing can be thought of as better than to trust oneself to the God of all and to submit to the teaching of the living and active word, which is both living wisdom and the Son of God.

But indeed, this is a sufficient description in these matters, and since we have received the third book of our writing against Celsus, we will pause our discussion here and continue with what follows in the next writings to Celsus.

Book 4, Section 1

In the three books that came before this one, we have discussed the writing against Celsus, holy Ambrose. Now, in the fourth book, we pray to God through Christ. May we be given words about what is written in Jeremiah, where the Lord speaks to the prophet: "Behold, I have put my words in your mouth like fire. Behold, I have set you today over nations and kingdoms, to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and plant."

For we also now need words that will uproot everything against the truth from every soul harmed by the writing of Celsus or by similar ideas. We ask for thoughts that will tear down all false beliefs and the structure of Celsus in his writing, which is similar to the saying, "Come, let us build a city and a tower, whose top will reach to heaven."

But we also need wisdom to bring down all the proud things that rise against the knowledge of God and Celsus's prideful ideas. Then, since we should not focus only on "uprooting and tearing down" what has been mentioned, but also to "plant" in the land of those uprooted, we should cultivate the field of God.

In the place of those torn down, we should build a structure for God and a temple of God's glory. Therefore, we should pray to the Lord who has given us what is written in Jeremiah, so that he may also give us words to build up the things of Christ and "plant" the spiritual law and the prophetic words that relate to it.

And we especially need to prepare for what follows in the next writings to Celsus, to show that the things about Christ have been well prophesied. For Celsus stands against both sides: the Jews who deny that Christ has come, hoping that he will come, and the Christians who confess that Jesus is the prophesied Christ, saying:

Book 4, Section 2

That some Christians and Jews say that some have already come down (they say), while others will come down to a certain land, either a god or the son of God, is the most shameful thing, and it does not need a long argument to prove it. It seems that he is speaking accurately about the Jews, saying that they believe that some will come down to the earth, but about Christians, he says that some of them have already come down.

For those who build the coming of Christ from Jewish writings show it as already having happened, and it seems they know that there are some sects denying that Christ Jesus is the prophesied one. Therefore, we have already discussed the prophecies about Christ in the earlier parts, so we do not repeat what has been said about the many things that can be said on this topic, to avoid being repetitive.

Now, if someone wanted to change the discussion about the prophecies or about the coming of Christ, it would be necessary for him to present the prophecies themselves. In the conversations we have with each other, Christians and Jews, this would seem to turn those who are swayed by what they think is convincing away from the agreement on the prophecies and from believing in Jesus as the Christ based on the prophecies.

But now, either unable to respond to the prophecies about Christ or not knowing their beginning, what is prophesied about him, he does not mention any prophetic words, even though there are countless prophecies about Christ. He thinks he can accuse the prophetic words without knowing which ones he would call convincing.

However, he does not realize that the Jews say that Christ, being God, will come down or is the son of God, as we have mentioned above.

Book 4, Section 3

And while he says that some among us claim that he has already come down, and that the Jews say he will come down as a righteous one, he thinks he can accuse this as the most shameful thing without needing a long argument. He asks, "What is the meaning of such a descent for God?" He does not see that we also have a meaning for this descent.

Previously, it was said in the Gospel that "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" will be gathered, and secondly, that because of their disobedience, the named kingdom of God will be taken away from them and given to "other farmers," the Christians, who will "give the fruits" of God's kingdom to God "in the times of each action."

So we have said a little about Celsus's question: "What is the meaning of such a descent for God?" Celsus seems to express something that neither the Jews nor we have said, asking whether it is to learn about what is in humans. For none of us says that Christ comes to learn about what is in humans.

Then, as if responding to those who say it is to learn about what is in humans, he suggests that he does not know everything. Then, as if those responding say he knows, he again wonders whether he knows but does not correct himself, nor is it possible for him to correct himself by divine power. And he says all this foolishly.

For God always corrects those who listen to what is said through his word, passing down through generations to holy souls, making them friends of God and prophets. And in the coming of Christ, he will correct not those who do not want to be corrected, but those who choose a better life that pleases God.

I do not know what kind of correction Celsus wants to happen, saying: "Is it not possible for him to correct, unless he sends someone for this?" For does he want to imagine that God, having taken away all evil and instilling virtue, would cause correction to happen?

Another will seek whether such a thing is possible by nature. But we would say that it can be so. Where then is the responsibility on us, and where is the praiseworthy agreement with the true truth or the acceptable release from falsehood? But even if it were once given and possible and fitting, why would someone not seek the beginning more, claiming something similar to what Celsus said, that it was not possible for God, needing correction, to make humans good and perfect without first removing the root of evil?

These things can deceive the ignorant and unlearned, but not the one who sees the nature of things. For if you remove the voluntary aspect of virtue, you have also removed its essence.

And all this discussion is necessary; about which not a little has been said in the writings on providence, and the Greeks have also spoken, those who would not say what Celsus has laid out, saying: "He knows, but does not correct, nor is it possible for him to correct by divine power." And we have said many things about these matters as much as we can, and the divine words have presented themselves to those able to hear them.

Book 4, Section 4

So, what Celsus brings against us and the Jews is this: does God, who is above all, know what is in humans or not? But if you say that there is a God and a providence, as your writing suggests, it is necessary for him to know. If he knows, then why does he not correct things? Or is it necessary for us to defend ourselves? Why, knowing, does he not correct?

But for you, who seems to show the Epicurean view in your writing while pretending to know providence, it does not hold equally. Why, knowing everything in humans, does God not correct or free everyone from evil by divine power?

But we are not ashamed to say that he always sends those who will be corrected. For those who are called to the best things are given by God himself. There are many differences among humans who serve God, and few are those who fully and purely advocate for the truth and work for complete correction, like Moses and the prophets were.

But among all these, the correction through Jesus is great, not just for those who want to be healed in one corner of the world, but for all who are on him and everywhere. For he came as a "savior" for all people.

Book 4, Section 5

After this, the most noble Celsus does not know from where he gets confused when he says that God comes down to humans. He thinks that this means he has to leave his own place. For he does not understand the power of God and that "the spirit of the Lord fills the whole world, and has knowledge of everything that holds all things together," nor can he understand that "Do I not fill heaven and earth?" says the Lord.

He does not see that according to Christian teaching, "in him we live and move and exist," as Paul taught in his speech to the Athenians. Even if God, by his own power, comes down to Jesus into the life of humans, and even if the "Word was with God in the beginning," and being God himself, he comes to us, he does not leave his own place.

It is not as if there is a vacant space of his somewhere else and another space is filled, as if he did not have it before. The power and divinity of God is present wherever he wants and finds a place. It is not about changing places or leaving one space empty while filling another.

For we say that the soul of the wicked and scattered in evil is left by God, but the soul that wants to live according to virtue or is already living according to it is filled or participates in the divine spirit.

Therefore, there is no need for God to leave a greater place in the descent of Christ or in his return to humans, as Celsus thinks, saying: "For if you change even the least thing here, everything will be overturned for you." But if it is necessary to say that there is a change in the presence of God's power and the coming of the Word to some humans, we will not hesitate to say that there is a change from the wicked to the good, from the unrestrained to the self-controlled, and from the superstitious to the pious for the one who has received the coming of the Word of God into his own soul.

Book 4, Section 6

If you want us to respond to the most laughable things of Celsus, listen to what he says: he thinks that God, being unknown among humans, would want to be known even less, and he would like to test both believers and non-believers, just like wealthy people show off. They certainly bear witness to a great and very mortal ambition of God.

So we say that an unknown God, by lowly humans, does not seem to want to be known any less, but rather that knowing him frees the one who knows from misfortune. But he does not want to test those who believe or those who do not believe, either by himself being present with a silent and divine power or by sending his Christ.

Instead, for those who believe and understand his divinity, they are freed from all misfortune, while non-believers have no excuse left. It is as if they do not believe because they have not heard or been taught.

What reason, then, is there for us to follow the idea that God is among us like the wealthy people showing off? For God does not show off to us, wanting us to understand and know his greatness. Rather, he wants to bring happiness to our souls through being known by us, and he works through Christ and the constant presence of the Word to bring us closer to him.

Therefore, the teachings of Christians do not bear witness to any mortal ambition of God.

Book 4, Section 7

I do not know how, after speaking nonsense about what we have set forth, he later claims that God does not want to be known for himself, but rather wants to give us knowledge for our salvation. This is so that those who accept it may become good and be saved, while those who do not accept it will be shown to be wicked and punished.

And he raises this question, saying: "Now, after such a long time, has God remembered to justify human life, when before he did not care?" To this, we will say that there has never been a time when God did not want to justify human life, but he has always cared, giving opportunities for virtue to correct rational beings.

For in every generation, the wisdom of God comes into the souls he finds to be holy. It prepares friends of God and prophets. And indeed, in the sacred books, there can be found holy and receptive people of the divine spirit in each generation, who, as they turned back to themselves, did so with all their strength.

Book 4, Section 8

It is not surprising that in some generations there have been prophets who excel in the acceptance of divinity due to the more comfortable and strong lives of other prophets, some being from earlier times and others from later. Thus, it is not surprising that there has been a time when something exceptional has appeared among humans, different from those who came before or after.

There is indeed a more mysterious and profound discussion about these things that cannot easily reach the common understanding. And it is necessary to clarify and respond to what is said about the coming of Christ.

Is it true that after such a long time, God has remembered to justify humanity when he did not care before? We need to touch on the topic of divisions and clarify it. For when the Most High divided the nations, as he scattered the sons of Adam, he set boundaries for the nations according to the number of the angels of God. And the portion of the Lord became his people Jacob, the share of his inheritance Israel.

We must explain the reason for each boundary established for each generation under the chosen limit, and how it is reasonable that "the portion of the Lord became his people Jacob, the share of his inheritance Israel." And why before it was said, "the portion of the Lord became his people Jacob, the share of his inheritance Israel," but later it is said to the Savior by the Father: "Ask of me, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance and the ends of the earth as your possession."

For there are indeed some connections and sequences that are unfathomable and indescribable regarding the different management of human souls.

Book 4, Section 9

Therefore, even if Celsus does not want to accept it, Christ came as the restorer of all the world, along with many prophets who were restoring the things of Israel. He did not need the previous way of dealing with humans that involved whips, chains, and tortures; for the teaching was enough when "the sower went out to sow," so that he could spread the word everywhere.

If a time comes when someone describes the world, it will be necessary to give a description that has the same beginning, and there will be an end to the world, and after the end, there will be a just judgment about everything.

The philosopher will need to prepare the matters of the word with various proofs, both from the divine writings and from the connections in the words. But the simple and straightforward person, who cannot follow the most varied insights of God's wisdom, will trust himself to God and to the Savior of our race, and will find it sufficient to say "he himself said" rather than anything else.

Book 4, Section 10

After this, as is usual for him, Celsus, having made no argument or proof, says that we speak about God in an unholy and unworthy way. It is clear that those who speak about God in such a way are not doing so with respect or truth, and he thinks that this will amaze the common people, rather than saying the truth about punishments that are necessary for those who have sinned.

For this reason, he compares us to those who introduce fears and visions in the Bacchic rites. As for the Bacchic rites, whether there is a convincing argument or none at all, let the Greeks speak and let Celsus and his followers listen. But we defend our own beliefs, saying that our purpose is to restore humanity, whether through threats of punishments, which we believe are necessary for everyone, and perhaps even for those who will suffer them, or through the promises made to those who live well, containing the blessings of the kingdom of God for those worthy to be ruled by him.

Book 4, Section 11

After this, wanting to show us that he has nothing strange or new to say about the flood or the burning, Celsus claims that we should trust the writings of the Greeks or the barbarians about these matters. He says that they have heard that, indeed, over long periods of time, cycles and returns of stars lead to burnings and floods, and that after the last flood in the time of Deucalion, a period requires a burning as a change for all things.

This led them to mistakenly believe that God will come down bringing fire like a torturer. In response to this, we will say that we do not understand how Celsus, who has read much and shown many histories, has not compared the ancient times of Moses, which are recorded by some Greek writers, to the times of Inachus the Phoronean.

It is also acknowledged by the Egyptians that he is the oldest, as well as by those who have written about the Phoenicians. Anyone who wants to should read the two books of Flavius Josephus about the antiquity of the Jews, to understand how Moses was older than the long periods of floods and burnings that they claim happened in the world. Celsus says that the Jews and Christians have not understood what has been said about the burning, that God will come down bringing fire like a torturer.

Book 4, Section 12

So, are there cycles and floods or burnings that happen in cycles, or are there not? And if the argument knows these things, in many places, including where Solomon says, "What has happened? It is the same as what will happen; and what has been done? It is the same as what will be done," and so on, it is not the right time to speak of the present.

For it is enough to point out that the very ancient men, Moses and some of the prophets, did not receive their teachings about the burning of the world from others. Rather, if one must speak of the times, it seems that others, having heard them but not understanding what was said, have created similar stories based on their own experiences and events.

We do not place the flood or the burning in cycles of stars and periods, but we say that the cause of these things is a great evil that is poured out and destroyed by flood or fire. If the prophetic voices say that God will come down, saying, "Do I not fill heaven and earth?" says the Lord, we are interpreting this differently.

God comes down from his own greatness and height when he manages the affairs of humans, especially the wicked. Just as teachers come down to young children, and wise men come down to those just beginning philosophy, it is not that they physically come down. In the same way, when it is said in the holy writings that God comes down, it is understood in a manner similar to this common usage of the name, and so it is with going up as well.

Book 4, Section 13

Since Celsus mocks us by saying that we claim God comes down bringing fire like a torturer, he forces us to examine deeper arguments, even if we only say a little to show the listeners the foolishness of Celsus's words about us. The divine word says that our God is "a consuming fire," and "he draws rivers of fire before him," and that he enters "like a furnace fire and like the soap of launderers," to refine his people.

When it is said that God is "a consuming fire," we ask what should be consumed by God. We say that the evil and the things that come from it, which are often called "wood," "grass," and "straw," are consumed by God like fire. The wicked are said to build upon a logical foundation of "wood," "grass," and "straw."

If someone needs to show these things differently to the one who wrote them, and if it is possible to present the wicked as "wood," "grass," or "straw," it is clear that fire is also understood as something physical and sensible. But if the works of the wicked are interpreted as "wood," "grass," or "straw," how does fire come to consume them?

For each person's work will be tested by fire, and if someone's work remains, they will receive a reward; if someone's work is burned up, they will suffer loss. What kind of work is burned up among these, or is it everything done from evil? Therefore, our God is "a consuming fire," as we have shown, and thus "he enters like a furnace fire," refining the logical nature filled with the lead of evil and other impure materials, the nature of gold, or the nature of silver that has been corrupted.

In this way, the rivers of "fire" are said to be before God, who destroys the evil that has been mixed throughout the whole soul. But it is enough to say that these things led them to mistakenly believe that God will come down bringing fire like a torturer.

Book 4, Section 14

Let us also see what Celsus says next with great emphasis. He says that we should take up more proofs, and I say nothing new, but what has been established long ago: God is good, beautiful, and happy, and in the best and highest state. If he comes down to humans, he must change, and this change would be from good to evil, from beautiful to ugly, from happiness to misery, and from the best to the worst. Who would choose such a change?

Indeed, it is natural for mortals to change and be reshaped, but for the immortal, it remains the same and is just as it is. Therefore, God would not accept even this change. It seems to me that what needs to be said about this is what is mentioned in the scriptures regarding God's descent to human affairs. In this descent, there is no need for change, as Celsus thinks we say, nor a change from good to evil, or from beautiful to ugly, or from happiness to misery, or from the best to the worst.

For he remains unchanged in his essence, and he descends in his providence and management of human affairs. Thus, we present the divine writings as declaring that God is unchanging, both in "you are the same" and "I do not change." But the gods of Epicurus are made up of atoms and are analyzed to the extent of their composition, and they deal with the destructive atoms as if they could be shaken off.

But the Stoic god, being a body, sometimes has the whole essence as a guiding principle when there is a burning, and sometimes becomes part of it when there is decoration. For they have not been able to express the natural concept of God as always imperishable, simple, uncomposed, and indivisible.

Book 4, Section 15

The one who came down to humans "was in the form of God" and out of love for humanity "emptied himself" so that he could be received by people. This was not a change from good to evil for him, for "he did not commit sin," and "he did not go from beautiful to ugly," for he did not know "sin," nor did he come from happiness to misery. Rather, he "humbled himself," yet he was no less blessed.

When he humbles himself for our benefit, there is no change for him from the best to the worst. Where is the worst in being good and loving? Or should we say that a doctor, seeing terrible things and touching the sick, goes from good to evil, or from beautiful to ugly, or from happiness to misery? Even though the doctor sees terrible things and touches the sick, he does not completely escape the possibility of falling into the same situation.

But the one who heals the wounds of our souls through the word of God was completely free from all evil. If the immortal God, taking on a mortal body and a human soul, seems to Celsus to change and be reshaped, let him learn that "the Word" remains unchanged in its essence and does not suffer what the body or soul suffers.

When he humbles himself, he does so to allow those who cannot see the brightness and glory of divinity to perceive him as "flesh," speaking physically. Until someone receives him in this way, they can be lifted up by the Word and see the preceding form, as I would call it.

Book 4, Section 16

For there are different forms of the Word, as the Word appears to each person who is coming to knowledge, according to their readiness, whether they are just beginning to progress, or are advancing more, or are already close to virtue, or have even become virtuous. Therefore, contrary to what Celsus and those like him want to say, our God did not "change form" and did not show another form when he went up to the high mountain, which was much better than what those below could see.

Those below did not have eyes capable of seeing the glorious and divine transformation of the Word. They could hardly bear to see him in such a way that they would say about him, "We saw him, and he had no form or beauty, but his appearance was despised, rejected by the sons of men." This is in line with Celsus's misunderstanding, as he does not grasp the changes or transformations of Jesus as described in the histories, nor the mortal or immortal nature of him.

Book 4, Section 17

Is it not much more fitting, especially when one considers the way it should be understood, that the story of Dionysus being deceived and falling from the throne of Zeus, being torn apart by the Titans, and then being put back together and seemingly coming back to life and ascending to heaven, is seen as more serious?

For the Greeks, such stories can be related to the discussion about the soul and can be interpreted in different ways. But for us, the door to following such narratives is closed, and everywhere the writings inspired by the divine spirit agree and harmonize, being present in pure souls.

Therefore, Celsus did not see the intention of our writings; instead, he presents his own interpretation and not that of the scriptures. If he had understood what follows for the soul in eternal life and what one should think about its essence and its principles, he would not have so easily dragged the immortal into a mortal body, not according to Plato's theory of reincarnation, but according to some higher understanding.

He would have seen a unique descent out of great love to seek what was lost, as the divine writing mysteriously names, "the lost sheep of the house of Israel," and descending from the mountains to where the shepherd is said to have come down in certain parables, leaving behind in the mountains those who were not lost.

Book 4, Section 18

By insisting on things he has not understood, Celsus becomes the cause of his own confusion. He claims that either God truly changes, as they say, into a mortal body, and it has been said that this is impossible; or that God does not change but makes those who see him think he does, deceiving them. Deception and falsehood are bad in any case, just as someone might use a potion to help friends who are sick or to avoid danger from enemies.

Neither the sick nor the troubled are friends of God, nor does God fear anyone to escape danger by deceiving them. Regarding the nature of the divine Word, it is God, and concerning the soul of Jesus, if someone considers the nature of the Word, just as the quality of food changes to suit the nature of an infant into milk for nourishment, or is prepared by a doctor for the health of the sick, or is made suitable for the stronger as needed, in the same way, God changes the power of the Word for each person according to their worth.

To some, as the scripture calls it, it becomes "pure spiritual milk," to others, like weaker ones, it is like vegetables, and to others, it is given as "solid food." The Word does not deceive its own nature, becoming suitable for each person who can receive it, and it neither deceives nor lies.

If someone considers the change in the soul of Jesus when it enters the body, we will ask how it is called a change. If it is about the essence, it is not given to discuss that, not only about that but also about any rational soul. If it is that it suffers something from the body it has taken on and from the place it has come to, what is strange about the Word descending out of great love to save the human race?

Since no one before could heal as much as he showed through what he did, willingly descending to our human state for our sake. Knowing these things, the divine Word speaks many things in the scriptures. It is enough to present one saying of Paul that goes like this: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted him and given him the name which is above every name."

Book 4, Section 19

Others may say to Celsus that God does not change, but makes those who see him think he has changed. We, however, believing that there is truth and clarity in the presence of Jesus among people, do not fall under Celsus's accusation.

But we will defend ourselves by asking, "O Celsus, do you not say that it is sometimes necessary to use a potion to deceive and mislead?" What then is strange if something like this was meant to save? Some of the words are spoken in such a way that they seem more false, just as some doctors speak to those who are suffering.

But let us speak about others. It is not strange for a healer to cure friends who are sick, using methods that one would not use beforehand but only in certain situations. The human race, which is troubled, should be healed through methods that the Word has shown to be useful for those who are suffering, so that they may be wise.

He also says that some do such things against enemies, trying to escape danger. But God does not fear anyone to deceive those who are plotting against him to avoid danger. It is excessive and unreasonable to defend against what is said about our Savior.

It has already been said in our defense regarding others that neither the sick nor the troubled are friends of God. For the one who defends says that it is not for those who are already friends, suffering or troubled, that such a plan is made, but for those who, through the sickness of the soul and the loss of natural reasoning, are still enemies.

So that they may become friends of God. For it is clearly said that Jesus accepts all on behalf of sinners, so that he may "free" them from sin and make them "righteous."

Book 4, Section 20

Then, since he personifies the Jews by blaming them for the coming presence of Christ, and the Christians by saying that the presence has already happened in the life of the Son of God, let us briefly consider these points. The Jews say that when the life is filled with all wickedness, it is necessary to expect the one sent from God, so that the unjust may be punished and everything may be cleansed, similar to the first flood.

But the Christians add other things to this. It is clear that they also say these things. And what is strange about the one who purifies the world coming during the outpouring of wickedness and dealing with each person according to their worth? For it is not in accordance with God to not establish the measure of wickedness and renew things.

The Greeks also know that the earth is cleansed by flood or fire at certain times. As Plato says, "When the gods cleanse the earth with water, some are in the mountains," and so on.

It must be said then, if they claim these things, the promises they make are serious and worthy of discussion. But if we praise these things under the Greeks and also construct them, are these doctrines no longer good? Yet those who care about the arrangement and accuracy of all that has been written will try to show not only the ancient nature of those who wrote these things but also the seriousness of what has been said and the consistency that follows them.

Book 4, Section 21

I do not see how, similarly to the flood that cleansed the earth, as the Jews and Christians say, he believes that the fall of the tower also happened. For the history about the tower in Genesis should not be ambiguous, but, as Celsus thinks, should be clear. It does not seem that this occurred during the cleansing of the earth unless he believes that the so-called "confusion" of languages is a cleansing of the earth.

Regarding this, he who can tell the story more conveniently will explain when the context is present and the history of the place is established, what reason there is, and the connection to it. Since he thinks that Moses, who wrote about the tower and the confusion of languages, is corrupting the story of the sons of Alueus, it must be said that I do not think anything about the sons of Alueus was said before Homer, but the story about the tower is much older than Homer and even predates the discovery of Greek writings, and I am convinced that it was written by Moses.

So who is more likely to corrupt the accounts? Is it those who tell about the tower or those who write about the sons of Alueus? But it seems to the uneducated listeners that Moses is older than Homer. The accounts about Sodom and Gomorrah, told by Moses in Genesis, say that they were destroyed by fire because of their sin.

Celsus compares this to the story of Phaethon, making one mistake: regarding the fact that the antiquity of Moses has not been preserved. Thus, he makes everything. For those who tell about Phaethon seem to be much younger than Homer, while they are much younger than Moses.

We do not deny the cleansing fire and the destruction of the world in the removal of wickedness and the renewal of everything, saying that we have learned this from the prophets in the sacred books. However, as we have said above, the prophets, speaking about many future events, show that many past events have been true and give proof that the divine spirit has come upon them. It is clear that we should also trust them regarding future events, especially because of the divine spirit within them.

Book 4, Section 22

And Christians, according to Celsus, add some words to what the Jews say, claiming that because of the sins of the Jews, the Son of God has already been sent, and that the Jews punished Jesus and brought upon themselves the wrath of God. Let the one who wants to argue this as a falsehood be challenged, unless the entire nation of the Jews has become unshakeable and has not suffered anything from them regarding Jesus for a whole generation. For I think it has been forty-two years since they crucified Jesus, which happened during the destruction of Jerusalem.

And it has never been recorded that the Jews have been so long removed from their sacred worship and service, being held by stronger powers, unless they seemed to be left behind because of their sins. Nevertheless, they were watched over and returned to their own practices, freely doing what was customary.

Therefore, one of the things presented is that Jesus has become something divine and holy, and that so many and such things have already happened to the Jews for a long time. And we will boldly say that they will not be restored. For they committed the most impious act against the Savior of the human race in the city where they performed the customary symbols of great mysteries to God.

It was necessary for that city, where Jesus suffered these things, to be completely destroyed, and for the nation of the Jews to become unshakeable, and for others, I mean the Christians, to be called to the blessedness of God, upon whom the teaching of sincere and pure worship has come, receiving new laws that fit with the established governance everywhere. For those who were previously given laws as one nation, ruled by their own and similar kings, are now being fulfilled.

Book 4, Section 23

After this, he laughs at the Jews and Christians, comparing them to a swarm of night creatures or ants coming out of a hole, or frogs gathering around a puddle, or worms in a muddy corner, arguing with each other about who among them is more sinful. They claim that God reveals and announces everything to them, and that he has abandoned the whole world and the heavenly realm, only governing us and seeking us out so that we may always be with him.

In their reshaping of themselves, they say that God makes us similar to worms, and then after that, we have become entirely like God. They claim that everything has been given to us: earth, water, air, and stars, and that everything serves us. The worms say that now, since some among us are sinning, God will come or send his Son to punish the unjust. And the rest of us will have eternal life with him.

They insist that these things are more tolerable than the disputes between worms and frogs, or between Jews and Christians.

Book 4, Section 24

To this, we ask those who accept what has been said about us: do you really think all people are like a swarm of night creatures, ants, frogs, or worms because of God's greatness? Or do you not consider other people in the same way, but instead hold them to be rational and keep the established laws? Have you compared Christians and Jews, who do not please you, to these animals?

And whichever you say in response to our question, we will try to show that it is not right to speak about all people or about us in such a way. For let it be your first statement that all people, in relation to God, are compared to these lowly creatures. Since their smallness cannot be compared to the greatness of God, what kind of smallness is this? Answer me, you who are here.

If it is about bodies, listen: the superior and the inferior are judged not in the body. For then, the griffins and elephants would be greater than us humans, since they are larger, stronger, and longer-lived. But no one who thinks well would say that these irrational creatures are greater because of their bodies. Rather, the rational being has a much greater superiority over all irrational beings.

Nor can the important and blessed beings, whether you call them good demons or whatever you wish, be compared to the angels of God or any beings that surpass human nature. But since the rational part in them is perfected and has achieved every virtue.

Book 4, Section 25

If you do not belittle the smallness of humans because of their bodies but because of their souls, claiming that they are inferior to other rational beings, especially the important ones, and that this is due to their wickedness, then what makes those among Christians who live poorly, and those among Jews who live badly, worse than a swarm of night creatures, ants, worms, or frogs, or those who are wicked in other nations?

In this case, all those who are filled with wickedness would be like night creatures, worms, frogs, and ants compared to other humans. Even if a certain Demosthenes, the orator, is associated with such wickedness and actions, and if another orator, Antiphon, is thought to be the same, and he denies the care for truth in the writings about it, they are no less worms in the corner of ignorance and folly.

And yet, what kind of rational being could reasonably be compared to a worm, when it has the potential for virtue? For these examples do not allow a worm to be compared to those who have the potential for virtue and cannot be entirely destroyed. Therefore, it is clear that humans cannot be considered worms in relation to God. For reason, having its origin from the divine Word, does not allow a rational being to be thought of as entirely separate from God, nor do those who are wicked among Christians and Jews.

And in truth, neither Christians nor Jews can be compared to the other lowly beings that are thought to be worms in a muddy corner. If the nature of reason does not allow even this to be accepted, it is clear that we do not insult the human nature that is made for virtue, even if it sins out of ignorance. Nor will we compare it to such creatures.

Book 4, Section 26

If it is because of the things that do not please Celsus that he considers the doctrines of Christians and Jews to be unworthy, and he seems not to understand their foundation, then he sees them as worms and ants, while others are not like this. Let us examine the doctrines of Christians and Jews, and see if it is clear to those who accept them that some people are indeed worms and ants.

For those who have fallen away from a healthy understanding of God are like worms, ants, and frogs, either worshiping irrational animals or idols, or even the creations themselves, thinking they should admire the beauty of the creator. But humans, if they are to be considered more honorable, can rise above stones and wood, and even the materials thought to be more precious than silver and gold.

Having risen from the beautiful things in the world to the one who created everything, they believe in him as the only one who lasts forever, overseeing all thoughts and hearing the prayers of all, sending their prayers to him as if he were a spectator of all that happens and a listener to all that is said. If this kind of piety does not yield to pain, danger of death, or logical arguments, it does not help those who have taken it up to no longer be compared to worms, even if they were compared before this great piety.

Are those who overcome strong desires, which soften many hearts, really victorious? For they have been convinced that they cannot be close to God in any other way. If they do not rise to him through self-control, do they seem to us to be brothers of worms, relatives of ants, or similar to frogs?

What about the brilliance of justice? It takes care of relationships with others, being social, just, kind, and good. Does this not help someone not to be considered a night creature? But those who are caught up in immoral actions, like many people, and those who carelessly approach the lowly things, are they not worms in the mud?

Especially when compared to those who have been taught not to raise "the members of Christ" and to see the body that is governed by the Word as "the body of a harlot," they already learn that the rational being is "the temple" of the God they worship. They are becoming such from pure thoughts about the creator. They also, through unlawful unions, destroy "the temple of God," while practicing self-control as a form of piety toward God.

Book 4, Section 27

And I do not yet say that there are other bad things among humans, of which those who think they are philosophers do not quickly cleanse themselves (for many among them are illegitimate). Nor do I say that there are many such things among either Jews or Christians; in fact, there is not at all among Christians, if you examine closely, who a Christian is. Even if one were to be found, he would not be among those who gather together for common prayers and are not excluded from them. Unless perhaps someone, rarely unnoticed among the many, would be found to be such.

Therefore, we are not worms when we gather together, standing with the Jews, believing in their sacred writings and showing that the prophesied one has come, and because of their greatest sins, they have been abandoned, while we, who have accepted the Word, have the best hopes from God through our faith in him and by being able to approach him, pure from all wickedness and evil in life.

So, if someone calls himself a Jew or a Christian, he would say that God has created the whole world and the heavenly realm for us. But if someone is, as Jesus taught, pure "in heart," gentle, a peacemaker, and willingly enduring dangers for the sake of piety, such a person would rightly be bold before God. Understanding the word in the prophecies, he would say that all these things have been clearly revealed and announced to us who believe.

Book 4, Section 28

Since he considers Christians to be worms, saying that God has left the heavenly realm and overlooks this vast earth, governing only us and seeking us out, we must say that what is not said to us is added to us. For those who read and understand know that God loves all beings and does not reject anything he has made; for he would not create something he hates.

We have also read: "He spares all things, for all things are yours, O loving soul. For your immortal spirit is in all; therefore, you gently correct those who stumble and remind them of their sins." How can we say that God has left the heavenly realm and the whole world, and overlooks this vast earth to govern only us?

In our prayers, we find it necessary to say that "the earth is full of the Lord's mercy," and "the Lord's mercy is upon all flesh," and that God, being good, "rises" "his sun upon the evil and the good, and rains on the just and the unjust," and us, so that we may become his children, urging and teaching us to extend good deeds to all people as much as we can. For he himself is called "the savior of all people, especially of believers," and Christ is said to be "the atonement for our sins, not only for ours but for the whole world."

And perhaps not all that Celsus has written is true; some might say certain private things about the Jews, but certainly not about Christians, who have been taught that "God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Indeed, "rarely will anyone die for a righteous person; though perhaps for a good person someone might dare to die." But now, he died for all sinners everywhere, so that they might leave their sin and believe in God. Jesus has been proclaimed as the one who has come, and he is called Christ, the Son of God.

Book 4, Section 29

Perhaps Celsus has misunderstood that God is, and then after him, we, whom he called worms. He makes a comparison to those who blame all philosophy for something said by a foolish young man, who visited a philosopher for three days and boasted against the others as if they were lesser and unphilosophical.

We know that many things are more honorable than a human, and we have read that "God stands in the assembly of gods," and these gods are not those worshiped by others (for "all the gods of the nations are demons"), and we have read that "God, standing in the assembly of gods, distinguishes among the gods." We also know that "if there are gods called so, whether in heaven or on earth, as there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we for him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through him."

We know that angels are greater than humans, so that perfected humans become like angels: "For in the resurrection of the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels of heaven." The righteous become "like angels." We know that in the order of all things, there are some called thrones and others of dominion and others of authority and others of rule.

And we see that we humans, having left behind much of this, have hopes from living well and doing everything according to the Word, rising to the likeness of all these things. And finally, since "it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, we know that when he is revealed, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is."

If someone says something about this, whether those who understand or those who do not but have heard a healthy word, they might claim that God is, and then after him, we are. And I would interpret this: when we say "we," we mean the rational beings, and even more so, the serious rational beings. For in our view, the same virtue belongs to all the blessed, so the same virtue belongs to both humans and God. Therefore, we are taught to "be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

So, no good and virtuous worm is found wallowing in filth, nor is there a pious ant, nor is there a just frog, and no one whose soul is illuminated by the bright light of truth would reasonably compare themselves to a night creature.

Book 4, Section 30

It seems to me that Celsus has misunderstood when he says that "let us make man in our image and likeness," and he claims that he has made worms, saying that we are all alike to God. However, if he understood the difference between being made "in the image" of God and "according to the likeness," and that it is written, "Let us make man in our image and likeness," then God made man "in the image" of God, but not "according to the likeness." He would not have made us saying that we are all alike to God.

We do not say that the stars are beneath us. Since the resurrection of the righteous is compared by the wise to the sun and moon and stars, as it is said, "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory." So also is the resurrection of the dead, as Daniel prophesied long ago about these things.

He says that all things are arranged to serve us. Perhaps he has not heard those among us saying such things, or perhaps he does not understand how it is said that the greater among us is a servant. And if the Greeks say, "The sun and night serve mortals," praising this saying and telling it, but if such a thing is not said or is said differently, Celsus slanders us on these matters.

We, the so-called worms according to Celsus, say that since some among us commit wrongs, God will come to us or send his Son to punish the unjust, while the rest of us frogs may have eternal life with him. And see how, like a buffoon, he has conveyed the divine message about judgment and the punishment of the unjust, while bringing ridicule and laughter upon the honor due to the righteous.

He concludes that it is more acceptable for these things to be said by worms and frogs than by Jews and Christians arguing with each other. But we will not imitate him, nor will we say similar things about the nature of all things, as philosophers discuss among themselves how all things were made and how heaven and earth and all that is in them came to be, and whether souls are uncreated and not made by God, or whether they are joined to bodies or not.

For someone could instead of being serious and accepting the truth, mock and slander those who examine the truth, claiming that these are worms in the corner of the filth of human life, not measuring themselves and thus appearing to be caught up in such matters. And they say, stretching themselves as if they have seen the truth of things, that things cannot be seen without a greater and divine power. "For no one knows the things of a person except the spirit of the person that is in him; so also no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God."

But we have not forgotten even this understanding of humans, or rather, I say, of understanding. They have busied themselves not with the matters of the many but with the examination of the truth, and we compare them to the movements of worms or other such creatures. We honestly bear witness about certain Greek philosophers that they recognized God, since "God revealed himself to them." Even if they did not glorify him as God or give thanks, but became futile in their thoughts, and "claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image resembling corruptible man and birds and four-footed animals and reptiles."

Book 4, Section 31

After this, wanting to show that there is no difference between Jews and Christians, he says that the Jews became fugitives from Egypt, having never done anything remarkable, neither in word nor in number. About the fact that they are not fugitives but rather Hebrews who lived in Egypt, it has been said above. If he thinks that they have not been recorded in history by the Greeks, we would say that if someone were to look into their original way of life and the arrangement of their laws, they would find that they were people showing a shadow of heavenly life on earth. Among them, no other god was honored except the one who is above all, and none of those who made images lived among them.

For there was neither a painter nor a sculptor in their society, as all such people were cast out by the law, so that there would be no excuse for making images, leading the foolish eyes of men away from God to the earth. Therefore, there was a law among them that said: "You shall not make for yourselves a carved image, any likeness of male or female, any likeness of any animal that is on the earth, any likeness of any winged bird that flies under heaven, any likeness of any creeping thing that creeps on the earth, any likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth."

And the law wished that they should not create anything other than the truth, falsely representing what is truly male or truly female, or the nature of animals, or birds, or creeping things, or fish. It was also solemn and great among them not to look up to heaven and see the sun and the moon and the stars, and being led astray, to worship and serve them.

Such was the character of the whole nation, among whom it was not even possible to see any hint of femininity. It is also remarkable that the young men's companions were removed from their society. There were also courts of the just and a demonstration of healthy living given over a long time, believing in their judgments; those who, because of their pure character, were said to be gods according to the ancestral customs of the Jews.

And it was possible to see a whole nation that philosophized, and because of their attention to the divine laws, the so-called Sabbaths and other holy days for them, filled with many symbols that were made clear to those who loved to learn.

Book 4, Section 32

But since nothing is certain in human nature, it was necessary for that society to be quickly destroyed and judged. The divine plan appropriately transformed their solemn words according to the needs of all people everywhere, and instead of those, it delivered the sacred worship according to Jesus to those who believe. He not only understood but also, being adorned with divine fate, cast down the teachings about the demons on earth, offering incense and blood and the smoke from the sacrifices, pleasing those who consume them and punishing the humans like the myths of Titans or Giants, while he himself did not care about their plots, especially against the better ones.

He established laws by which the blessed would live, not flattering the demons through sacrifices and despising them in every way, because they look up to God and see the divine word. And since God wanted to maintain the word of Jesus among humans, the demons could do nothing. Yet they stirred up everything to ensure that Christians would no longer exist, both the kings and the senate and the rulers everywhere, as well as the common people themselves.

Not sensing the foolish and wicked actions of the demons, they stirred up against the word and those who believed in it. But the word of God, who is all-powerful, was hindered as if it were food that takes in what hinders it from growing, and it continued to spread more and more souls, for God desired this. These things have been said to us even if they are somewhat off-topic.

But I think it is necessary. For we wanted to respond to what Celsus said about the Jews, that they indeed became fugitives from Egypt, and that the God-loving people never did anything remarkable. But we also say that they did not exist either in word or in number, as "a chosen race" and "a royal priesthood," withdrawing and avoiding mingling with the many, so that their morals would not be corrupted, they were guarded by divine power.

They did not desire, like most people, to take for themselves other kingdoms, nor did they leave, fearing that due to their small number they would become targets for plots and be completely destroyed because of their smallness. And this happened as long as they were worthy of divine protection. But when they needed to turn back to their God as a whole nation because of their sins, sometimes more and sometimes less, they were abandoned until they committed the greatest sin under the Romans by killing Jesus.

Book 4, Section 33

Next, Celsus, rushing to the first book of Moses, which is titled Genesis, says that they attempted to trace their genealogy from the first seed of living beings and created humans, giving vague and uncertain accounts that are hidden in darkness, misunderstood by the ignorant and foolish, and that these things were never disputed in the long time before this.

It seems to me that he spoke very unclearly about what he intended. It is likely that he has also cultivated ambiguity about the place, since he saw that the argument establishing the Jewish nation was strong. Again, he wanted not to seem ignorant about the Jews and their race, which is not to be easily dismissed.

It is clear that the Jews trace their genealogy from the three fathers: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Their names are so connected to the title of God that not only do those from the nation use them in their prayers to God, but also when they call upon the demons, they say, "the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob."

Indeed, almost all those who deal with spells and magic can be found using such invocations of God in many magical writings, referring to the name of God as familiar to these men in their dealings against the demons. Therefore, it seems to me that this is brought forward by Jews and Christians as proof that certain holy men, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were the fathers of the Jewish nation.

Celsus has not entirely ignored this, but he has not clearly expressed it, since he could not respond to the argument.

Book 4, Section 34

For we ask all those who use such names of God: tell us, you who are these, who is Abraham, and how great is Isaac, and what power did Jacob have, that God's title is made to fit their names in such ways? And from whom have you learned or can you learn about these men? Who even attempted to write the history about them, either honoring them in sacred writings or hinting at some great and marvelous things for those able to see them?

Then, when we ask, no one can present to us from what histories, whether Greek or barbarian, or from some secret writings, anything about these men. We will refer to the titled Genesis, which contains the deeds of these men and the oracles of God to them, saying that perhaps you should not take the names of these three founders of the nation lightly, as their clarity shows that they cannot be dismissed from their calling.

We do not receive them from anywhere or from the sacred books of the Jews. But indeed, the God of Israel, the God of the Hebrews, and the God who drowned the Egyptian king and the Egyptians in the Red Sea is often named in connection with demons or some wicked powers.

We learn about the so-called history and the interpretation of the names from the Hebrews, who honor and tell these things in their native writings and language. How then did the Jews attempt to trace their genealogy from the first seed of these, whom Celsus claimed to be sorcerers and wandering men, shamelessly trying to trace their origin back to them, whose names are indeed Hebrew, as the Hebrews have their sacred books in their own language and script?

Is it not appropriate for their nation to be connected to these men? For even until now, the Jewish names are held in the Hebrew language. Either they were taken from their writings or simply from what is indicated by the Hebrew voice.

Book 4, Section 35

And look, the one who encounters Celsus's writing should see whether he hints at the fact that they attempted to trace their genealogy from the first seed of living beings and created humans, giving vague and uncertain accounts that are hidden in darkness. For these names are secret and not known in the light and knowledge of many. For us, they are not uncertain.

Even if they are received from outsiders regarding our piety, according to Celsus, he does not present the uncertainty of the names. I do not know how he dismisses it. Yet he should have, if he truly wanted to turn back the claim that the Jews shamelessly boast about Abraham and his descendants, to present everything about the place and gather earlier arguments that he thought were convincing, and then boldly turn to the apparent truth and the reasoning about it.

But neither Celsus nor anyone else can clearly present the argument about the nature of names being taken as powers, nor can they prove that these people have become dismissible. It should have been shown how we, being misunderstood by the ignorant and foolish about these names, deceive those who hear, while he, who claims not to be ignorant or foolish, speaks the true interpretation about these things.

He dismissed the arguments concerning these names, from which the Jews trace their genealogy, saying that there has never been any dispute about such names in the long time before this, but now the Jews dispute with some others, whom he did not name, about these matters.

Let the one who wishes to show demonstrate who those are being judged, and even if they use convincing arguments against the Jews, they do not report the matters healthily about the Jews and Christians, regarding the names that are found, while others have the wisest and truest things about them.

But we are convinced that no one will be able to do such a thing, since it is clear that the names are taken from the Hebrew language, found only among the Jews.

Book 4, Section 36

After this, Celsus, explaining the stories from outside the divine word, speaks about the ancient people who were judged, such as the Athenians, Egyptians, Arcadians, and Phrygians, and some natives among them, providing evidence for each. He says that the Jews, huddled in some corner of Palestine, completely uneducated and having never heard these things sung by Hesiod and many other inspired men, composed the most unbelievable and unmusical tales, about a man being formed by the hands of God and being breathed into, and a woman being made from his side, and the commands of God and a serpent opposing them and being overcome by God's commands, telling a story that dishonors God, immediately from the beginning weak and unable to persuade even a single man whom he himself created.

Through these things, the very learned and knowledgeable Celsus clearly accuses both Jews and Christians of ignorance and lack of education, showing how he precisely knows the times of each writer, whether Greek or barbarian; he thinks that Hesiod and many others are inspired men. He claims they are older than Moses and his writings. Moses, who is shown to be much older than the Iliad.

Therefore, it was not the Jews who composed the most unbelievable and unmusical tales about the native man, but rather those men according to Celsus, inspired, like Hesiod and his many others, who are much older and more revered in Palestine, having neither learned nor heard these things. They wrote such histories about the ancients, including theogony and genealogy, as much as they attributed to their own gods.

And many other things. Thus, he rightly dismisses Plato from his own city as someone who leads the youth to Homer and those who write such poems. But it is clear that Plato did not think that those who wrote such poems were inspired men. Celsus, who is able to judge more than Plato, is an Epicurean. If indeed he is the same one who wrote two other books against Christians, perhaps he is quarreling with us, calling those who do not think inspired men.

Book 4, Section 37

He accuses us of bringing in a man formed by the hands of God. But in the book of Genesis, there is neither mention of God taking hands in the creation of man nor in the forming of him. When Job and David say, "Your hands made me and formed me," there is much discussion about the difference between creation and formation, and about the hands of God. Those who do not understand these things and think we give such a shape to the all-powerful God believe that we think of him as having a human form, as if we also believe he has wings in the body of God, since our sacred writings say these things explicitly.

But the current work does not require us to explain these things now; for they have already been examined as much as possible in the earlier explanations about Genesis. Then, look at the malice of Celsus in what follows. For our scripture speaks about the formation of man: "And he breathed into his face the breath of life. And man became a living soul." But he, wanting to maliciously distort this, claims that "he breathed into his face the breath of life," which he does not even understand how it is said, he wrote that a man was formed by the hands of God and breathed into, so that someone might think that the breathing in is similar to the breath blown into a bag, and laugh at the phrase "he breathed into his face the breath of life," which is said metaphorically and needs explanation, presenting God as giving the immortal spirit to man, as it is said: "But your immortal spirit is in all."

Book 4, Section 38

Then, since it was easy for him to slander the written texts, he twisted the words, "And God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept. And he took one of his ribs and filled up flesh instead of it; and he built the rib, which he took from Adam, into a woman," without even explaining the wording. He could have understood that it was said with a metaphor. And he did not want to pretend to interpret such things allegorically, even though he later says that the more reasonable Jews and Christians, feeling ashamed of these things, try somehow to interpret them allegorically.

It can be said to him: Are the things said by your inspired Hesiod about women interpreted allegorically? As if this was given to men by Zeus as a "bad" thing "instead of fire"? But the woman taken from the rib of the one who was put to sleep is built by God without any explanation or concealment, does that seem to you? But it is not wise to laugh at those things as myths, but to marvel at them as philosophical thoughts in a myth. These things, however, only with their wording, seem to hide the meaning and think that there will be no explanation.

For if one must accuse the things said in hints for the sake of mere wording, see if Hesiod's words will not bring more laughter, as you say, from a man who wrote such things inspired by the gods. Then, angry, Zeus said: "You, who know all things, rejoice having stolen fire and deceived my mind, and you will bring great suffering to men." But instead of fire, I will give them a "bad thing," which they all will delight in, loving their own badness.

Thus he spoke. And the father of men and gods commanded Hephaestus to quickly make a beautiful woman from the earth, and to give her the voice and strength of a man, and to make her beautiful in appearance for the immortal gods to see. And Athena, teaching her crafts, wove a marvelous web; and she poured grace upon her head, golden Aphrodite, and desire that causes pain and soft arms. And he made her cunning and a deceptive character.

Thus he spoke. And they obeyed Zeus, the son of Cronus. Immediately from the earth, the famous Hephaestus shaped a maiden like the daughter of Cronus by his plans; and the goddess with the bright eyes, Athena, dressed her. And around her, the Graces and the lovely goddess Persuasion placed golden ornaments; and around her, the beautiful Hours wove a crown of spring flowers. And all these things were arranged by Pallas Athena.

And then the messenger of the gods, the swift Hermes, made her deceitful words and a cunning character by the will of mighty Zeus. And he gave her a voice, and she was named Pandora. Because all the Olympian gods, having their homes, gave her a gift, a burden to men. And it is ridiculous what is said about the jar, that before they lived on earth, the race of men was free from evils and hard labor and painful diseases.

They gave men their fates. But a woman, taking the great lid of the jar, scattered it. And she brought to men many sorrows. But only Hope remained in the unbreakable house under the lid of the jar, nor did she fly out. For she had put the lid on the jar first.

To him who speaks solemnly about these things, whether he succeeds in the allegory or not, we will say: Is it only among the Greeks that it is allowed to philosophize in hints, but also among the Egyptians, and all those barbarians who are serious about mysteries and truth? But only the Jews seem to you and their lawgiver and all the writers of all men to be the most foolish, and this nation alone has not received any power from God.

Is it so that the most brilliant teaching rises to the ungenerated nature of God and only to him alone do they look and expect hopes only from him?

Book 4, Section 39

Since Celsus also mocks the story about the serpent as opposing God's commands to man, he takes a similar myth from the writings and claims that God did not even name the "paradise" in Eden, nor is it said that "God planted" it in the east. After this, he twists the words about how "from the earth God made every beautiful tree to be pleasant to the sight and good for food, and the tree of life in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil," suggesting that all these things are not said in a shameful way.

Let us bring forth what is said in Plato's Symposium about Love to Socrates, which is more serious than all that is said in the Symposium. Thus, Plato's wording goes: "When Aphrodite was born, the gods were feasting, both the others and the son of Metis, Poros. And when they had dined, Penia, as if there was a feast, came to the doors. So Poros, having been made drunk by nectar (for there was no wine yet), entered the garden of Zeus and, being heavy, fell asleep. Then Penia, plotting because of her own poverty, made a child with Poros, and she lay beside him and conceived Love. Therefore, Love became a follower of Aphrodite, born at her birthday and being by nature a lover of beauty, since Aphrodite is beautiful."

Thus, Love, being the son of Poros and Penia, is in such a condition. First, he is always poor and needs much, both soft and beautiful, as many think, but he is hard and rough and without shoes and homeless, always lying on doorsteps and in the streets, sleeping outdoors, having the nature of his mother, always in need and living with others. But according to his father, he is a schemer of the beautiful and good. He is brave and wise and full of desire, a fierce hunter, always plotting and desiring wisdom throughout life, a skilled magician and a healer and a sophist.

He is neither born immortal nor mortal, but sometimes on the same day he flourishes and lives when he is prosperous, and sometimes he dies again, and again he comes to life because of his father's nature. What he obtains always slips away, so Love is never in need nor does he become rich. But he is in the middle of wisdom and ignorance.

Therefore, those who imitate the malice of Celsus, which is far from Christians, will laugh at the myth and mock such a great Plato. But if they examine what is said in the form of a myth philosophically, they may find the intention of Plato.

What way has he managed to hide the great doctrines that seem to him by using many myths, saying that those who know should find the truth from the myths of the one who composed these things? I have presented this myth from Plato because it seems to have something similar to the paradise of God, and Penia is compared to the serpent there, and Poros, being plotted against by Penia, is compared to the man plotted against by the serpent.

It is not clear whether Plato fell upon these things by chance or, as some think, encountered them during his journey to Egypt and learned something from those who philosophize among the Jews, keeping some things and making others, being careful not to offend the Greeks by keeping the wisdom of the Jews. Many have slandered him because of the strangeness of their laws and their peculiar way of life.

Now is not the time to discuss either Plato's myth or the story about the serpent and the paradise of God and all that is written in it; for we have previously dealt with these matters in the explanations of Genesis as much as was possible.

Book 4, Section 40

But when he claims that God is most impious, immediately he says that from the beginning God is weak and cannot persuade even one man whom he himself made. The words of Moses introduce this, and we will say that what is said is similar, as if someone were to call upon the arrangement of evil, which God cannot prevent even from one man, so that if one man were found who was never touched by evil.

For concerning this, those who need to defend themselves about providence do not argue about a few things or trivial matters; in the same way, those who know will philosophize about Adam and his sin, knowing that in Greece the name Adam means man, and in what seems to be about Adam, Moses speaks about the nature of man.

For "in Adam," as the saying goes, "all die," and they were condemned "in the likeness of Adam's transgression," not as if it were about one person but about the whole race, as the divine word states. For in the saying about one, the curse of Adam is common to all. And what is said about the woman is not said in a way that does not apply to her.

And the man cast out of paradise, along with the woman, was clothed in "skin" tunics, which God made for those who sinned because of the transgression of men, has a certain unspeakable and secret meaning, beyond the path of the soul according to Plato, which is winged and brought here "until it takes hold of something solid."

Book 4, Section 41

Next, he says such things: then he speaks of a flood and a strange ark, which holds everything inside, and a dove and a crown of angels, mocking and tricking Deucalion; for I do not think they expected these things to come to light, but they told them plainly as if to little children.

And in this, see the unphilosophical hatred of the man towards the ancient Jewish writings. For not having the history of the flood, he slanders it and does not know how to speak against the ark and its measurements, and how it was not possible, according to the common understanding, to take in the "three hundred" cubits of the ark's length and "fifty" cubits of its width and "thirty" cubits of its height, claiming that it contained the animals on the earth, clean by sevens and unclean by twos. He simply called it strange, saying it held everything inside.

For what is strange about it, when it is said to have been built a hundred years ago and gathered from the "three hundred" cubits of length and "fifty" cubits of width, until the height cubits "thirty" would end in one cubit of length and width? How could it not be more wonderful that the construction and the greatest city were said to have these measurements, as if the length at the base were nine thousand myriads and the width two thousand five hundred?

How could it not be amazing that it became deserted and was able to withstand the flood of winter? For it was not covered with pitch or any other such material, but was securely coated with asphalt. How is it not wonderful that all kinds of living things were brought inside by the providence of God? So that the earth might again hold the seeds of all animals, after the flood, given to the most just man of God, who would be the father of those after the flood?

Book 4, Section 42

Celsus threw in comments about the dove, hoping to seem like he has read the book of Genesis, but he could say nothing to prove that the story about the dove is false. Then, as is his custom, he translates the written words in a silly way, changing "the raven" to "the crow," and he thinks these things were written by Moses, mocking the story of Deucalion among the Greeks.

If he does not think that Moses wrote this, then he believes it was written by others. For this shows that he is mocking and making fun of Deucalion, and he does not think these things would come to light. How could those who gave writings to the whole nation not expect them to come to light, those who prophesied that this piety would be proclaimed to all nations?

When Jesus said, "The kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation producing its fruits," what else is he doing but bringing all Jewish writings to light by divine power, which contain the mysteries of God's kingdom?

Then, if they read the Greek myths about the gods and the twelve histories about them, they honor them with allegories, but if they try to tear apart our writings, they simply say that they are myths told to little children.

Book 4, Section 43

He speaks of very strange and childish things, even if he does not name them, clearly referring to Abraham and Sarah. He also throws in the plots of the brothers, either Cain plotting against Abel, or Esau against Jacob. The father felt sorrow, perhaps also for Isaac during Jacob's departure, and perhaps for Jacob because of Joseph being sold into Egypt.

But I think he is showing the traps of the mothers, clearly indicating Rebecca, who arranged Isaac's blessings not for Esau but for Jacob. Closely related to all these things, if we say that God is involved, what is strange about us acting in a way that we never stop believing in his divinity while living well and strongly?

He mocked Jacob's possessions from Laban, not understanding why it is said, "And the marks of Laban were different from those of Jacob." And he says that God gave the sons dreams and flocks and camels; and he did not see that "all these things happened as examples for them, but were written for us, upon whom the ends of the ages have come."

Among those, the various customs became "marks" according to the word of God, given as possessions to Jacob, who is called "tropical." For from the nations, those who believed in him were shown through the writings about Laban and Jacob.

Book 4, Section 44

He speaks of very strange and childish things, even if he does not name them, clearly referring to God giving wells to the righteous. For he did not keep in mind that the righteous do not dig pits but dig "wells," seeking the source and beginning of good things to drink, as they receive the command that says, "Drink water from your own cistern and from your own well. Let not your waters flow outside your well, but let your waters flow in your streets. Let it be only for you, and let no stranger share with you."

In many histories, the word has used these things to present greater matters and to show hidden meanings, such as those about wells and marriages and the various unions of the righteous, about which someone will try to explain more clearly in the writings about them.

That wells were built in the land of the Philistines by the righteous, as is written in Genesis, is clear from the wonderful wells shown in Ashkelon and the worthy histories because of the foreign and changed nature of their construction compared to other wells.

We do not teach how to bring forth brides and maidservants, but we have learned from wise sources; one of whom said, stirring the audience toward change, "Tell me, you who read the law. Do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one from the maidservant and one from the free woman. But the one from the maidservant was born according to the flesh, while the one from the free woman was born through the promise. These are allegorized; for these are two covenants, one from Mount Sinai, which bears children for slavery, which is Hagar."

And shortly after, "But the above, he says, is the free Jerusalem, which is our mother." The one wanting to take the letter to the Galatians will see how it allegorizes the matters of marriages and the unions of maidservants, wanting to call not the physical actions of those who have done these things, but, as is usual for the apostles of Jesus, the spiritual ones.

Book 4, Section 45

It is necessary for him to accept the truthful writings of the divine scriptures. He should not hide or ignore what is clear, but should also address the other strange matters that are not made up. Instead, he has done the opposite and has spoken about Lot and his daughters, neither examining the text itself nor investigating the context.

He spoke more wickedly about the evils of Thyestes. Therefore, it is not necessary to discuss now the changes in the place of Sodom. And what is the message to the angels who were saved from there, saying, "Do not look back or stop anywhere in the plain; escape to the mountain, lest you be swept away"? And who is Lot, and who is his wife, who became "a pillar of salt" because she looked back? And what about his daughters, who made their father drunk so they could become mothers by him?

Let us briefly comfort ourselves with the historical account of the good and evil that the Greeks sought, and those who encountered them placed good and evil in their own choices, while they say that everything else without choice is examined. The choice they use is rightly praised, but not rightly blamed.

I said in the discussion about indifference that mixing with daughters is indifferent, even if it should not be done in established societies. And for the sake of the argument, they have taken the wise one left alone with his daughter, as the whole race of mankind has been corrupted. They seek to know if the father will come together with his daughter to avoid the destruction of the whole human race.

So, do the Greeks say these things healthily, and is the Stoic belief not easily dismissed? When the girls, having learned about the burning of the world, see fire surrounding their city and land, thinking that the race of mankind has been left behind in the father and the daughters, they want to establish the world based on such an assumption.

It will be less than what the Stoics claim about the wise man, rightly placed in the decay of all mankind mixed with daughters. I do not ignore that some, having stumbled upon the actions of Lot's daughters, consider the act to be wicked and say that nations arose from wicked unions, the Moabites and the Ammonites.

And truly, the divine scripture does not clearly accept that such things happened well or that it blamed or complained about them. However, how it came to be is raised as a matter of interpretation, and it has some defense in itself.

Book 4, Section 46

Celsus dismisses the hatred, I think, of Esau toward Jacob, a man acknowledged in the scriptures as wicked. And he does not clearly explain the matters concerning Simeon and Levi, who, in their rage, attacked the son of the king, Shechem, and he blames them. He speaks of the brothers selling Jacob's sons and of the brother Joseph being sold, and of the father Jacob being deceived, since he suspected nothing about his sons when they showed him Joseph's "colorful coat," but believed them when they said, "A wild animal has devoured Joseph; see how he is mourned as lost in Egypt."

Celsus has gathered the history in a way that is hateful and not truthful. Wherever he thought the history contained a charge against someone, he presented it; but where there was a demonstration of worthy self-control, he did not mention Joseph's refusal to yield to the advances of the supposed mistress, who was both inviting and threatening him.

For we would see Joseph as much greater than those recorded in the story of Bellerophon, being imprisoned rather than losing a sound mind. He was able to defend himself and justify himself against the accusations, but he nobly remained silent, entrusting his matters to God.

Book 4, Section 47

After this, Celsus recalls the dreams of the chief cupbearer, the chief baker, and Pharaoh, and how Joseph was brought from prison to be trusted by Pharaoh as the second in command in Egypt. What then is inappropriate about the account of history, and why does he claim that it contains charges against the true account, which is not about doctrines but rather about Christians and Jews?

He mentions the brothers selling Joseph and says they were starving and sent to trade with the donkeys, claiming that the one sold was made to do things that Celsus did not even present. And regarding the recognition, I do not know what he wants or what he shows as inappropriate from the recognition.

For, as can be said, even the Mockery could reasonably accuse these things, and without changing the story, he also presents Joseph, who was sold as a slave, being freed and returning with a procession to his father's tomb. He thinks the account contains a charge when he says, "By whom (it is clear that it is Joseph) the glorious and divine Jewish race, spread in great numbers in Egypt, was commanded to dwell and shepherd in disgrace."

He added, from his hateful choice, that they were commanded to shepherd in disgrace, not showing how the Egyptian law of Gessen was disgraceful, nor mentioning the beginning of the Exodus of the people, which he named as a flight from Egypt.

He did not even mention the beginning of what is written in Exodus about the Hebrews' departure from Egypt. We have also stated these things, showing that even those things that were not clearly worthy of accusation were placed in a part of the charge and nonsense by Celsus, not presenting a word that he thinks is wicked in our scripture.

Book 4, Section 48

Then, as he gives himself over only to hating the words against Jews and Christians, he says that even the more reasonable Jews and Christians interpret these things allegorically. He claims that they are ashamed and resort to allegory. But if someone were to say to him that if the first account is worthy of shame, it should be spoken of as myths and fabrications, whether through suspicion or in any other way, why should this be said about the Greek histories?

In those, the sons of gods cut off their divine fathers, and divine fathers swallow their divine sons, and the goddess mother gives her son to the father as a stone, and the father mixes with his daughter, and a woman humiliates her husband, taking the brother of the enslaved and his daughter. Why should I recount the absurdities about the gods in the histories of the Greeks, which are worthy of shame and are interpreted allegorically?

Where indeed the philosopher Chrysippus, who is thought to have adorned the Stoa of philosophers with many writings, misinterprets a text from Samos, where Hera is said to have made Zeus unutterable. For in his own writings, the solemn philosopher says that the material received the seed-like words of God to adorn all things. For the material in the writing from Samos is Hera and the god Zeus, and for this reason, we do not even want to call Zeus the god above all, nor Apollo the sun, nor Artemis the moon.

But we practice pure piety toward the creator and praise his beautiful creations without even using the names of the divine, accepting Plato's words in the Philebus, that one should not wish to accept pleasure from God. "For my fear," he says, "oh First Leader, is about the names of the gods." Therefore, we truly have "fear" regarding the name of God and his beautiful creations, so that we do not even accept any myth under the pretense of changing it to harm the young.

Book 4, Section 49

If Celsus had read the scripture fairly, he would not have said that our writings are to be received only as allegories. For from the prophecies, where things from history are written, it is not as if they should be approached and written as if they were meant for allegorical interpretation and were very wisely arranged, considering both the many who believe simply and the few who wish or are able to examine things with understanding.

And if today those considered reasonable among Jews and Christians allegorize what is written, perhaps Celsus would imply that he has something plausible to say. But since the fathers of the doctrines and the writers interpret such things allegorically, what else could it mean but that it was written in such a way that it should be interpreted according to the previous understanding?

We will present a few examples to show that Celsus slanders the words as if they cannot accept allegory. The apostle Paul of Jesus says, "It is written in the law: 'You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.' Is it for the oxen that God is concerned? Or does he not speak entirely for us? For it was written that the plowman should plow in hope, and the thresher should thresh in hope of sharing."

And elsewhere he says, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is great, but I am speaking of Christ and the church." And again in another place, "For I know that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea."

Then, interpreting the story about the manna and the water that came from the rock, he says, "And all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ." Asaph also points out that "problems" and "parables" are in the histories of Exodus and Numbers, as it is written in the book of Psalms, anticipating that he will remind them in this way: "Give ear, my people, to my law; incline your ears to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings from of old, things that we have heard and known, that our fathers have told us."

Book 4, Section 50

But even if the law of Moses had nothing written that was meant to be understood through suspicion, the prophet would not have prayed to God, saying, "Open my eyes, and I will behold your wonders from your law." Now he knew that there is a "veil" of ignorance in the hearts of those reading and not understanding the things that are meant to be interpreted. This "veil" is removed when God gives it, whenever he listens to the one who made everything and has made the senses clear to discern good and evil, and in prayer he constantly says, "Open my eyes, and I will behold your wonders from your law."

Who, reading about a living dragon in the Egyptian river and the fish hiding in its scales, or "the advances" of Pharaoh filling the mountains of Egypt, does not go on to seek what is the source of such foul "advances" filling the mountains of Egypt, and what are the mountains of Egypt, and which rivers are in Egypt, about which Pharaoh previously boasts, "The rivers are mine, and I made them"? And what is the analogy to be shown from the interpretation of rivers and dragons, and what are the fish in its scales? And why should I further construct what does not need construction?

On what is said, "Who is wise and will understand these things? Or prudent and will know them?" I have extended the discussion further, wanting to show that it is not healthy to say to Celsus that the more reasonable Jews and Christians are trying somehow to interpret these things allegorically, but rather they are told very simply as they are. For much more so, the myths of the Greeks are not only very simple but also very impious. For our things are aimed at and understood by the many who are simpler. This is something that those who created the Greek fables did not guard against. Therefore, Plato does not unjustly expel such myths and such poems from his own Republic.

Book 4, Section 51

I also think I have heard that there are writings containing the allegories of the law, which if he had read, he would not have said. For the allegories about them seem to be much more shameful and absurd than the myths, which cannot possibly be connected in any wonderful way and are completely joined to a senseless foolishness.

It seems that he is speaking about the writings of Philo or even older ones, like those of Aristobulus. I suspect that Celsus has not read these books, since he seems to have been so misled in many places that he could be swayed even by those who philosophize among the Greeks. In these writings, not only is there expression, but also meanings and doctrines, and the use of what Celsus thinks comes from the writings of myths.

I know of Numenius the Pythagorean, a man who has explained Plato much better and has advocated for the Pythagorean doctrines, often presenting the writings of Moses and the prophets without misinterpreting them, as in the work called "Epopi" and in those about numbers and in those about place.

In the third work about the good, he presents some history about Jesus, not mentioning his name, and he interprets it. Whether it is done successfully or unsuccessfully, it is another time to say. He also presents the history about Moses, Janus, and Jamblichus. But we do not boast about that; rather, we accept him more as someone who has wished to study and examine our things and has been moved as if regarding those that are interpreted and not foolish writings.

Book 4, Section 52

Next, having chosen from all writings that contain allegories and narratives with no small value, the simpler and more accessible ones can connect with the many who are more straightforward in faith, and they can also move those who are more understanding. He says that he has recognized some argument of Papiscus and Jason, which is not worthy of laughter but rather deserving of pity and hatred.

Therefore, it is not these things that I intend to refute; for it is clear to everyone, especially if someone were to endure and listen to the writings. But I want to teach more about the nature of things, that God has made nothing mortal; rather, all things made by God are immortal. The mortal things belong to those. The soul is a work of God, but the body has a different nature.

In this, there is no difference between the body of a bat, a weasel, a frog, or a human; for the matter is the same. And their perishable nature is similar. Nevertheless, I wish for all things to be understood. Hearing Celsus speaking harshly and claiming that the writing titled "The Arguments of Jason and Papiscus" about Christ is not worthy of laughter but deserving of hatred, I would take the writing into my hands and endure it, listening to what is in it, so that I might judge Celsus from it, finding nothing deserving of hatred in the book.

If someone encounters it without bias, they will find that the book does not even move one to laughter. In it, it is written that a Christian is debating with a Jew from the Jewish scriptures, showing how the prophecies about Christ apply to Jesus, and he does so neither in a base nor inappropriate manner toward the Jewish person standing against the argument.

Book 4, Section 53

I do not know how he could say that the book is worthy of pity and hatred while gathering together things that are mixed and not naturally fitting with human nature. For everyone will agree that one who is pitied should not be hated when they are being pitied, and one who is hated should not be pitied when they are being hated.

For this reason, Celsus says that it is not worth refuting these things, since he thinks they are clear to everyone and are, before any logical argument is brought up, deserving of scorn and pity and hatred. But we encourage anyone who encounters this apology against Celsus's accusation to endure and listen to our writings, and to consider how much strength comes from the written words regarding the intention of the authors, their awareness, and their disposition.

For they will find men passionately arguing about what they have taken up, some showing a history that has been seen and understood, writing it down as something strange and worthy of being recorded for the benefit of those who hear. Or let someone dare to say that believing in the God of all is not a source and beginning of all benefit, and that doing everything according to what pleases him is not to be thought of, as if not only words and deeds but also thoughts will be judged.

And what other argument could more effectively lead human nature to live well than faith or the understanding of everything concerning the God who oversees all that we say, do, and think? For let anyone who wishes to compare another path, turning it and improving it not just in one or two ways but in as many ways as possible, so that someone may accurately understand the arrangement of both paths in relation to the good argument.

Book 4, Section 54

Since in what I have set forth, Celsus paraphrases a passage from Timaeus, saying that God has made nothing mortal but only the immortal things, while the mortal things are the works of others. The soul is a work of God, but the body has a different nature. And there is no difference between the body of a human and the body of a bat, a weasel, or a frog; for the matter is the same, and their perishable nature is similar.

Let us briefly touch on these matters, refuting either those who do not claim their own Epicurean opinion or, as someone might say, those who later shift to better views or, as another might say, those who share the name with the Epicureans. For such things should be shown by him, not only saying the opposite to us but also not being unworthy of the philosophers who have chosen to build on the teachings of Zeno from Citium that the bodies of animals are not the works of God.

And that such a great skill concerning them did not come from the first mind. He should also consider the many plants governed by an invisible nature that are useful to all humans and the animals serving humans, so that at some point, he should not only deny but also teach that a less than perfect mind did not create such qualities in the matter of plants.

If indeed he once made gods as creators of all bodies, with only the soul being the work of God, how could it not follow that the one who divides such creations and gives many should not create a significant difference among the gods? Of these, human bodies are made by others, while one could say that the bodies of livestock and other beasts are made by others.

He should see gods creating dragons, shields, and basilisks, and according to their individual forms, some should be creators of each type of plant and herb, stating the reasons for the divisions. For perhaps, by applying himself to the precision of the examination of the place, he would either maintain one god as the creator of all, making each thing for some purpose, or not maintaining that he sees what he needs to defend about the indifferent nature of the perishable thing, and that it is not strange for a world made from different things to come from one craftsman, suitably arranging the differences of the kinds.

Or at the very least, he should not assert the beginning of such a doctrine if he was not going to create what he promised to teach. If not, then the one accusing those who promise mere faith wanted us to believe what he has declared, although he did not intend to deny but to teach.

Book 4, Section 55

I do not yet say that if he had endured and listened to the writings of Moses and the prophets, he would have realized what the phrase "God created" means regarding heaven and earth, and the so-called firmament, and also the lights and stars, and after that, regarding the great sea creatures and every living soul of the creatures that crawl, which the waters brought forth according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind, and then about the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creeping things of the earth according to their kinds, and finally about man.

But he did not mention the "created" regarding other things. The account is sufficient regarding light with "let there be light," and regarding the gathering of all the waters under heaven with "it was so." Similarly, it is about the plants that sprang from the earth when "the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed is in itself after its kind upon the earth."

He would have sought to know if the written commands of God regarding the creation of each part of the world are stated for whom or for what, and he would not easily accuse them as being without understanding and having no comprehension of the things written either by Moses or, as we would say, by the divine spirit in Moses, from which he also prophesied. For he knew more about what exists and what will come to be than those who are called poets.

Book 4, Section 56

Moreover, since Celsus says that the soul is a work of God, but the body has a different nature, he does not distinguish between the body of a bat, a weasel, a frog, or a human. For the matter is the same, and their perishable nature is similar. It should also be said regarding his own argument that if the same matter underlies the body of a bat, a weasel, a frog, or a human, then these bodies do not differ from one another.

Clearly, the bodies of the sun, moon, stars, or any other so-called sensory god among the Greeks do not differ either. For the same matter underlies all bodies, being for each its own essence, without form and unshaped. I do not know the qualities according to Celsus, who does not want anything perishable to be a work of God, from whom it is derived. For the perishable must necessarily be similar to anything made from the same underlying matter, according to Celsus's own reasoning.

If not, then here Celsus, troubled, will leap away from Plato, who makes the soul from some mixture, and will flee to Aristotle and those from the Lyceum, who say that the ether is incorporeal and is the fifth element alongside the four elements of nature. To this reasoning, not unworthy are those from Plato and those from the Stoa.

And we, who are despised by Celsus, will stand firm, demanding to explain and construct what is said in the prophet: "The heavens will perish, but you will remain; and all will wear out like a garment, and like a robe, you will change them, and they will be changed. But you are the same."

Yet, it is enough for Celsus to declare that the soul is a work of God, but the body has a different nature; with this reasoning, he follows that there is no difference between the body of a bat, a weasel, a frog, and the etheric body.

Book 4, Section 57

So see if it is necessary to add a concluding statement to the one who accuses Christians with such doctrines, giving a distinction based on the qualities that are present in bodies and about the bodies themselves. For we also know that there are "heavenly bodies and earthly bodies," and that there is a different "glory" for the "heavenly" bodies and another for the "earthly." And the "heavenly" bodies do not have the same glory; for there is "one glory of the sun" and "another glory of the stars," and among those stars, "one star differs from another in glory."

Therefore, we accept the resurrection of the dead, saying that changes occur in the qualities of the bodies. For what is sown "in corruption is raised in incorruption," and what is sown "in dishonor is raised in glory," and what is sown "in weakness is raised in power," and the bodies that are sown as natural are raised as spiritual.

Regarding the underlying matter being receptive to the qualities that the creator desires, all who accept providence agree on this. And if God wants a certain quality, then this matter is such that it is better and different. Since there are also paths set for the changes in bodies, from which the world exists and to what extent it exists, I do not know if a new path has been received and changed after the decay of the world.

And that which our words call completion, it is not surprising if, from a dead human, a snake is transformed, as many say, coming from the spinal cord, and from a cow a bee, and from a horse a wasp, and from a donkey a beetle, and simply from many worms. Celsus thinks this is a creation that shows none of these things are a work of God, but the qualities, I do not know from where they are so arranged to become these things, not being a work of some divine reason, while the qualities in the matter are changing.

Book 4, Section 58

Furthermore, we say this to Celsus, who claims: the soul is a work of God, but the body has a different nature, and not only does he throw out such a doctrine carelessly, but he also does so without clarity. For he did not make clear whether every soul is a work of God or just the rational one.

So we say to him: if every soul is a work of God, then clearly this includes the souls of irrational and lowly creatures, so that there is a different nature for every body besides that of the soul. However, it seems that in the following points, he says that the irrational animals have a clearer understanding of the divine than humans do, suggesting that not only the souls of humans but much more so the souls of irrational animals are works of God.

For this follows from the idea that those creatures are more beloved by God. But if only the rational soul is a work of God, first, he did not make such a statement clear; second, it follows that he spoke ambiguously about the soul, as if not every soul, but only the rational one, is a work of God.

If there is not a different nature for every body, but rather each body of an animal corresponds to its soul, then it is clear that where the soul is a work of God, that body would differ from another body, in which the soul is not a work of God. Thus, it would be false to say that the body of a bat, a weasel, or a frog does not differ from that of a human.

Book 4, Section 59

For it is indeed strange to think that stones are cleaner or more pure than buildings made for the honor of the divine or for the most dishonorable bodies and unworthy receptions. And that the bodies of beings do not differ based on whether they are rational or irrational, nor do the more important rational beings differ from the most base humans.

This has led some to dare to deify the bodies of different creatures as if they received a worthy soul. Yet they would reject or dishonor the bodies of the most base creatures. It is not that such thinking is healthy, but rather that it has its origin from some healthy ideas.

Or does the wise person, after the death of Anytus and Socrates, care for the burial of Socrates' body and that of Anytus, and will he prepare a similar tomb for both? And this is because none of these things are a work of God, which are referred to in relation to the body of a human or the creatures that come from the body of a cow or from the body of a bee, or from a horse or a donkey and the wasps from a horse or the beetles from a donkey.

For these reasons, we have been compelled to repeat that the soul is a work of God, but the body has a different nature.

Book 4, Section 60

Then he says next that the nature of all the bodies mentioned is common and that it goes through a cycle of change, coming and going. And it is clear from the previous statements that not only the previously mentioned bodies share this common nature, but also the "heavenly" ones.

If this is true, then according to him, I do not know if it is also true in reality, the nature of all bodies is one that goes through a cycle of change and returns. It is clear that according to those who destroy the world, this is how it is. But those who do not destroy it will also try to show that even without interfering, the "fifth body" also has a nature that goes through a cycle of change and returns.

Thus, the body that is lost remains in transformation; for the underlying matter remains as the quality is lost, according to those who introduce the ungenerated. However, if someone can show that it is not ungenerated but has come to be for some purpose, it is clear that it will not have the same nature regarding permanence as that which is assumed to be ungenerated.

But these things are not what we are discussing now in response to the accusations of Celsus.

Book 4, Section 61

He says that nothing born of matter is immortal. And to this, he will say that if nothing born of matter is immortal, then either the whole world is immortal and not a product of matter, or it is not itself an immortal thing.

If the world is immortal, which is pleasing to those who say that only the soul is the work of God and that it has come to be from some source, then Celsus should show that it did not come from matter, keeping in mind that nothing born of matter is immortal. But if the world is a product of matter, then the world is not immortal; is the world mortal and subject to decay or not?

If it is decaying, then as a work of God, it will be subject to decay. Then what will the soul, as a work of God, do in the decay of the world? Let Celsus say. But if he twists the meaning of immortal to say that the decaying thing is not decaying but is immortal, then it is subject to death but not actually dying.

It is clear that there will be something that is both mortal and immortal, being capable of both, and it will be mortal but not dying, and what is not naturally immortal will be called immortal simply because it does not die.

So, by what meaning does he say that nothing born of matter is immortal? And you see that the meanings pressed and tortured in the writings are not open to the noble and uncontradicted. After saying these things, he adds that this much is needed about this matter; and if anyone can listen more and seek further, they will know.

Let us see then, we who are foolish according to him, what followed that we could listen to him even for a little while and seek.

Book 4, Section 62

Next, he thinks that we can learn about the nature of evils from many complex and not easily dismissed arguments, saying that evils in existence can neither be lessened nor increased in the past, present, or future. For there is one nature of all things, and the generation of evils is always the same.

It seems that these ideas are borrowed from what is said in the Theaetetus, where Socrates, as reported by Plato, says, "But neither can evils be destroyed by humans nor established by the gods." And I think that he has not heard Plato accurately, as he tries to grasp the truth in this one writing and claims it as his own true account.

For the statement in the Timaeus says, "When the gods cleanse the earth with water," indicating that when the earth is cleansed by water, evils are lessened compared to the time before the cleansing. And we say according to Plato that evils are sometimes lessened, based on the wording in the Theaetetus, which states that evils cannot be destroyed by humans.

Book 4, Section 63

I do not know how he thinks that by putting forth the words of this book, we can learn anything about evils, saying that evils are defined in a certain way, neither more nor less, while he is denying the best teaching that evil is undefined and that evils are infinite in their own way.

It seems that neither fewer nor more evils can come to be or exist or will exist, just as, according to those who maintain the unchanging world, the balance of elements is preserved by providence, not allowing one to gain an advantage so that the world does not perish. In the same way, some kind of providence is said to be applied to evils, so that they neither increase nor decrease.

Moreover, the argument of Celsus about evils is also challenged by philosophers who have examined the nature of good and evil and by history, which shows that first, outside the city, the courtesans offered themselves to those who wanted them. Then, later, having looked down on this, they put aside their masks and, under the laws that did not allow them to enter the cities, remained outside.

As the corruption increased, they dared to enter the cities. Chrysippus says this in his introduction about good and evil. From this, we can understand that as more and fewer evils come to be, those called ambiguous were once in charge, suffering and being arranged, serving the desires of those entering. Later, the market officials expelled them.

And regarding the countless people who have entered the lives of humans due to the spread of evil, it can be said that they were not there before, according to the oldest histories. Yet, indeed, there are countless accusations against those who err, but they do not know how to speak of the unspeakable.

Book 4, Section 64

How does Celsus not seem ridiculous when he thinks that evils can neither increase nor decrease? For if there is one nature of all things, then the generation of evils must also always be the same. Just as the nature of a certain person does not always have the same qualities regarding their reason and actions, sometimes they act without reason and sometimes with it, showing either more or less evil.

There are times when someone is encouraged towards virtue and makes progress, sometimes achieving more or less, and sometimes reaching the virtue itself in various ways. In the same way, we can say about the nature of all things that even if it is one and the same in kind, not everything always happens the same way.

For there are not always good times or bad times, nor always rain or drought. Likewise, there are not always good conditions for stronger souls or worse conditions for weaker ones. It is necessary for those who want to be precise about everything to consider the argument about evils, which does not remain the same due to either the providence that maintains things on earth or the cleansing by floods and fires, and perhaps not only the things on earth but also those in the whole universe.

When there is a lot of evil, there is a need for cleansing.

Book 4, Section 65

After this, Celsus says: "What is the origin of evils?" It is not easy for someone who has not studied philosophy to know this. It is enough to say that evils do not come from God, but are attached to matter and are present among mortals. The cycle of mortals is the same from beginning to end, and according to the established cycles, it is necessary for the same things to always have been, to be, and to be in the future.

Celsus claims that the origin of evils is not easy to know for someone who has not studied philosophy, while the philosopher can easily understand their origin. However, for someone who has not studied, it is not easy to see the origin of evils unless they make an effort to understand it. We say that even for the philosopher, it is not easy to know the origin of evils, and perhaps it is not possible for anyone to know it clearly unless they have divine inspiration and understand what evils are and how they came to be, and in what way they can be eliminated.

In the presence of evils and ignorance about God, when there is a great evil and one does not know how to worship God or how to be pious towards him, many of those who have studied philosophy, according to Celsus, have not understood this, which is clear from the different schools of philosophy. For us, no one who does not know that it is wrong to think that piety can save them according to the established laws of common societies will be able to know the origin of evils.

And no one, having not understood the nature of the so-called devil and his angels, will know who this devil was before he became a devil, how he became a devil, and what caused his angels to depart from him. It is necessary for someone who will understand these things to know more precisely about demons, whether they exist as demons, as creations of God, or only as certain rational beings, and where they came from to become such, as they exist in the state of demons.

If there is another area of inquiry among humans that is difficult to grasp by our nature, then the origin of evils would also be difficult to understand.

Book 4, Section 66

Then, while he seems to have something to say about the origin of evils, he remains silent about those things and speaks about the many things that fit together. He says it is enough to state that evils do not come from God, but are attached to matter and are present among mortals.

It is indeed true that evils do not come from God; for according to Jeremiah, it is clear that "evil and good do not come from the mouth of the Lord." However, the claim that matter is the cause of evils among us is not true. For the guiding principle within each person is the cause of the existence of evil in them, which is what evil is. And the actions that come from it are also evil.

There is nothing else that can be considered evil according to a precise definition. But I know that the argument requires much work and preparation, with the help of God, enlightening the guiding principle, so that it can be understood by someone deemed worthy by God and through knowledge about this matter.

Book 4, Section 67

I do not know how it seemed useful to Celsus, while writing about us, to throw out a doctrine that requires much proof, showing that the cycle of mortals is the same from beginning to end, and that according to the established cycles, it is necessary for the same things to always have been, to be, and to be in the future. If this is true, then it is taken away from us.

For if it is necessary for the same things to always have been, to be, and to be in the future in the cycle of mortals, it is clear that Socrates must always be philosophizing and be accused of new daemons and the corruption of the young, and that Anytus and Meletus must always accuse him, and that the council on the Areopagus must always condemn him to death by hemlock.

In the same way, it is necessary for Phalaris to always be a tyrant and for the Alexander of Pherae to always commit the same atrocities, and for those condemned to the bull of Phalaris to always be squealing in it, if it is given. I do not know how what is up to us will be saved, and praises and blame will reasonably exist.

Celsus will say in response to such a hypothesis that if the cycle of mortals is always the same from beginning to end, and according to the established cycles, it is necessary for the same things to always have been, to be, and to be in the future, then it is necessary for Moses to always lead the Jewish people out of Egypt. And Jesus must again come to do the same things in life, which he has done not just once but countless times throughout the cycles.

But even Christians will be the same in the established cycles, and again Celsus will write this book, having written it countless times before.

Book 4, Section 68

Celsus claims that the cycle of mortals must always have happened, be happening, and will happen according to the established cycles. But most Stoics say that not only is the cycle of mortals like this, but also the cycle of immortals and the gods according to them.

For after the burning up of everything, which has happened countless times and will happen countless times, the same order from beginning to end will have occurred and will occur. However, those from the Stoa, trying to explain these things, say that all things will remain unchanged in each cycle, so that Socrates will not return, but rather someone who is unchanged like Socrates.

He will marry the same Xanthippe and will be accused by the same Anytus and Meletus. I do not know how the world can always be the same and not be different from one another, while the things within it are not the same but are unchanged.

But the previous argument, both in response to Celsus's words and to those from the Stoa, will be examined more appropriately in other contexts, since it does not fit with the current time and the present intention to expand on these matters.

Book 4, Section 69

After this, he says that neither the visible things are given to man, but each thing happens and perishes for the sake of the whole salvation, as I previously mentioned, in a mutual exchange with one another. It is excessive to dwell on their overturning, which has been presented to us as much as possible.

It has also been said that neither good nor evil among mortals can be less or more than it is. It has been stated that God does not need any new corrections. But just as a craftsman, lacking skill and creating something imperfect, does not bring correction to the world by cleansing it with a flood or fire, but rather prevents the spread of evil from increasing, I believe that he also systematically removes it for the benefit of all.

If, after the removal of evil, there is a reason for it to exist again or not, such matters will be examined in the previous argument. Therefore, God will always take up the mistakes for new corrections. For if everything is arranged most beautifully and securely according to the creation of all things, it does not mean that he does not need a kind of doctor for those suffering from evil and for the whole world, as if it were being polluted by it.

And nothing is neglected by God or will be neglected, as he does what is appropriate for each time in a changing and variable world. Just as a farmer does different agricultural works according to the various seasons of the year for the land and what grows on it, so God, in a way, manages all the ages.

For each of them, he does what is required for the whole, as it is most clearly understood and accomplished by the one true God.

Book 4, Section 70

Celsus has put forward an argument about evils, saying that even if something seems bad to you, it is not clear if it is truly bad. For you do not know what is beneficial for you, for others, or for the whole. This argument has some caution in it, suggesting that the nature of evils is not always harmful because what is thought to be bad may actually benefit the whole in specific cases.

However, I do not want anyone to misunderstand what is being said and find an excuse. Just as the nature of evil can be useful to the whole or can potentially be useful, it will be said that if each of us is saved, even if we use the evil of the worthless for the order of the whole, God arranges them for the need of the whole.

This does not make such a person less blameworthy, and as blameworthy, he is arranged for a need that is undesirable for each but useful for the whole. For example, if someone in the cities said that a certain person has sinned and is condemned to do something useful for the whole community because of his sins, he himself has become part of something undesirable, which no one with even a moderate mind would want to be part of.

And the apostle of Jesus, Paul, teaches us to understand that some of the most worthless people will be useful for the whole, while they themselves will be in undesirable situations. The most valuable and serious people will be placed in the best positions, as he says: "In a large house, there are not only gold and silver vessels but also wooden and clay ones, and some are for honor and some for dishonor. Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the master, prepared for every good work."

And I must necessarily conclude that when you think something is bad, it is not clear if it is truly bad. For you do not know what is beneficial for you or for others, so that no one takes an excuse from the local context to sin, thinking it is useful for the whole because of the sin.

Book 4, Section 71

After this, Celsus, not understanding the words about God as human-like, misinterprets the statements in the scriptures where voices of anger and threats against the wicked are mentioned. It should be said that just as we, when speaking to little children, do not aim for our own understanding in what we say, but rather adjust to the weakness of those listening, saying and doing things that seem useful for the correction of the children, so it seems that the word of God has been arranged in a similar way.

It measures according to the ability of the listeners and what is appropriate for them in the message. In general, concerning this kind of way of speaking about God, it is said in Deuteronomy: "The Lord your God will carry you as a man carries his son." The word speaks in human ways for what is beneficial to humans.

For the many do not need to adjust the words spoken about such matters to a God who shows no favoritism. But whoever cares for the clarity of the divine writings will find in them what is said spiritually for those called spiritual.

By comparing the will of those who are called weak to those who are more capable, often in the same words, each hears what is meant by them.

Book 4, Section 72

We call anger of God, but we do not say it is a passion of his; rather, it is something taken on for the purpose of educating those who have sinned in such ways. For the so-called anger of God and his wrath teaches, and this agrees with the scripture, as it is said in Psalm 6: "Lord, do not rebuke me in your anger, nor discipline me in your wrath." And in Jeremiah: "Correct us, Lord, but with justice, and not in anger, lest you make us few."

When someone reads in 2 Samuel about the "anger" of God, which persuaded David to count the people, and in 1 Chronicles about the "devil," and by comparing these, one will see against whom the anger is directed. Paul says that "we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest."

That anger is not a passion of God, but each person creates it for themselves through their own sins, as Paul explains: "Or do you despise the riches of his goodness, forbearance, and long-suffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? But according to your hardness and unrepentant heart, you are storing up for yourself wrath on the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God."

How then can each person "store up wrath for themselves on the day of wrath," if "wrath" is understood as a passion? How can the anger of God educate? Moreover, the teaching does not encourage us to be angry, as it says in Psalm 37: "Cease from anger and forsake wrath," and also in Paul: "Put away all malice, anger, evil speaking, and slander."

It is clear that we do not attribute human passions to God, nor do we hold unholy views about him, nor do we misinterpret the accounts about him in the scriptures as we examine them together. The purpose of the message is to help those who listen to become wise, as much as possible, and to free them from foolishness.

Book 4, Section 73

Therefore, he says that those who do not understand the writings about God's anger are foolish. For if a man, being angry, destroys all the Jews and burns them, they are nothing; but God, the greatest, is said to be angry, threatening, and sending his son, and suffers such things?

If the Jews, after betraying Jesus, suffered destruction and were burned, it was not from any other anger than what they had stored up for themselves. This was the judgment of God against them, which came from God's anger, as is called in a certain Hebrew tradition.

And the son of the greatest God suffers, willing to save humanity, as has been said above according to our understanding. After this, he says: "But not only about the Jews (for that is not what I mean) but about all of humanity, which I promised."

The word is clear. I will explain the previous points more clearly. Who, encountering these things, being moderate and aware of human weakness, would not be troubled by the heavy burden of what is said about all of humanity?

And who would dare to write a title for the book in the same way? Let us see what is said about all of humanity and what will be revealed.

Book 4, Section 74

Next, he accuses us that humans claim everything has been made by God. He wants to show, from the history of animals and their apparent closeness to humans, that nothing has come to be more for humans than for irrational animals.

It seems to me that he says something similar to those who, out of hatred for their enemies, accuse them of things for which their friends are praised. Just as in these cases, hatred blinds them to the fact that they are accusing their dearest ones for things they think are bad about their enemies.

In the same way, Celsus, confused in his reasoning, does not see that he also accuses the philosophers from the Stoa. They do not wrongly place humans first and simply say that the rational nature is above all irrational beings, and through this, they say that providence has made everything.

The rational beings have a reason, which is what has been said before. As children are born, the irrational and inanimate things are gathered around the child. I believe that, just as in cities, those who provide for the needs of the market do so only for humans, while dogs and other irrational beings benefit from the abundance meant for humans.

In this way, providence first provides for rational beings, and then allows the other irrational beings to enjoy what is produced for humans. And just as it is a mistake to say that the market overseers provide for no more than humans or dogs, since dogs also benefit from the abundance of the market, so much more does Celsus and those who think like him disrespect the God who provides for rational beings.

They say: "Why should these things happen for humans more than for trees, plants, and thorns?"

Book 4, Section 75

For he thinks that thunder, lightning, and rain are not works of God. He is already more clearly following Epicurus. Secondly, he says that even if someone claims these are works of God, they happen for us humans no more than for trees, plants, and thorns. He suggests that these things occur by chance and not by providence, as Epicurus truly believes.

If these things are useful to us no more than to plants and trees, it is clear that they do not come from providence, nor does providence care more for us than for trees, plants, and thorns. Both views are disrespectful. To argue against such things while accusing us of impiety is naive; it is clear to everyone from what has been said who the impious one is.

Then he says that even if you say these things happen to humans (it is clear that plants, trees, and thorns also exist), why would you say they happen more to humans than to the most irrational animals? Therefore, Celsus should clearly say that such a difference among the things growing on earth is not the work of providence.

Rather, some chance has produced such qualities, and by chance, there are so many similar types of plants, trees, and grasses. And since no technical reasoning has supported these things, they do not have a beginning from thought. Everything has gone beyond wonder.

But we Christians, who rely solely on the God who created these things, know that we owe thanks to the creator of all things, for he has provided us with such a home and for the animals that serve us. "He who brings forth grass for the cattle and plants for the work of humans, to bring forth bread from the earth, and wine that cheers the heart of man, and oil that makes the face shine. And bread strengthens the heart of man."

If he has also prepared food for the most irrational animals, there is nothing surprising about it; for these animals and others have been said to exist for the sake of the rational animal. It is said by some of our wise men: "Do not ask, 'What is this? Why is this?' For everything has been created for their need," and "Do not ask, 'What is this? Why is this?' For everything will be sought in its time."

Book 4, Section 76

Next, Celsus, wanting to say that providence cares no more for us than for the most irrational animals, says: "We, indeed, toil and suffer, barely getting by." But he does not see that everywhere God wants human understanding to be exercised, so that it does not remain idle and unthoughtful about the arts. He made humans needy so that through their neediness, they would be forced to discover skills—some for food and others for shelter.

For it would be better for those who do not seek the divine to be puzzled about how to use their understanding to find skills, rather than to neglect it because they are well-off. The lack of needs in life has led to the development of agriculture, viticulture, gardening, carpentry, and metalworking, which are the practical skills that serve food. The lack of shelter has brought forth weaving, with both wool and linen, and construction skills.

Thus, understanding has advanced even to architecture. The lack of needs has also caused goods from other places to be brought in through shipping and navigation for those who do not have them. Therefore, one might marvel at providence, which has made the rational being needy, while the irrational animals have their food ready.

For irrational animals have their food prepared, having no need for skills. They have natural shelter, whether they are burrowed, feathered, scaled, or shelled. And these points have been made in response to what Celsus has said: "We toil and suffer, barely getting by," while he claims, "All things grow without sowing or care."

Book 4, Section 77

Next, forgetting that he is accusing Jews and Christians, Celsus brings up a line from Euripides. He opposes his own view and agrees with what has been said, claiming it was poorly stated. Celsus says: "If you say the Euripidean line, that the sun and night serve humans, what more for us than for ants and flies? For for them, night is for rest and day is for seeing and acting."

It is clear that not only some Jews and Christians have said that the sun and the things in the sky serve humans, but also a certain philosopher who was a follower of Anaxagoras. He claims that everything logical serves the one logical human being. This is shown again by the example of "the sun and night."

Perhaps the tragic poet named the day after the one who makes the day, teaching that the most necessary things of day and night are those under the moon. And not in the same way as the things on earth. Therefore, "day and night serve humans," coming about through reason.

If ants and flies are busy during the day and rest at night, should we say that day and night come about for ants and flies as well? No, but these things should be thought to have happened for the sake of humans, according to providence.

Book 4, Section 78

Next, Celsus argues that the irrational animals were created for humans. He says that if someone calls us the rulers of animals, since we hunt and eat other animals, we could say that we came to be for them. After all, they hunt us and eat us. But we need weapons and help from more humans and dogs against those we hunt, while nature has given those animals their own weapons.

Here you can see how much understanding is a great help to us, better than any weapon that the animals might have. We, who are weaker in body than many animals, even hunt elephants because of our understanding. We manage to tame what is naturally wild through our gentleness.

For those that do not seem to need us, we stand secure because of our taming. So when we want, we have those large animals locked up. But when we need food from their bodies, we take them down just like we do with the wild animals.

Thus, everything has been made for the rational animal and its natural understanding. We need dogs for guarding flocks or herds or homes. We also use oxen for farming and other animals as draft animals for carrying loads.

In this way, it is said that we have been given the seeds of courage, just like lions, bears, leopards, and pigs.

Book 4, Section 79

Then he says that humans are superior to the irrational animals. He claims that you say God has given us the ability to choose and use the animals. We would say that it is likely that before there were cities, crafts, and such mixtures, humans were being seized and eaten by wild animals, while animals were hardly ever caught by humans.

Notice that even if humans catch animals and animals seize humans, there is a big difference between those who have understanding and those who are wild and savage. The earlier point about there being no cities or crafts is something I think he has forgotten.

Since the world is uncreated and eternal, and only those on earth suffer from floods and fires, not all at once with them. Therefore, it is not possible to say that the uncreated beings have a beginning. Likewise, there is no time when there were no cities or crafts found.

But let this be accepted by us as well, and let him not continue with what has been said above. So what does this mean for the fact that in the beginning, humans were seized and eaten by animals, but now animals are no longer caught by humans? If the world has come about by providence, and God has set everything in order, it was necessary for the human race to start being guarded by something stronger.

Thus, in the beginning, there was a mixture of divine nature with humans. This is what the poet from Ascra meant when he said: "For there were feasts together, and the gods mingled with mortal men."

Book 4, Section 80

And the divine word according to Moses introduced the first people who heard a more divine voice and prophecies and saw when the angels of God appeared to them. For it is likely that in the beginning of the world, the nature of humans was helped more. Until they progressed to understanding and the other virtues and were able to discover the crafts and live on their own, no longer needing constant supervision and management with the strange appearance of those serving the will of God.

It follows that the claim is false that in the beginning, humans were seized and eaten by wild animals, while animals were hardly ever caught by humans. From this, it is clear that what Celsus says is a lie; thus, God did not subject humans more to the wild animals. For God did not subject humans to the wild animals, but gave the wild animals to be captured by the understanding of humans and to be managed by their skills.

For humans did not create a way for themselves to escape from the wild animals through disbelief, but through their understanding, they found a way to gain control over them.

Book 4, Section 81

I do not see how the wise man, who introduces the providence of philosophers and claims that everything is done through reason, can agree with the teachings of Christians. He does not realize how much harm is done to piety by accepting that humans do not differ from ants or bees in relation to God. He says that if humans seem to differ from the irrational beings, since they live in cities and use laws and governments, this is of no importance, because ants and bees also have leaders, and they have organization, care, wars, victories, and the capture of the defeated, as well as cities and outposts and the passing down of work and justice against the lazy and wicked.

Yet he has not seen how what is done through reason and understanding differs from what comes from the nature of irrational beings. No one who has reason can accept this (for they do not have it), but the oldest and only son of God has made all things without reason, helping those who are not worthy of reason.

Thus, cities among humans have been established with many arts and laws. The governments and leadership among humans are called serious habits and activities. Or they may be called more abusive in relation to the possible imitation of those. For by observing those, the successful lawmakers have established the best cities and governments and leaderships.

None of this can be found among the irrational beings, even if Celsus mentions logical names and refers to logical arrangements, cities, governments, and leaderships, comparing them to ants and bees, which should not be accepted (for they do not act with reason). The divine nature is to be admired, as it extends even to the irrational beings, so that they might become more industrious and thrifty with what is useful to them, and by observing bees, they are persuaded to divide the useful works of the city for the safety of the cities.

Book 4, Section 82

Perhaps the so-called wars of the bees teach about just and organized battles, if ever they should happen among humans. And there are not cities and outposts among bees, but symbols and hexagons and the works of the bees, and their succession leads humans to desire much honey. They also provide care for their bodies and pure food.

But the actions of the drones should not be compared to the laws against the lazy in the cities and the punishments against them. However, as I said before, the nature of these creatures is to be admired. Humans, on the other hand, can think about everything and arrange all things, as they cooperate with providence, and they do not only accomplish the works of divine providence but also their own.

Book 4, Section 83

When Celsus speaks about the bees, he tries to belittle not just Christians but all human cities, governments, and leaderships, as well as the wars fought for their homelands. He then goes on to praise ants, hoping that by praising them, he can undermine the human approach to food and the care for animals. He thinks that there is nothing more to humans than the irrational nature of ants, in which he believes there is no providence.

But how can he not see that the simpler humans, who do not understand much, are moved by the nature of all things? Celsus seems to suggest that ants help each other with heavy loads, saying that when they see someone struggling, they come to help. The one in need of help does not understand this through reason. Since we do not differ from ants, and when we help those who are burdened with heavy loads, why do we do this in vain?

Ants, being irrational creatures, would not think deeply about their actions by comparing them to humans. But humans, being able to think, can see how their social nature is diminished. It would harm Celsus and his arguments if he did not realize that he is trying to turn away those who encounter his writings from Christianity, and that those who are not Christians sympathize with those carrying heavy burdens.

He should have, if he were a philosopher aware of social matters, not opposed the good things among humans and worked together, if possible, with the common good in Christianity for the benefit of other humans. If the ants also remove the seeds of the fruits so that they do not sprout, they keep them for food throughout the year. This should not be seen as reasoning among ants but as a natural instinct, ensuring that nothing is left behind, showing no trace of reason from nature.

If Celsus secretly wants to argue that every soul is similar and that there is no difference between the soul of a human and that of ants or bees, this would lower the human soul from the heights of heaven not just to the human body but also to the rest. Christians will not be convinced by this. They hold the belief that the human soul was made "in the image" of God, and they see that it is impossible to erase the characteristics of this "image of God" and take on others, as they do not know what images are formed in the irrational beings.

Book 4, Section 84

Since Celsus says that ants, when they die, have a special place for the living, he implies that they have their own ancestral memories. The more he praises the irrational animals, the more he elevates their status. Even if he does not want to, he increases the work of the one who arranged everything and shows the ability of humans to organize things with reason, highlighting the advantages of nature among the irrational beings.

What do I mean by irrational? Celsus seems to think that even common ideas are not irrational. He does not even believe that ants are irrational, as he claims to speak about the whole nature and boasts of the truth in the title of his book. He says that ants talk to each other, and they respond to one another, so they do not miss the paths. Therefore, they have a kind of conversation and common ideas that are universal, along with voices and meanings.

For one to converse with another in speech shows that something is being expressed. Often, they also convey messages about what is happening. How could it not be the most laughable thing to say that ants have no communication?

Book 4, Section 85

And he is not ashamed to show this, so that he can demonstrate the ugliness of his own beliefs to those who come after him, saying: "Come now, if someone were to look down from heaven to earth, what would they think is different between what we do and what ants and bees do?" The one looking down from heaven, according to his assumption, would see the actions of humans and those of ants. Would they notice the bodies of humans and ants, but not understand the rational and guiding part of humans, while seeing the irrational guiding part of ants moving without reason and only by instinct?

It is strange for someone looking from heaven to want to see the bodies of humans and ants from such a distance, but not to see the rational natures and the source of reasoning, whether rational or irrational. If they could see the source of all motivations, it is clear that they would also see the differences and the superiority of humans not only compared to ants but also to elephants. For the one looking from heaven would see that even in irrational beings, no matter how large their bodies are, they would not see anything other than what I would call irrationality.

But in rational beings, they would see the common reasoning of humans in relation to the divine and heavenly, and perhaps even the very God above all. This is why humans are called "made in the image" of God; for the "image" is the reasoning of the one who is above all.

Book 4, Section 86

Next, he seems to try to lower the human race and compare it to the irrational beings, wanting to leave nothing out of what is said about the irrational. He even claims that some of the irrational beings have a kind of magic. He argues that humans should not take pride in their superiority over the irrational. He says that if humans think they have any magic, then snakes and eagles are already wiser than them; after all, they know many remedies and the powers of certain stones for the safety of their young.

Those who succeed in these things, humans believe they have something wonderful. First of all, I do not know how he calls the natural remedies of animals magic, whether it is from experience or some natural understanding. The name of magic is applied to something else. Unless he secretly wants to discredit everything, as Epicurus did, claiming that all such uses are just a promise of magic.

However, let it be granted to him that humans think highly of their knowledge, whether they are magicians or not. How can he say that snakes are wiser than humans when it comes to speed and quick movement? They do not understand this from reasoning but from their natural design. But humans do not come to such abilities just from their nature; rather, they come from experience and reasoning.

There are times when they act based on reasoning and knowledge. Just as eagles, when they find the so-called eagle stone for the safety of their young, are wise, how can he claim that eagles are wiser than humans when humans find natural help through reasoning and use it with thought?

Book 4, Section 87

Let it be that other animals also know remedies. So what does it matter if the one discovering these in animals is not natural but rational? If there was reason in the discoverer, they would not only find one thing in snakes but also a second and a third, and something else in eagles, and so on with other animals. But there would be as many as there are in humans. Now it is clear from the specific remedies for each kind of animal that there is no wisdom or reason in them, but rather some natural preparation for the safety of the animals, which has come from reason.

And yet, if I wanted to agree with Celsus on this, I would use a saying from Solomon's Proverbs that goes like this: "There are four things on the earth that are the least, and these are wiser than the wise: the ants, which have no strength, but prepare their food in summer; and the conies, a weak nation that makes their homes in the rocks; the locust has no king, yet they all march out in ranks; and the lizard can be caught in the hand, yet it is found in kings' palaces."

But I do not mix these sayings with clear statements; rather, according to the title (for the book is called Proverbs), I seek these as riddles. For it is customary for these men to show one thing directly and to hint at another, dividing into many kinds, of which one is the proverbs. This is why it is written in our Gospels that our Savior said: "I have spoken to you in parables; the time is coming when I will no longer speak to you in parables."

So it is not the sensory ants that are wiser and "of the wise," but those indicated as in the form of proverbs. Thus, it should also be said about the other animals. But Celsus thinks that the books of the Jews and Christians are very simple and believes that those who interpret them are forcing the intention of the writers to do this. Therefore, let Celsus be shown to be wrong by these things, and let him also be shown wrong in his statements about snakes and eagles, claiming that they are wiser than humans.

Book 4, Section 88

Next, he wants to show that even among irrational animals, there are some who think about the divine. He says that there have been many disagreements about this, even among the sharpest people, both Greeks and non-Greeks. He claims that if a person has divine thoughts, they are considered superior to other animals. Those who say this should know that many other animals will contest this idea, and rightly so. For what could anyone say is more divine than knowing the future?

Humans learn this from other animals, especially from birds. Those who are skilled in observing them are called seers. If birds and other animals predict things from the divine through signs, then they seem to be closer to divine conversation and are considered wiser and more beloved by the divine. The wise among humans say that they have a connection with these animals, especially with our priests, and they show that they understand what is said by demonstrating it in action, when they predict what the birds will do and then see them doing exactly that.

As for elephants, they do not seem to be more trustworthy or more faithful to the divine than other animals, but they certainly have some knowledge. Look at this: whatever is sought by philosophers, not only among Greeks but also among non-Greeks, whether they find it or learn it from some spirits about omens and other animals, from which certain prophecies are said to come, it captivates and is presented as agreed upon.

First, it is asked whether there is a skill in interpreting omens and whether the divination through animals is real or not. Second, among those who accept this, the reason for divination through birds has not been agreed upon. Some say that the movements of animals come from certain spirits or gods, with birds showing different flights and sounds, while others say that the souls of these animals are more divine and suited to this, which is very unlikely.

Book 4, Section 89

Celsus should have shown that irrational animals are more divine and wiser than humans by providing more evidence for this kind of divination and by clearly proving that the arguments against such divination are wrong. He should have also overturned the claims that the movements of animals come from spirits or gods for the purpose of divination and then argued that the souls of irrational animals are more divine.

For this would align with his beliefs, showing a philosopher about such matters. By overturning the idea that irrational animals are wiser than humans and falsely claiming that our priests have divine thoughts and connections with other sacred beings, he would be addressing the accusations against us. Now, he accuses us of believing that the souls of birds have more divine thoughts than humans. If this is true, then birds indeed have greater thoughts about the divine than Celsus.

It is not surprising if Celsus diminishes humans to such an extent. But I do not say that birds have greater and more divine thoughts than Christians or Jews who use the same scriptures as us, but even more than the theologians among the Greeks, who were human. Thus, according to Celsus, the nature of the so-called prophetic birds is more limited than that of figures like Phercydes, Pythagoras, Socrates, and Plato.

We should go to the birds as teachers, as Celsus suggests, to learn about future events. This way, they might free humans from doubts about the divine, which they have taken to be a clear understanding of it. Celsus follows the idea that birds differ from humans, and he should use them as teachers, rather than relying on any of the philosophers among the Greeks.

Book 4, Section 90

We need to say a little about the main points to challenge the ungrateful false belief against the creator. For both Celsus and humans, "being in honor, did not understand," and so he did not "become confused" by the birds and other irrational animals, which he thinks are prophetic. Instead, he gave priority to the Egyptians, who worship irrational animals as gods, and he placed himself and all of humanity as lesser and inferior in understanding the divine compared to irrational animals.

First, it should be asked whether there is a prophetic skill in birds and other animals that are believed to be prophetic or not. The argument is not easy to dismiss on either side. In places where it is difficult to accept such a thing, it is to avoid using reason instead of divine signs from birds. But where there is clear evidence from many witnesses showing that many have been saved from great dangers by trusting in bird divination, we should acknowledge that.

Now, it should be established that divination exists so that I can show those who are biased that there is much more superiority of humans over irrational animals and even over the prophetic ones, and that there is no comparison at all. It should be said that if there were a divine nature in them that could predict the future so abundantly, revealing what humans desire, it would be clear that they would have known much earlier about themselves.

They would have kept knowledge about themselves safe from this place, where humans set traps and nets against them, or where archers used flying arrows against them. Even if eagles could foresee threats against their young, whether from climbing snakes or from certain humans, whether for sport or for some other need, they would not have known where the threats would come from. And simply put, no animal would ever be caught by humans as if they were more divine and wiser than humans.

Book 4, Section 91

But even if birds fight among themselves, as Celsus says, the prophetic birds and other irrational animals have a divine nature and knowledge of the divine and foresight about future events. The sparrow would not have foreseen where a dragon would come to destroy it and its young, nor would the dragon have been protected from being caught by the eagle. For the wonderful poet Homer speaks of such things: there, a great sign appeared—a dragon on the back of a daffodil, terrifying, and the Olympian sent it forth, rushing towards the altar.

There were young sparrows there, innocent chicks, resting on the very top of the branches, eight in total. But the mother was there, who had given birth to the chicks. There, the dragon devoured the pitiful chirping ones, while the mother, mourning for her dear chicks, was fluttering around, distressed. When it had eaten both the chicks and the mother, the god placed the notable one, as I said; for the son of Cronus placed it in the ground.

We stand amazed at how it happened. As terrible creatures of the gods entered the sacrifices, concerning the second, a bird came to them, a high-flying eagle, bringing a red dragon with its claws, alive and struggling. The eagle did not forget the joy. For it struck him in the chest from behind; he fell down from another place. Suffering from pain, he fell into the crowd; but he himself cried out and flew away on the breath of the wind. The Trojans shivered when they saw a swift serpent lying among them, a monster of Zeus, the Aegis-bearer.

So was the eagle prophetic, and the dragon, since the augurs use both of these animals, was not prophetic? And since the distinction is easy to prove, could it not be shown that both are prophetic? For if the dragon was prophetic, it would not have allowed these things to happen to it by the eagle. There are many other examples like this, showing that the animals do not have a prophetic soul within themselves.

But according to the poet and many humans, the Olympian sent it forth, and according to some sign, Apollo uses a messenger bird; for the "kirkos" is said to be "the swift messenger of Apollo."

Book 4, Section 92

According to us, there are some evil demons, which I will call titanic or giant, who are disrespectful towards the true divine and the angels in heaven. They have fallen from heaven and are involved with the heavier and unclean bodies on earth. They have some ability to see the future. Being stripped of earthly bodies, they engage in such work, wanting to lead the human race away from the true god. They take on the most predatory and wild animals and use them to achieve their goals.

When they want, they turn the imaginations of such animals towards flights and movements like these, so that humans, caught up in the irrational animals, do not seek the god who encompasses all nor examine pure piety. Instead, they fall into reasoning about the earth and the birds, dragons, and even foxes and wolves. For it has been observed that the clearest prophecies come through such animals.

Since the demons cannot act through the tamer animals to the same extent, they do so through the similar nature of evil. They do not have true evil within them, but they act through the evil that exists in such animals.

Book 4, Section 93

Therefore, if I have marveled at anything else about Moses, I find this kind of wonder to be worthy: he understood the different natures of animals and learned from the divine about them and their related demons. He himself, rising in wisdom, declared that all the animals considered unclean by the Egyptians and other humans are unclean, while those that are not like this are pure.

Among the unclean animals listed by Moses are the wolf, the fox, the dragon, the eagle, the hawk, and others like them. And in both the law and the prophets, you would find these animals taken as examples of the worst, and never would a wolf or a fox be named for something good. It seems that each type of animal has a certain association with demons.

Just as among humans, some humans are stronger than others, not always because of their character. In the same way, demons can be stronger than other demons. These demons use these animals to deceive humans according to the will of the one called "the ruler of this age," while others reveal themselves through different forms.

And see how filthy the demons are. Just as some use a crow to show what is to come. You should judge for yourself which is better to accept, since the god above all and his son move the birds and other animals for divination. Or are those who move such animals, without humans present, evil demons, as our sacred writings call them, "unclean"?

Book 4, Section 94

If the soul of birds is divine because they predict the future, how can we not say that the souls of humans, from whom omens are taken, are also divine? Therefore, there was a divine presence in the "plowwoman" mentioned by Homer, speaking about the suitors: "At last, they will feast here." She was indeed divine, but Odysseus, who was a friend of Homeric Athena, was not divine. However, he rejoiced at the omens spoken by the divine plowwoman, as the poet says: "Divine Odysseus rejoiced at the omen."

Now see, if birds have a divine soul and sense the divine, as Celsus names it, then we humans, sneezing, are also touched by some divinity and prophecy regarding our own souls. This is confirmed by many. That is why the poet says: "He flew, praying." And Penelope says: "Do you not see? The one who flew over me with your words?"

Book 4, Section 95

But the truly divine knowledge about the future is not used by irrational animals or by random humans, but by the holiest and purest souls of humans, which are inspired by the divine and made into prophets. Therefore, if anything else is wonderfully said in the law of Moses, it should be noted that "you shall not practice divination or observe omens," and elsewhere, "for the nations, whom the lord your god will destroy before you, listen to omens and divinations; but the lord your god has not allowed you to do so." Then it continues, "The lord your god will raise up for you a prophet from among your brothers."

At one time, god wanted to turn people away from divination, so he made a spirit in the diviner say, "For there is no divination in Jacob, nor is there any fortune-telling in Israel; at the right time it will be said to Jacob and Israel what god will accomplish." Knowing these things, we want to keep the commandment that is said in secret: "Keep your heart with all vigilance," so that no demons take control of our guiding spirit or turn our imagination toward what they desire.

We pray that "the light of the knowledge of the glory of god" may shine "in our hearts," as the spirit of god dwells in us and shows us the things of god; for "those who are led by the spirit of god are the children of god."

Book 4, Section 96

It is necessary to know that predicting the future is not always divine. By itself, it is a middle ground and can lead to trivial and foolish things. Even doctors can predict something from their medical knowledge, even if they have a low character. In the same way, sailors can predict storms and changes in the weather based on experience and observation. No one would say that they are divine just because they can predict such things, especially if they have a bad character.

Therefore, what Celsus says is false: how could anyone claim that predicting the future is more divine than it actually is? It is also false to attribute divine meanings to many animals. For none of the irrational creatures have any understanding of god. It is also false to say that irrational animals are closer to the divine. Even among humans, those who are still lowly, even if they make great progress, are far from the divine.

Only those who are truly wise and sincerely pious are closer to the divine. This includes the prophets among us and Moses. The word has testified that because of his great purity, "Moses alone approached god, but the others did not approach."

Book 4, Section 97

How can it be said that irrational animals are not only wiser than humans but also more beloved by god? And who would not be turned away when a person says that a dragon, a fox, a wolf, an eagle, and a hawk are more beloved by god than humans? It follows that if these animals are more beloved, then surely Socrates, Plato, Pythagoras, and Pherecydes, and others praised by theologians, are more beloved than these animals.

If someone were to pray, saying, "If these animals are more beloved than humans, may I become beloved like them and be equal to those among you who are the most beloved," who would not wish to be closer to those they believe to be more beloved? Celsus claims that the conversations of irrational animals are holier than ours, but he does not present this history to the random people; rather, he presents it to the wise. The wise are truly those who are serious, for no lowly person is wise.

He says that among humans, the wise are those who are like those animals, clearly indicating that they are holier than ours. They seem to know what is said and show through their actions that they are not ignorant when they say that the birds predict something and will do this or that, demonstrating what they have already predicted.

In truth, no wise person has recorded such things, nor has any wise person said that the conversations of irrational animals are holier than those of humans. If we consider what follows from Celsus, it is clear that the conversations of the revered Pherecydes, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, and the philosophers are holier than those of irrational animals, which is not only obvious but also absurd.

To believe that we can learn from the sound of birds that they will do this or that is to say that humans are symbolically shown by demons to be deceived and to have their minds pulled down from heaven and god to the earth and even lower.

Book 4, Section 98

I do not understand how Celsus heard about elephants swearing oaths and that they are more trustworthy toward our divine matters and have knowledge of god. For I know many wonderful things about the nature of animals and their domestication. However, I am aware that elephants have been said to become wild against humans after having been domesticated, and because of this, they were condemned to be killed as no longer useful.

Then, if he thinks that storks are more pious than humans based on their behavior, he should know that this is not due to any reasoning or understanding but comes from their nature. If the nature that creates them wanted to make them an example among irrational animals, it would be to show humans how to repay kindness to those who have given them life.

If Celsus knew how much difference there is between doing these things rationally and naturally, he would not have said that storks are more pious than humans. Furthermore, as he stands for the piety of irrational animals, he brings up the Arabian creature, the phoenix. He tells of it living in Egypt for many years, bringing its dead father and burying him in a sphere of myrrh, and placing it where the temple of the sun is. This may be a story, but if it is true, it is also natural, and it shows the divine care and the variety of creatures in the world.

He even suggests that there is a unique creature. To make this remarkable, it is not the creature itself that is to be admired, but the one who created it.

Book Five

Since Celsus claims all these things, it cannot be said that everything is made for humans, just as it cannot be said for lions, eagles, or dolphins. Rather, the world is a complete and perfect work of god made from all things. Everything is measured by this, not by one another, unless it is something extra, but by the whole. God cares for the whole, and this care never fails, nor does it become worse over time. God does not turn back to himself because of humans, just as he does not for monkeys or mice. He does not threaten them, as each has its own share in the whole.

I think it has been shown from what has been said how everything is made for humans and for every rational being. For everything has been created for the rational animal. Celsus may say that this is not for humans, nor for lions, nor for those he names. But we will say that the creator did not make these things for lions, eagles, or dolphins, but for all through the rational animal, so that the world may be a complete and perfect work of god.

For this reason, it should be agreed that it is well said. God cares not only for the whole but also for every rational being in particular. And he will never fail to care for the whole; for even if something bad happens because a rational part of the whole sins, he makes it pure again and turns the whole back to himself over time.

But he does not get angry for the sake of monkeys or mice. For humans, however, he brings about punishment and correction because they violate natural causes, and he threatens them through prophets and through the savior who came to all humanity. This is so that those who hear may turn back, while those who neglect the words of turning back may pay the proper penalties, which it is fitting for god to impose according to his own benefit for the whole.

But since we have taken up the description of the fourth book, we will pause our discussion here. May god grant through his son, who is the divine word, wisdom, truth, and justice, and all that the sacred scriptures say about him, to begin us on the fifth book for the benefit of those who will engage with it and to guide it with his word into our souls.

Book 5, Section 1

We do not pursue the forbidden long-windedness, from which there is no escape from "sin," but we begin the fifth book against Celsus, holy Ambrose. We will try with all our strength not to let anything he has said go unchallenged, especially in areas where he has accused us or the Jews reasonably.

If it were possible to enter the awareness of all those who encounter his writing and draw out each arrow, piercing the one who is not fully protected by the armor of god, and to apply a logical remedy, healing the wound from Celsus, so that those who pay attention to his words do not remain "healthy in faith," we would have accomplished that.

Since this is the work of god, he invisibly dwells according to his spirit with the spirit of Christ where he judges it necessary to dwell. For us, through words and writings, we are trying to confirm humans, and it is necessary to do everything to ensure that workers are unashamed, rightly dividing "the word of truth."

It seems to us that we should also resolve the plausible arguments of Celsus as much as we can, faithfully doing what you have commanded. Let us set forth the following words of Celsus, to which we have responded (and let the one encountering judge if we have overturned them), and let us bring forth our responses to them.

May god grant that our mind and word are not bare and naked of divinity, but may they become what is presented, "so that the faith" of those we pray for may be benefited. "Let there be no wisdom of men," but let us take "the mind of Christ" from the one who gives it, the father, and with the help of the participation in the word of god, let us bring down "every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of god" and the opinion of Celsus, both against us and against our Jesus, and also against Moses and the prophets.

So that the one giving "the word to those proclaiming with great power" may also grant us this and give us much strength, let faith come to those engaging in the word and power of god.

Book 5, Section 2

Now it is necessary to turn over his statement: "God, O Jews and Christians, no one, neither a son of god, has come down or will come down." If you say some angels, which ones do you call them, gods or some other kind? Perhaps you mean the demons.

In response to this, since many of these things have already been said to Celsus before, it is not necessary to discuss them further; for what has been said is enough for us. We will explain a few things from many, which we think are related to what has been previously mentioned, but do not have the same understanding as those.

We will show that, in general, it has been stated that no one has come down to humans or taken away a son of god, and that the many things praised about god's appearances have been mentioned above. For if it has been said that no one has come down, then it is clear that the existence of gods on earth, having come down from heaven, is denied.

Either they would prophesy to humans or heal through oracles, and neither Apollo nor Asclepius nor any other of the established gods would do such things if they had come down from heaven. Or if they were gods, they would always have to dwell on earth and, as it were, flee from the place of the gods, or they would be among those who do not have the authority to share in the divine things there.

Or are Apollo and Asclepius and all those who are believed to do something on earth not gods, but rather some demons, who are among wise humans and are much inferior to those who ascend to the heights of heaven because of their virtue?

Book 5, Section 3

See now that the one who wishes to take away our beliefs, without agreeing throughout the whole writing, is shown to be an Epicurean, fleeing to Epicurus.

It is time for you, encountering the words of Celsus and agreeing with what is presented, either to deny that god dwells among humans or to claim that Celsus is making a false statement. If you deny all providence, you will falsify his words, in which he places gods and providence, so that you can say these things are true.

But if you do not deny providence, as you do not agree with Celsus saying that neither god nor a son of god has come down to humans, why do you not carefully examine what has been said about Jesus and the prophecies concerning him? Who should be considered to have come down to humans, the one who has arranged and done so much, Jesus, or those who, under the pretense of oracles and prophecies, do not correct the morals of those being healed and further lead them away from sincere and pure respect for the creator of all things, while pretending to honor many gods instead of the one true and clear god?

Book 5, Section 4

After this, when the Jews or Christians are asked about those who come down to humans, they say they are angels. He says, "If you say some angels, which ones do you call them, gods or some other kind?" Then, as if responding, he suggests that perhaps they mean the demons.

Let us consider this. We indeed say that angels are "ministering spirits" sent "to serve those who will inherit salvation." They ascend, bringing the prayers of humans to the purest heavenly places, or even to those places that are more divine. They descend again, bringing to each person according to their worth something from god to serve those who are being helped.

These angels, having learned from their work, we find are called "gods" in the sacred writings, but not in a way that they should be worshipped or honored instead of god. For every request, prayer, and thanksgiving should be offered to the one true god through the high priest of all angels, who is alive and divine.

We will also pray to this word, and we will make requests and give thanks, if we can understand the true meaning and use of prayer.

Book 5, Section 5

It is unreasonable to call them angels without understanding their role concerning humans. To ensure that the knowledge about them is truly amazing and beyond words, this knowledge, by presenting their nature and the roles each one has, will not allow anyone else to pray to anyone but the one who is above all, the true god, through our savior, the son of god.

He is the "word," wisdom, truth, and all the other things that the writings of the prophets of god and the apostles of Jesus say about him. It is enough for us that the holy angels of god are there and do everything for us, as our disposition toward god, as much as human nature can, imitates their intention, mimicking their god.

Our understanding of the son, the word, is not opposed to the greater understanding of the holy angels, but rather strives toward that greater clarity and structure. Celsus, not having read our sacred writings, responds to himself as if we say that some other kind comes from god, calling the angels who come down to help humans demons, as if it is reasonable to say this.

He does not see that the name of demons is not the same as that of humans, where some are noble and some are base. The name of the gods is not assigned to the base but to the truly divine and blessed. The name of demons is always placed outside the more substantial powers, leading humans astray and pulling them away from god and the heavenly things toward earthly matters.

Book 5, Section 6

After this, he presents a statement about the Jews. First, it is worth wondering about the Jews: if they honor the sky and the angels in it, the most sacred and powerful parts, but they also refer to the sun, moon, and the other stars, both fixed and wandering, as if the whole is god but the parts are not divine.

Either they are blinded by some kind of dark magic or they are misled by vague dreams, thinking they are truly religious, while they ignore those who clearly and brightly prophesy, through whom they receive rain, warmth, clouds, and thunder, which they worship, as well as lightning and all the fruits and offspring, through which they believe they uncover god. They consider the most visible of the heavenly messengers, the truly heavenly angels, as nothing.

It seems to me that Celsus is confused and has misunderstood what we say. It is clear to those who examine the Jews and connect them with the Christians that the Jews, following the law, say from the presence of god: "You shall have no other gods besides me; you shall not make for yourself an idol or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them."

They honor nothing but the one true god, who made the heavens and everything else. It is clear that those who live according to the law, honoring the creator of the heavens, do not worship the sky itself, nor do they worship the angels in heaven. Similarly, they do not bow down to the sun, moon, or stars, avoiding the worship of the sky and the angels in it, obeying the law that says, "And do not lift your eyes to heaven and see the sun, moon, and stars, all the host of heaven, and be led astray to bow down to them and serve them, which the Lord your god has allotted to all the nations."

Book 5, Section 7

But even he himself, as if the Jews think of the sky as god, brings up this as strange, accusing those who worship the sky but not also the sun, moon, and stars, saying that the Jews do this as if it is possible for the whole to be god but its parts not to be divine.

He seems to suggest that the sky could be called god, and that parts of the sky, like the sun, moon, and stars, are divine. However, neither the Jews nor the Christians clearly say that the sky is god. But let it be said by the Jews that the sky is a god, and let the sun, moon, and stars be parts of the sky (which is not entirely true, as neither the animals nor the plants on the earth are parts of the earth).

So, according to the Greeks, if something whole is god, then its parts must also be divine. They clearly say that the whole universe is god, with the Stoics saying it is the first god, those from Plato saying it is the second, and some of them saying it is the third.

So, according to such people, since the whole universe is god, then its parts are also divine. This means not only humans but also all irrational animals are divine parts of the universe, along with plants. If parts of the universe include mountains, rivers, and seas, then since the whole universe is god, are the rivers and seas also gods?

But the Greeks would not say this either. They would say that those who oversee rivers and seas (whether they call them demons or gods) are the ones they would consider gods. And Celsus' argument becomes universal and applies to the Greeks, who introduce providence.

It is false to say that if something is whole and is god, then all its parts are divine. Following Celsus' reasoning, if the universe is god, then everything in it must be divine, as parts of the universe. According to this, even tiny creatures like flies, worms, and all kinds of snakes, as well as birds and fish, would be divine, which even those who say the universe is god would not claim.

Those Jews who live according to the law of Moses, even if they do not know anything about hidden teachings in the law, will not say that the sky is god or that the angels are.

Book 5, Section 8

Since we say that he is confused by some misunderstandings, let us also clarify these points as best as we can. Celsus thinks that worshiping the sky and the angels in it is Jewish, but this is not truly Jewish; rather, it goes against Judaism, just like worshiping the sun, moon, and stars, as well as images.

You will find in Jeremiah the word of god, where the prophet rebukes the Jewish people for worshiping such things and offering sacrifices to "the queen of heaven" and "all the host of heaven." The words of Christians also accuse the Jews of sinning, saying that when god abandoned that people for certain sins, they sinned against him.

In the Acts of the Apostles, it is written about the Jews that "god turned and gave them over to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the prophets: 'You did not bring me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness for forty years, O house of Israel, and you took up the tent of Moloch and the star of your god Rephan. The images you made to worship them.'"

And Paul, after being educated as a Jew and later becoming a Christian through a remarkable appearance of Jesus, says similar things in his letter to the Colossians: "Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from god."

But Celsus, whether he has read these or learned them, does not understand how he has made it seem that the Jews are not breaking the law by worshiping the sky and the angels in it.

Book 5, Section 9

Moreover, being confused and not carefully observing the local customs, he thought that the Jews were led to worship the angels in heaven by certain magical chants and spells. He did not see that this is also against the law, which says: "You shall not follow mediums or necromancers; do not seek them out to be made unclean by them; I am the Lord your god."

Therefore, it would be better not to attribute such practices to the Jews who keep the law and say they live according to it, or to show that such things are done by those Jews who break the law. But again, just as those who worship in darkness and through magic are breaking the law, those who sacrifice to the sun, moon, and stars are also clearly breaking the law.

It is not right to say that the Jews who keep the law worship the sun, moon, and stars, while those who do not keep the law worship the sky and the angels.

Book 5, Section 10

If we need to defend ourselves, we say that we do not worship angels, the sun, the moon, or the stars, nor do we worship the so-called visible gods recognized by the Greeks. We will say that the law of Moses clearly forbids these practices, stating that they were given by god to "all the nations under heaven," but not to those who were chosen by god above all the nations on earth.

It is written in Deuteronomy: "And do not lift up your eyes to heaven and see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, and be drawn away and worship them and serve them, which the Lord your god has allotted to all the nations under heaven. But the Lord your god has taken you and brought you out of the iron furnace, out of Egypt, to be a people for his own possession, as it is this day."

The Hebrew people are called "a chosen generation," "a royal priesthood," "a holy nation," and "a people for his own possession," as it was said to Abraham by the voice of the Lord: "Look toward heaven and number the stars, if you are able to number them. So shall your offspring be."

They were not meant to hope that they would worship those in heaven like the stars, but rather to be like those who understand and keep the law of god. It is also said to them: "The Lord your god has multiplied you, and behold, you are today as numerous as the stars of heaven."

In the book of Daniel, it is prophesied about the resurrection: "And at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt; and those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky above, and those who turn many to righteousness like the stars forever and ever."

Thus, Paul, speaking about the resurrection, says: "There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory."

Therefore, it would not be reasonable for those who have been taught such great things to worship all created things and hope for the best from god in the best life, while hearing that "you are the light of the world" and "let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven."

They should strive to have the bright and everlasting wisdom, or even having it as a "reflection" of "the light of the eternal," and not be dazzled by the visible light of the sun, moon, and stars to such an extent that they think they are beneath them, having such a great light of knowledge and "true light" and "light of the world" and "light of men," and worship those.

If they were to worship, it should not be for the marvelous visible light admired by many, but for the intellectual and true light, if indeed the stars in heaven are rational and important beings, illuminated by the light of knowledge from wisdom, which is "a reflection" of "the eternal light."

For the visible light of those stars is the work of the creator of all things; the intellectual light perhaps comes from them and from the free will within them.

Book 5, Section 11

It is not right to worship the one who sees and understands the true light, which he shares in, nor to worship the Father of the true light. About this, it is well said: "God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all." Just as those who worship the visible and heavenly light, like the sun, moon, and stars, would not worship a spark of fire or a lamp on earth, seeing the great difference between what is worthy of worship and the light of sparks and lamps, so those who understand how "God is light" and realize that the Son of God is "the true light" that "gives light to everyone coming into the world," would not reasonably worship a mere spark as if it were the true light of God over the sun, moon, and stars.

They do not dishonor such creations of God, nor do they say, like Anaxagoras, that the sun, moon, and stars are "a fiery mist." Instead, they recognize the great superiority of God's divine nature and even of his only-begotten Son over the rest. They believe that the sun, moon, and stars should pray to the one true God through his only-begotten Son, and we think it is unnecessary for them to pray to those who are praying. For they themselves wish to lift us up more to God, to whom they pray, or to bring us down to themselves or to share our prayer power from God with themselves.

I will also use an example about them: Our Savior and Lord once heard someone say, "Good teacher," and he directed the speaker's attention to his own Father, saying, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except one, God the Father." If the Son, being an "image" of God's goodness, said this, how much more would the sun say to those who worship it: "Why do you worship me? For you shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve," to whom I and all who are with me also worship and serve.

Even if someone is not of such greatness, they should still pray to the word of God, who is able to heal them, and even more so to his Father, who sent his word to heal and rescue the righteous from their corruption.

Book 5, Section 12

God, in his goodness, does not come down to humans in a local way, but in a caring way. The Son of God is not only with his own disciples at that time but is always with them, fulfilling the promise: "Behold, I am with you all the days until the end of the age." If "a branch cannot bear fruit unless it abides in the vine," it is clear that the disciples of the word, the "branches" of the true vine of the word, cannot bear the fruits of virtue unless they remain in the true vine, which is Christ of God, and with us who are here on earth. He is with those who are everywhere connected to him, and even with those who do not know him, he is still present.

John, who wrote the Gospel, indicates this through the words of John the Baptist, saying: "There stands among you one whom you do not know, coming after me." It is strange that the one who fills heaven and earth says, "Do I not fill heaven and earth? says the Lord," while being with us and near us (for I believe him when he says: "I am a God who is near, and not a God who is far away"). It is not right to seek to pray to the sun, moon, or any of the stars that do not reach everywhere.

Let me use the words of Celsus, who claims that rain, warmth, clouds, and thunder are the sun, moon, and stars. If these things are prophesying, should we not worship and honor God, to whom they serve as prophets, more than we honor the prophets themselves? Let the stars and all creation prophesy, but we will not worship those who worship, just as we do not worship Moses and those who prophesied greater things than rain, warmth, clouds, thunder, and lightning.

Even if the sun, moon, and stars have prophecies greater than rain, we will still worship the Father of those prophecies and the word of God who serves them. Even if they are his true heavenly messengers, how much more should we worship the God they proclaim and the one they announce rather than the messengers and angels themselves?

Book 5, Section 13

Celsus takes for himself that we consider the sun, moon, and stars to be nothing. About these, we admit that they also "await the revelation of the sons of God," being subjected to the "vanity" of physical bodies in the present, "because of the one who subjected them in hope." If Celsus had read other things, he would understand that all we say about the sun, moon, and stars, and the phrases "Praise him, all you stars and light" and "Praise him, you heavens of heavens," would not lead him to conclude that we say these things to declare that God is nothing.

Celsus does not know that "the creation waits eagerly for the revelation of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to vanity, not willingly, but because of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from the bondage of decay into the glorious freedom of the children of God."

And with this, let our defense about not worshiping the sun, moon, and stars come to an end. We will also take up the following words, so that after this, with God's help, we may speak of the truths given to us from the light of truth.

Book 5, Section 14

Celsus says that it is foolish to think that when God brings fire like a cook, everything else will be cooked, but only humans will remain, not just the living but even those who have long since died, rising from the earth with their old bodies. This is a hopeless thought. For what kind of human soul would desire a decayed body? Since this belief is shared by some Christians, it shows how very filthy and disgusting it is, and how impossible it is to explain. What kind of body, completely decayed, could return to its original nature, the very nature from which it was released, its first composition?

Having nothing to answer, they escape into the most absurd reasoning, claiming that everything is possible for God. But God cannot do anything shameful or contrary to nature. Even if you desire something disgusting because of your own wickedness, God cannot make it happen, and you should believe right away that it will not happen. For God is not the leader of a sinful desire or a chaotic nature, but of a right and just nature.

And while the soul could provide eternal life, as Heraclitus says, "the dead are more worthless than dung." God will neither wish nor be able to declare a body, filled with things that are not even good to mention, to be eternal. For he is the reason of all that exists; therefore, he cannot do anything unreasonable or work against himself.

Book 5, Section 15

Look here, then, from the beginning, how some Greeks, who have not thought lightly about philosophy, bring in the idea of the world's burning with mockery, trying to make us seem like cooks who bring fire to the world. They do not see that, just as it seemed to some Greeks (perhaps taken from the very ancient nation of the Hebrews), fire is brought to the world for purification. It is likely that it also serves each of those in need of justice and healing through fire.

For those who do not have the needed material, the fire will burn them but not consume them. And for those who are involved in actions, words, and thoughts, it will burn and consume them, like wood, hay, or stubble that they have built. The divine words say that the Lord will "come like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap," to each of those in need, because it mixes like a worthless melted material from evil.

When speaking of fire, I mean the kind that refines metals like bronze, tin, and lead. And this can be learned from the prophet Ezekiel. That we do not say that God brings fire like a cook, but as a benefactor to those in need of help and fire, the prophet Isaiah also testifies when he says to a sinful nation, "For you have coals of fire; sit upon them; they will be your help."

The argument is arranged to fit the scriptures, speaking wisely about the gloomy things in fear of those who cannot turn away from the pouring out of their sins. But even so, the one who keeps will find the end that comes from the gloomy and painful things for those who suffer.

It is enough for now to present from Isaiah: "For my name's sake, I will show you my anger, and I will bring my glorious things upon you, so that I do not destroy you." We have been forced to explain things that do not fit to those who simply believe and ask for the simplest words, so that we do not seem to leave Celsus's accusation unchallenged when he says, "When God brings fire like a cook."

Book 5, Section 16

From what has been said, it is clear to those who listen carefully how to respond to the idea that everything else will be burned up, but only humans will remain. It is not surprising if such thoughts are called "foolishness of the world," "worthless," "despised," and "nonexistent," which God chose to save those who believe in him through the foolishness of the message. For "the world did not know God through its wisdom," and it could not understand the things about the places or take the time to study the scriptures, even though Jesus said, "Search the scriptures."

Perhaps it is fitting to speak in a way that matches the childishness of those who are like children, turning them toward better things. In this way, the words call those who are foolish in the world, worthless, and despised to think about punishments, as they have no other way to turn back except through fear and imagination of punishments and the many evils they face.

Therefore, the message says that only those who have not tasted the fire and punishments will remain, those who are completely purified in their beliefs, morals, and leadership. But those who are not like this, needing the punishment through fire according to their worth, will find that there is a certain end that God will bring to those made "in his image" and who have lived contrary to the will of that "image."

And again, it is said that everything else will be burned up, but only humans will remain.

Book 5, Section 17

Then, listening to these things, it is clear to those who understand better how to respond to the idea that not only the living will be present during the time when the world will be weighed down by the fire of purification, but also those who have long since died. It is not to be thought lightly that the apostle of Jesus said, "Not all will sleep, but we will all be changed in an instant, in the blink of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."

He should have known what he meant by saying this, as he did not separate himself from the dead and those similar to him when he said, "And the dead will be raised incorruptible; and we shall be changed." To confirm such thoughts, the apostle wrote. I will present what I have from the earlier letter to the Corinthians and also from the earlier letter to the Thessalonians, where Paul says that as a living and awake person, different from those who have fallen asleep, he says, "For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will not precede those who have fallen asleep, for the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God."

Then again, knowing these things, he speaks of the dead in Christ, saying, "The dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air."

Book 5, Section 18

Since it has been mocked more than once, the preached resurrection of the flesh has been understood more clearly by those who are wiser. There is no need to repeat his words that have already been mentioned; let us also consider this issue. As in the defense of a foreign faith written for those who are still childish and tossed about by every wind of teaching, (in cunning) toward the method of deception, we will present a few thoughts from those who are able to understand.

Neither we nor the divine writings say that the dead will live again without any change toward the better, rising from the earth. But Celsus slanders us by saying this. For we hear many writings about the resurrection that rightly speak of God. It is enough for now to present Paul's words from the earlier letter to the Corinthians, where he says, "But someone will ask, 'How are the dead raised? With what body do they come?' Foolish one! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies; and what you sow is not the body that will be, but a bare seed, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. But God gives it a body as he wishes, and to each of the seeds its own body."

See how he says that "not the body that will be" is sown, but rather the bare seed that is thrown onto the ground, and God gives it "each its own body," as if it were to rise again, like a seed that has been thrown down and is raised as a stalk, or like a larger tree in an olive grove or some other fruit tree.

Book 5, Section 19

Therefore, God gives each one a body as he wishes," just as with the seeds that are sown, and also with those that are like seeds, when they die and at the right time are taken up, each one receiving a body according to its worth from God. We also hear from the teaching of many that there is a difference between what is sown and what is raised from it, as it says, "It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption; it is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.

Let the one who can still understand grasp what is meant by saying, "As is the earthly man, so are those who are earthly; and as is the heavenly man, so are those who are heavenly. And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly man."

Yet, wanting to keep some things hidden, the apostle speaks of matters that are not suitable for the simpler ones and the general audience who are being led toward the better through faith. Nevertheless, he was compelled later not to let us miss his words after saying, "Let us bear the image of the heavenly man," by adding, "This I say, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit incorruption."

Then, knowing that there is something hidden and mysterious in this place, as he should, he leaves behind in writing for those after him what has been said and adds, "Behold, I tell you a mystery," which is customary to reveal to those who are deeper and more mysterious, and are hidden from the many. Just as it is written in Tobit, "It is good to hide the king's secret," and also to reveal the glorious works of God in a fitting way.

Therefore, our hope is not in decaying flesh, nor does our soul long for the rotting body, but even if it desires a body due to local changes, the mind that has been trained understands the "wisdom" according to "the mouth of the righteous will meditate on wisdom," the difference of the earthly dwelling, in which is the tent, being destroyed and the tent in which "the righteous groan, being burdened," not wishing to be unclothed but to be clothed upon, so that "mortality may be swallowed up by life."

"For this is necessary," that all nature of the body should be corruptible, "this corruptible body" must "put on incorruption," and the other, being "mortal" and subject to the death that follows sin, must "put on immortality," so that when "this corruptible" "puts on incorruption and this mortal puts on immortality," then will be fulfilled what was long ago said by the prophets: the victory over death, as he who conquered us subjected himself to it, and from its sting, which stings the soul that is not everywhere sealed, inflicting wounds from sin.

Book 5, Section 20

But since our thoughts about the resurrection have been stated as far as necessary for the present (for we have discussed the resurrection in other places, examining the topic more thoroughly), we now need to reasonably address the points of Celsus. We should not think that the will of those wise men is to be represented by those who have more faith, nor should we expect anything from those who speak against the Christian message. Let us show that these men, not to be despised for their reasoning, are greatly revealing their thoughts about logic and dialectical arguments.

And if we must speak in humble and crude terms, it is better to use theirs than ours. They say that those from the Stoa teach that everything comes from a great fire and then is arranged in order, remaining unchanged from its previous arrangement. Those among them who were ashamed of the doctrine have said that there is a slight change and that it is very brief in the next period compared to the previous one.

These men say that in the next cycle, Socrates will again be the son of Sophroniscus and an Athenian, and that the woman Phainarete, married to Sophroniscus, will give birth to him again. Even if they do not name the resurrection, they clearly indicate that Socrates will rise again from seeds, and he will be formed again from Phainarete and raised in Athens, philosophizing just as he did before, unchanged from his earlier philosophy.

And Anytus and Meletus will again be the accusers of Socrates, and the council from the Areopagus will condemn Socrates. What is even more ridiculous is that Socrates will wear the same clothes as he did in the previous cycle, living in the same poverty and the same city of Athens as before. Phalaris will again be a tyrant, and his bronze bull will roar as it did before, condemned by the voices from within.

Alexander of Pherae will again be a tyrant, maintaining the same cruelty as before and condemning the same people as he did previously. And why should I conclude the doctrine about such things from those who have philosophized from the Stoa, not being laughed at by Celsus but perhaps even being honored, since he seems to think that Zeno is wiser than Jesus?

Book 5, Section 21

And those from Pythagoras and Plato may seem to maintain an unchanging world, but they fall into similar errors. For they say that the stars, arranged in certain cycles, have the same shapes and relationships to each other, and that everything on earth is the same as when the world contained the same arrangement of the stars. Therefore, according to this reasoning, when the stars return after a long period to the same relationships they had during Socrates' time, Socrates must again come into being from the same sources and experience the same things, being accused by Anytus and Meletus and condemned by the council from the Areopagus.

And the wise men of Egypt, teaching such things, are serious and are not laughed at by Celsus and those like him. But we, according to the relationship of the arrangements that are upon us, are organized by God, saying that everything is always led according to what is possible for the better, and knowing that the nature of what is upon us is subject to change (for nothing can exist that is completely unchanging from God), do not seem worthy of being called to account or examined.

Book 5, Section 22

Let no one suppose that when we say these things, we are speaking of those who are called Christians and who reject the doctrine of resurrection according to the scriptures. For they do not have any way to represent the grain that supposedly rises from a seed or any of the other things. As far as they are concerned, we believe that what is sown "is not made alive unless it dies," and that "it is not the body that will be formed" that is sown (for "God gives it a body as he wishes," raising it "in corruption" after it has been sown, raising it "in incorruption," and after it has been sown "in dishonor," raising it "in glory," and after it has been sown "in weakness," raising it "in power," and after it has been sown "a natural body," raising it "a spiritual body").

We uphold the will of the church of Christ and the greatness of God's promise, presenting it and not denying its power but also speaking about it. Knowing that even "heaven and earth" will pass away, and all that is in them, but the words concerning each one will remain as parts of the whole or as kinds of the "word that was in the beginning" with God, the word of God will never pass away. For we want to hear what was said: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."

Book 5, Section 23

We do not say that the decayed body returns to its original nature, just as the decayed "grain" of "wheat" does not return to the "grain" of "wheat." For we say that just as a stalk rises from the grain of "wheat," so there is a certain reason that lies within the body, from which, not being destroyed, the body is raised "in incorruption." However, those from the Stoa say that the completely decayed body returns to its original nature because of their established beliefs about unchanging cycles, and they claim that the first structure, from which it was released, will be reformed again, presenting these ideas as if they were necessary arguments.

And we do not retreat into the most absurd reasoning by saying that everything is possible for God; for we know that the all does not exist in what is nonexistent or in what cannot be thought. We also say that God cannot do anything shameful, since God will be able to not be God. For if God does something shameful, then God is not God. Since God does not want anything that is against nature, we clarify what is said: if someone speaks of evil as being against nature, we also say that God does not want things that are against nature, neither those that come from evil nor those that happen irrationally. But if things happen according to God's reason and will, it must be necessary that they are not against nature; for what is done by God is not against nature, even if it may seem strange or paradoxical to some.

If we must speak forcefully, we will say that there is something beyond the common understanding of nature, which God could create, raising humanity above human nature and making it change to a better and more divine nature, and maintaining such a state, just as the one who is maintained by what he does shows that he wants to.

Book 5, Section 24

Once we say that God does not want anything unworthy of himself, it follows that he cannot be God if he does. We will say that if a person, out of their wickedness, desires something shameful, then God cannot desire that. Thus, we are not hostile towards what Celsus says, but rather, examining it honestly, we agree that God is not of a flawed desire or of a wandering chaos, but of a right and just nature, being the source of all that is good. We also acknowledge that he can provide an eternal life for the soul, and not only can he, but he does provide it.

Nothing troubles us more than what has been previously mentioned, nor what Heraclitus said, which Celsus quoted, that "the dead are more worthless than dung." However, one could also say about this that dung is worthless, but the dead, because of the soul that resides in them, are not worthless, especially if they are more refined. For according to the more refined laws, they are considered worthy of honorable burial. So that we do not insult the soul that resides in them, we cast away the body after it has departed, just as we do with the bodies of animals.

Therefore, let God not be said to bring forth anything eternal in a contradictory way, neither the "grain" of "wheat" nor anything sown "in corruption," but rather what is raised from it "in incorruption." But the word of all things is, according to Celsus, God himself; while according to us, it is his son. About whom we say, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." But also, according to us, God is not capable of doing anything contradictory or acting against himself.

Book 5, Section 25

Let us also look at the next statement of Celsus, which goes like this: The Jews, having become their own nation and establishing laws according to their region, still uphold these laws and their own religion, which is indeed ancestral, just as other people do with their own traditions, each one holding onto their own customs as they happen to be established. It seems that this is beneficial, not only because others have come to think differently and it is necessary to uphold what has been agreed upon in common, but also because, as is likely, the parts of the earth have been assigned to different overseers from the beginning and are governed by certain authorities.

Indeed, what each group does should be done correctly in accordance with what is dear to them; it would not be right to disturb what has been established from the beginning in certain places. In this, Celsus shows that the ancient Egyptians later became a distinct nation of Jews, and they establish and uphold these laws. To avoid repeating Celsus's previous statements, he also says that it is beneficial for the Jews to uphold their ancestral customs just like other nations do with their own.

He presents a deeper reason for why it is fitting for the Jews to maintain their customs, hinting that those who have received each law are overseers of the land, collaborating with the lawmakers who established those laws. It seems to indicate that there is someone or some group overseeing the land of the Jews and the nation upon it, under whom or by whom the laws of the Jews were established with the help of Moses.

Book 5, Section 26

And he says that the laws must be upheld, not only because others have come to think differently and it is necessary to keep what has been agreed upon in common, but also because, as is likely, the parts of the earth have been assigned to different overseers from the beginning and are governed by certain authorities. Then, as if forgetting what he said about the Jews, Celsus now praises all those who uphold their ancestral customs, saying that what each group does should be done correctly according to what is dear to them.

And see if it is not clear that the Jew wants to live according to his own laws without straying from them, as it would not be right to disturb what has been established from the beginning in certain places. For he says that it is not right to disturb what has been established from the beginning in certain places. I wanted to ask him or those who agree with him, who then is the one who assigned the parts of the earth to different overseers from the beginning, and clearly, who oversees the land of the Jews and the Jews themselves?

For, as Celsus would name it, did Zeus assign the Jewish nation and their land to someone, and did he want the one who received Judea to establish such laws among the Jews? Or did it happen contrary to his will? However he would answer, you see that the argument will become strained. If the parts of the earth are not assigned by one person to their overseers, then each one would have received their share of the land by chance, without any overseer. But this is also unreasonable and somewhat contradicts the care of God over all things.

Book 5, Section 27

And let him who wishes to explain how the parts of the earth are governed by their overseers do so. Let him also tell us how each group acts correctly according to what is dear to their overseers, and whether the Scythians or the Persians rightly say that it is acceptable to marry their mothers or their own daughters. And why should I choose from those who have discussed the laws among different nations how each group acts correctly according to what is dear to their overseers?

Let Celsus tell us how it is not right to disturb the ancestral laws about marrying mothers and daughters. Or is it considered blessed to escape life by hanging oneself, or to completely rid oneself by giving in to fire and the release from life through fire? And how is it not right to disturb the laws that say, for example, among the Taurians, that foreigners should be brought to the goddess Artemis, or among some Libyans, that children should be sacrificed to Cronus?

However, Celsus follows the idea that it is not right for the Jews to disturb their ancestral laws about not needing to worship any other god besides the creator of all things. According to him, what is considered right is not natural but based on some decree or belief. For it is considered right by some to worship a crocodile and eat what others worship, and for others to worship a calf, and for yet others to consider a goat a god.

Thus, he will act righteously according to these laws for some, but unrighteously towards others, which is the most unreasonable of all.

Book 5, Section 28

But it is likely that they will say it is right for one to uphold their ancestral customs and not at all wrong, since they do not keep the customs of others. Again, it seems that what is considered wrong by some is not wrong for others, when one group worships their own customs while another group has opposing laws.

Look at this and see if it does not show a great disturbance about what is just, holy, and pious, without any clear definition or nature that makes those who act according to it pious. If piety, holiness, and justice are related to something, then it is the same to be holy and unholy according to different relationships and laws.

See if it is not also true that temperance, courage, wisdom, and the other virtues will follow this same pattern. None of this would be more unreasonable. Therefore, standing in a simpler and more common position regarding Celsus's statements, we think that some deeper thoughts might be revealed here.

Let us risk sharing a few of these deeper ideas, having some secret and unspoken theory about how the parts of the earth have been assigned to different overseers from the beginning. And from the strange things mentioned, let us present as clearly as possible the argument.

Book 5, Section 29

It seems to me that Celsus has misunderstood some of the more secretive discussions about the distribution of the earth, which are somewhat touched upon by Greek history. This history introduces some of the so-called gods competing with each other in Attica, and it makes certain places more familiar to them according to the poets.

The history of the non-Greeks, especially that of the Egyptians, shows similar things about the division of the laws of Egypt, saying that the one who received the land of Saïs also has Attica. The Egyptian scholars say many such things, but I do not know if they also include the Jews and their land in this distribution.

However, regarding those outside of the divine word, we have said enough for now. We say that our prophet of God, the true servant of God, Moses, in the song of Deuteronomy, speaks about the division of the earth in this way: "When the Most High divided the nations, when he scattered the sons of Adam, he set the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the angels of God, and the portion of the Lord was his people Jacob, the share of his inheritance was Israel."

About the distribution of the nations, the same Moses says in the book of Genesis, in a historical manner: "And the whole earth had one language and one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt there." And after a little: "The Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the children of men built. And the Lord said, 'Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is what they begin to do, and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Come, let us go down and confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.' And the Lord scattered them abroad from there upon the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city. Therefore, its name is called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth, and from there the Lord scattered them abroad upon the face of all the earth."

And in the book of Wisdom attributed to Solomon, concerning wisdom and the languages that arose from the confusion, it is said: "This wisdom, even in the wickedness of the nations being confused, knew the righteous, and kept him blameless before God and strong in the compassion of his children."

There is much that is profound and secret about these matters, which fits the saying: "It is good to hide the king's secret," so that the discussion about souls does not fall into the ears of those who are not worthy, nor should the holy things be given to "dogs," nor should pearls be cast before swine. For such actions are impious, containing a betrayal of the hidden wisdom of God, about which it is well written: "Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sin."

It is enough to have mentioned these hidden things in a historical manner, so that those who are able may work on what pertains to the place.

Book 5, Section 30

Let all those on earth who use one divine language be aware, and let them maintain harmony with each other in this divine language. And let them remain unmoved "from the east," as long as they think of the things of light and the light from "the eternal light."

And when they move "from the east," thinking of things foreign to "the east," let them find "a plain in the land of Shinar," which is interpreted as a shaking off of the things that nourish them, and let them settle there. Then, wanting to gather the materials and join together what is not naturally joined to heaven, so that through the material things they may attack the immaterial, let them say, "Come, let us make bricks and burn them thoroughly."

Thus, while they are strengthening and binding the clay and the materials, and wanting to make bricks from clay, and to build "a city and a tower," which "will reach to the heavens," according to their lofty ambitions against the knowledge of God, let each one be given according to the measure of their "movement from the east," whether it is more or less than what they have become, and according to the measure of the construction of the bricks into stones and of the clay into asphalt, and of the building from these to angels, whether it is more or less difficult for them, until they pay the penalties for what they have dared.

And let each of those who have created their own language be led by the angels to the parts of the earth according to their own worth, some to the fiery land, others to the place that punishes those who dwell there because of the cold, and some to the less fertile land, while others go to the more fertile, and some to the land filled with beasts, while others go to the less populated land.

Book 5, Section 31

Then, if anyone can, as in a historical manner, showing some truth in itself and also something unutterable, let them see those who have kept the original language, remaining unmoved "from the east" in the east and in the eastern language. And let them understand that these alone have become the portion of the Lord and his people called "Jacob," and that they have also become "the share of his inheritance, Israel."

And let these alone be overseen by a ruler, not for punishment like the others under him. Let the one who is able see how, among men in their community, those appointed according to their different portions become guilty before the Lord, previously tolerable and such that they were not entirely worthy of being abandoned, but later more numerous and still tolerable.

And as this continues for a longer time, and as they always receive care and return from their lapses, let them see themselves left according to the measure of the sins of those who receive the other lands, previously punished less and paying their dues, as if being educated, returning to their own.

Later, let them see themselves being handed over to harsher rulers, as the scriptures might name them, first to the Assyrians and then to the Babylonians. Then, as treatments are offered, let them see that they are no less increasing in their sins and, because of this, being swept away by the rulers of the other nations to their other portions.

And the ruler over them will purposely overlook them being plundered by the rulers of the other nations, so that he himself, as if avenging himself, may take authority from the other nations as much as he can, and he will do such things, setting laws for them and showing them how to live, so that he may lead them to the end, as he had brought back those who did not sin from the previous nation.

Book 5, Section 32

And through this, let those who can see such things learn that the one who has received those who did not sin before is much stronger than the others. For he has been able to take a select portion from all and to separate them from those who are under punishment, bringing them in with laws and a way of life that leads to forgiveness for their previous sins.

But as we have said before, let these things be spoken of in secret. They present what the speakers have said about the parts of the earth being divided among different overseers, according to certain dominions, and that they are governed in this way. From these, Celsus has taken the words that are laid out.

But when those who moved "from the east" were handed over because of what they sinned, they fell into "a worthless mind" and "into passions of dishonor" and "in the desires of their hearts into impurity," so that, being filled with sin, they might hate it. We are not subject to Celsus, who claims that the overseers assigned to the parts of the earth act rightly for each, but we also want to do what is not pleasing to them.

For we see that it is holy to break the ancient laws according to places with stronger and more divine laws, which Jesus established as the most powerful, freeing us "from this present evil age" and "from the rulers of this age who are being abolished."

It is unholy not to submit oneself to the one who has been revealed and shown to be the purest and strongest of all. To him, God said, as the prophets foretold many generations ago: "Ask of me, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance and the ends of the earth as your possession." For he himself has become "our hope," of those from "the nations" who have believed in him and in his God, the Father of all.

Book 5, Section 33

These things have not only been said regarding the overseers assigned to us, but they also moderately address what Celsus has said about us. In which he states: "Let the second one go; I will ask them from where they come or what leader they have of ancestral laws." They will not say anyone, for those who have come from there, both they and their teacher and leader, do not bring them from anywhere else. Nevertheless, they have separated themselves from the Jews.

Therefore, we each have come "in the last days," when Jesus has appeared among us, to "the visible mountain of the Lord," the "word above all words," and to "the house of God," which "is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." And we see how this is built "on the tops of the mountains," on all the prophetic words, which are its foundation.

This "house" is lifted "above the hills," which seem to promise something exceptional among men in wisdom and truth. And we come "all the nations" to it, and we go to many nations, and we say to each other, urging towards the "godliness that has shone in the last days through Jesus Christ": "Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord and to the house of the God of Jacob. And he will teach us his ways, and we will walk in them."

For the "law" has gone forth from "Zion" and has been transferred to us spiritually. But also "the word of the Lord" has gone out from that "Jerusalem," so that it may be distributed everywhere and judge "among the nations," choosing those who are seen as obedient and rebuking "a great people," the disobedient.

And we say to those who ask us from where we come or what leader we have, that we have come to cut our "war swords" and "insulting" words into "plowshares," and we are transforming our previously fighting "spears into sickles." For we no longer take "a sword against a nation" nor do we learn "to fight anymore," becoming through Jesus the children of peace, who is our leader, instead of the ancestral ones, in which "we were strangers to the covenants," receiving a law, by which we acknowledge the grace of the one who has rescued us from deception, saying: "As our fathers falsely made idols, and there is no rain in them."

Therefore, our leader and teacher, having come out from the Jews, governs all with the word of his teaching, his own world. And having anticipated these things, we have turned over many of Celsus's words that we have overturned, connecting them to his laid out statements.

Book 5, Section 34

To not overlook what has been said in between regarding Celsus, let us also bring this forward. One might also use Herodotus as a witness to this, saying: "For those from the city of Mareis and Apis, who dwell in Egypt, consider themselves Libyans and not Egyptians, and being troubled by the religious practices, they do not want to work with female cattle. They sent to Ammon, claiming that they have nothing in common with the Egyptians, for they live outside the Delta and do not agree with them, wanting to have everything to themselves."

But God does not allow them to do this, saying that this is Egypt, which the Nile waters. And these are Egyptians, who live below the city of Elephantine and drink from this river. This is what Herodotus records.

But Ammon does not have any worse demons than the angels of the Jews; thus, it is not unjust for each to practice their own customs. We will find many differences among the nations, and yet each believes their own customs to be the best. The Ethiopians living in Meroë worship only "Zeus and Dionysus," while the Arabs worship Urania and Dionysus alone. The Egyptians worship all, both Osiris and Isis, while the Saïtes worship Athena, and the people of Naucratis, who have not long begun, named Sarapis, and the others according to their own laws.

Some abstain from sheep, considering them sacred, while others from goats, and some from crocodiles. But the Scythians think it is good to eat human flesh. The Indians are those who believe it is holy to eat their parents.

And somewhere, Herodotus says: I will again use his words for the sake

Book 5, Section 35

Because of these things, Celsus seems to argue that all people should live according to their ancestral customs, and he would not blame anyone for this. But Christians, leaving their customs and not belonging to any one nation like the Jews, are boldly adding to the teaching of Jesus.

So let him tell us whether those who study philosophy and teach will properly leave their customs, just as they would eat what is forbidden in their own homelands, or if they will act contrary to this. For if they do not keep their customs because of philosophy and teachings about superstition, and would eat what is forbidden to them by their ancestors, why should Christians not also choose not to care about idols and temples or the creations of God, but instead rise above and present their souls to the creator, doing what philosophers do without blame?

But if Celsus or those who agree with him say that one should keep their customs, it would be ridiculous to say that philosophers in Egypt should eat onions to keep their customs, or some parts of their bodies like the head and shoulder, so as not to violate what has been handed down by their ancestors.

And I am not even talking about the Egyptians who are horrified by the natural bodily functions, saying that if someone philosophizes and keeps their customs, they would be a foolish philosopher acting unphilosophically. Thus, the one who is led by the argument to honor the God of all and remains below with the idols and human-made temples, not wanting to rise to the creator, would be very similar to those who learn philosophy but fear what is not frightening and think that eating such things is impious.

Book 5, Section 36

Just as the Ammon of Herodotus is, Celsus has taken his words to prove that each person should keep their ancestral customs. For Ammon does not allow those from the cities of Mareis and Apis in Libya to be indifferent to the use of female cattle. This is not only naturally indifferent but also does not prevent something from being good and beneficial.

If Ammon forbade the use of female cattle because they are useful for farming and because they greatly increase their population, then his argument might have some weight. But now he simply wants them to keep the laws of the Egyptians regarding female cattle while drinking from the Nile.

In this, Celsus, while praising the angels among the Jews, said that they are not worse than Ammon in their ability to mediate for the demons. He did not examine their words and appearances to see what they want. For he would see that it is not "the cattle that concern God," where it seems laws are made about cattle or irrational animals, but rather what has been written for humans contains some natural reasoning about irrational animals.

Thus, Celsus says that it is not unjust for each person to practice their own customs. He also claims that the Scythians do nothing unjust when they eat humans according to their customs. And the Indians, who believe it is holy to eat their parents, are also not unjust according to Celsus.

Herodotus presents a saying that each should properly use their ancestral laws, and it seems to accept the Indians called Calatians, who eat their parents. When Darius asked how much they would pay to keep this law, they shouted loudly to praise him.

Book 5, Section 37

So there are two laws generally presented: one is the natural law, which God would legislate, and the other is the written law in the cities. It is good where the written law does not oppose the law of God, not to trouble the citizens under the pretext of foreign laws. But where the written law commands something contrary to the natural law, that is, the law of God, see if the argument does not choose to say that it is better to follow the written laws and the will of the lawmakers, but instead to give oneself to God the legislator and live according to his word, even if this must be done with dangers, countless labors, deaths, and disgrace.

For it is unreasonable for those who please God to follow other laws in the cities that are contrary to what pleases the creator of all. They should not despise actions that please the creator but choose those actions that will be unacceptable to God while being acceptable to human laws and their friends.

If it is reasonable to prefer the natural law, which is the law of God, over the written law that has been legislated by humans in opposition to the law of God, how much more should this be done in laws concerning God? And we will not worship only the gods of the Ethiopians, like Zeus and Dionysus, as they do, nor will we honor the Ethiopian gods in an Ethiopian way. We will not only consider Urania and Dionysus as gods like the Arabs do, nor will we consider them gods at all.

In these, the female and male are honored (for the Arabs worship Urania as female and Dionysus as male). Nor will we consider Osiris and Isis as gods like all Egyptians do. We will not classify them according to the Saïtes, who seem to honor Athena. And if the Naucratites have other gods they seem to honor, they worship Sarapis, who is new and has only recently begun to be worshiped. We will not say that we worship a new god who has never existed before or has not been known to humans.

For the son of God, the "firstborn of all creation," even if he has recently appeared in human form, is not new for that reason. For the divine words say that he is the oldest of all creations, and it has been said of him regarding the creation of man, "Let us make man in our image and likeness."

Book 5, Section 38

I want to show how Celsus wrongly claims that everyone should honor their own customs and traditions. He says that the Ethiopians living in Meroë know only two gods, Zeus and Dionysus, and that the Arabs also worship only these two, honoring Dionysus like the Ethiopians and Urania as their own. According to his history, neither the Ethiopians worship Urania nor the Arabs worship Zeus.

So, if an Ethiopian, due to some circumstance, is among the Arabs and is thought to be impious for not honoring Urania, would he choose to die rather than follow his ancestral customs and worship Urania? If he chooses to follow his customs, he would not be doing anything holy according to Celsus's words. But if he faces death, let him consider the reasonableness of choosing death. I do not know if, according to the teachings of the Ethiopians about the immortality of the soul and the honor of piety, they would worship the gods they believe in according to their ancestral laws.

The same can be said about the Arabs, who, when visiting the Ethiopians in Meroë, would not worship Zeus along with the Ethiopians. If they are thought to be impious for not honoring Zeus when facing death, what would they reasonably do, let Celsus say.

As for the myths about Osiris and Isis, it is too much for us to discuss them now, and it is not the right time. Even if the myths are changed, they will teach us to honor lifeless water and the earth that supports all living beings. For I think they take Osiris into water and Isis into the earth.

Regarding Sarapis, there is much and conflicting history, especially about how Ptolemy wanted to show a god to those in Alexandria through certain magical tricks. We read from Numenius the Pythagorean about his construction, that he shares in the essence of all living beings and plants governed by nature. This is to show that the gods are not only made by sculptors but also by magicians, herbalists, and the demons called forth by their spells.

Book 5, Section 39

Therefore, it is necessary to seek what is appropriate for a rational and living being, acting reasonably with both edible and inedible things. One should not worship sheep, goats, or female cattle out of superstition. It is reasonable to avoid these animals, for humans gain much benefit from them. It is also foolish to spare crocodiles and to consider them sacred to some mythological god; how could this not be the most foolish of all? For it is very unreasonable to spare animals that do not spare humans when they are in danger.

But Celsus seems to please those who, according to some customs, worship and spare crocodiles, and no argument has been written against them. Christians appear to be criticized for rejecting evil and turning away from evil deeds, while honoring and respecting virtue as something that comes from God and exists as the son of God.

Wisdom and justice should not be thought to be female just because of the feminine name; the son of God is wisdom and justice for us, as his true disciple stated, saying about him, "He became wisdom for us from God, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption."

If we say there is a second god, let it be known that we mean nothing other than the virtue that encompasses all virtues and the essence that contains all natural and prior things, which is useful for all things. This is the one we say is most closely related to Jesus, and we claim that he alone can fully share in the highest participation of self-knowledge, self-wisdom, and self-justice.

Book 5, Section 40

After Celsus has said such things about the different laws, he claims that Pindar rightly stated that there is a law that is king of all. Let us discuss this matter as well. What do you mean, Celsus, when you say there is a law that is king of all? If you mean the laws of the cities, that is a false claim; for not all are ruled by the same law. It should be said that laws are kings, for each nation has its own law that rules over it.

But if you are speaking of the true law, the natural law, this is the law that is the king of all. Even if some act like robbers and turn away from the law, they are living unlawfully and unjustly. Therefore, we Christians recognize the law that is the true king of all, which is the same as the law of God, and we strive to live according to it, rejecting those who do not follow the law.

Book 5, Section 41

Let us also look at what Celsus says next. In what he writes, there is very little about Christians and much more about Jews. He says, therefore, if the Jews were to strictly follow their own law, there would be no blame on them, but rather on those who abandon their own customs and pretend to be Jews.

If they think they are wiser and are proud of their separation from others, they have already heard that they do not even claim their own doctrine about the heavens, but, to put it broadly, they have accepted what the Persians have long believed, as Herodotus shows. "For they believe," he says, "that they ascend to the highest mountains to offer sacrifices to Zeus, calling the whole circle of heaven Zeus."

So, I do not think there is any difference in calling the Highest God either Zeus or Adonai or Sabaoth or Amun, as the Egyptians do, or Papaios, as the Scythians do. They would not be holier than others for these reasons.

That they practice circumcision; for the Egyptians and Colchians did this first. Nor is it because they avoid pigs; for the Egyptians do this too, and they also avoid goats, sheep, and cattle, and even fish, as Pythagoras and his followers do, along with all living creatures.

They do not seem to have any special favor from God or to be loved differently than others, nor do they send angels only to themselves from there. It is as if they receive some land of the blessed; for we see both them and the land they are thought worthy of.

This group, therefore, is full of arrogance, not knowing the great God, but being led by the magic of Moses and deceived by her, and they have not become disciples for good purposes.

Book 5, Section 42

It is clear that in these things, he accuses the Jews of falsely believing they are a chosen part among all nations of the God who is above all. He also charges them with arrogance, claiming they boast about the great God without truly knowing him, but instead being led by the magic of Moses and deceived by him, not having become disciples for good reasons.

From a certain point of view, he has mentioned the solemn and special way of life of the Jews, when they have the symbol of the city of God and its temple, along with the priestly worship at the altar. But if someone were to examine their thoughts and compare their way of life to that of other nations, they would find nothing more admirable than that among humans, all useless things for human nature are set aside, while only useful things are accepted.

Therefore, they did not have athletic contests, whether gymnastic, musical, or equestrian, nor did women sell their time to anyone who wanted to sow seeds in vain and insult the nature of human seeds.

What kind of teaching did they have about climbing high above all sensory things and not believing that God could be found anywhere in them? How much did they teach about the immortality of the soul and the judgments under the earth, and the honors for those who lived well? These things were still more mythical for children, and they were proclaimed to them, but now they seek the truth and want to advance in it, while the myths still hold them back, so that they might name it this way.

They were transformed into the hidden truth for them. I believe they rightly consider themselves a part of the divine, as if they have despised all divination that is useless for humans, and they have come from wicked demons rather than from a higher nature. They seek knowledge of what is to come in souls, having received a spirit of the God who is above all through complete purity.

Book 5, Section 43

But how is it reasonable that one who is driven by the same doctrines cannot be a slave for more than six years, and neither the master nor the slave does wrong? What should we say about this? Therefore, the Jews would not strictly follow their own law in the same way as other nations. For it is blameworthy for them to bring an accusation of insensitivity regarding the superiority of their laws. If they believed they were written the same as those of other nations.

And if Celsus does not want to admit it, the Jews are indeed wiser than many, even those who seem to be philosophers. For those who philosophize fall into idols and demons, while the Jews alone see the God who is above all. And they rightly honor this and turn away from the community of others who are impious and wicked.

And may it be that they do not err by breaking the law, having previously killed the prophets and later plotted against Jesus; so that we have an example of a heavenly city, which Plato sought to describe, but I do not know if he was able to do so as much as Moses did and those after him, raising a "chosen race" and a "holy nation," nurturing them with pure words free from all superstition.

Book 5, Section 44

Since Celsus wants to share the solemn laws of certain Jewish nations, let us also consider these things. He thinks that the doctrine about the heavens does not differ from that about God, and he says that the Persians perform sacrifices to Zeus in a similar way to the Jews.

Climbing to the highest mountains, he does not see that the Jews knew one God. Thus, they have one holy place for prayer, one altar for whole burnt offerings, one incense altar, and one high priest of God. Therefore, there was nothing in common between the Jews and the Persians, even when they climbed to the highest mountains and performed sacrifices, having nothing similar to the laws of Moses.

In this way, the Jewish priests served "as a copy and shadow" of the "heavenly things," telling about the law concerning sacrifices and what their symbols were. The Persians may call all the circle of heaven Zeus, but we do not say that Zeus or the heavens are God; we know that some lesser beings have ascended above the heavens and all sensory nature.

And so we understand the words: "Praise God, you heavens of heavens, and you waters above the heavens; let them praise the name of the Lord."

Book 5, Section 45

But since Celsus thinks that calling the highest God "Zeus," "Adonai," "Sabaoth," or, as the Egyptians do, "Amun," or, as the Scythians do, "Papaios," makes no difference, let us discuss these matters briefly, reminding ourselves of what has been said above regarding this issue.

Now we say that the nature of names does not have fixed laws, as Aristotle thinks. For the dialects among humans do not have their origin from humans, as is clear to those who can see the nature of chants, which are adapted to the various dialects and the different sounds of names from the ancestors of those dialects.

About this, we have already touched on briefly, saying that even when things are translated into another dialect, what is inherent in them cannot be fully expressed in that particular dialect, as it was in their original sounds. This is already found among humans; for the person called by a certain name in the Greek dialect would not be able to experience or act in the dialect of the Egyptians or Romans or any other, the same way they would be called in their original name.

But neither would the one originally called by the Romans, if we were to translate that into Greek, be able to perform what the chant claims to do, while keeping the first name assigned to them. If these things are true about human names, what should we think about the divine names that are referred to for any reason?

For it is said that the name of Abraham carries some meaning, and something is indicated by the name of Isaac, and something is shown by the name of Jacob. And if someone calls upon the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, what would this accomplish? Either through the nature of these names or their power, they would overcome demons and be subject to the one saying these things.

But if someone says, "the God of the father of the chosen one," "the God of laughter," and "the God of the heel," then this does nothing, as it has no power. Thus, even if we were to translate the name "Israel" into Greek or another dialect, we would accomplish nothing. But if we keep it, attaching it to those who are skilled in these matters, then something might happen according to the promise of such names from that particular sound.

We would say the same about the name "Sabaoth," which is often included in chants, that if we translate the name to "Lord of Hosts," "Lord of Armies," or "Almighty" (for the translators have taken it differently), we would accomplish nothing. But if we keep it in its original sounds, we might achieve something, as those skilled in these matters say.

We would say the same about "Adonai." Therefore, if neither "Sabaoth" nor "Adonai," when translated into what they seem to mean in Greek, accomplish anything, how much less would they accomplish if they think that calling the highest God "Zeus," "Adonai," or "Sabaoth" makes no difference?

Book 5, Section 46

Knowing these things and similar matters, Moses and the prophets forbid calling "the names of other gods" with our mouths, teaching that we should pray only to the one God and remember Him in our hearts, being taught to be pure from all vanity of thoughts and words.

And because of such things, we would rather endure any shame than confess Zeus as God. For we do not believe that Zeus and Sabaoth are the same, nor do we think that Zeus is divine at all; rather, he is a certain demon who is not a friend to humans or to the true God.

Even if the Egyptians threaten us with punishment for not calling Amun our God, we would rather die than call Amun a god, as he is likely regarded as a demon in some Egyptian chants. Let the Scythians say that Papaios is the God above all; we will not be convinced.

We place the God above all as a friend to those who inhabit the Scythian wilderness and do not name their God as Lord with the name Papaios. For the name of the God is different in Scythian, Egyptian, and every dialect, in which each person is raised.

One will not sin by naming Him.

Book 5, Section 47

The reason for the Jews' circumcision is not the same as the reason for the Egyptians' or Colchians' circumcision; therefore, they would not be considered the same practice. Just as the one who sacrifices does not sacrifice for the same reason, even if it seems like they are doing the same thing. And the one who prays does not pray for the same reason, even if they ask for the same things in their prayers.

In the same way, if someone is circumcised, it does not matter at all in relation to another's circumcision. For the intention, the law, and the will of the one performing the circumcision make the act different.

To understand this better, we should say that the name of justice is the same among all Greeks. However, it is shown that there is a different concept of justice according to Epicurus, another according to the Stoics, who deny the tripartite nature of the soul, and another according to Plato, who claims that justice is the proper functioning of the parts of the soul.

Thus, Epicurus' courage is different, as it involves enduring pain to avoid greater pain, while the Stoics define it as choosing all virtue. Plato's view is that it is a virtue of the spirited part of the soul, assigning it a place around the chest.

In this way, the circumcision of different groups would be different according to their teachings, and it is not necessary to discuss this in detail now. For those who wish to see what led us to this point, they should read about it in Paul's letter to the Romans.

Book 5, Section 48

Even if the Jews take pride in their circumcision, they separate it not only from the circumcision of the Colchians and Egyptians but also from that of the Ishmaelite Arabs, even though it comes from their ancestor Abraham, who was the father of Ishmael and was circumcised along with him. The Jews say that their circumcision on the eighth day is the earlier one, while the other is not the same due to circumstances.

And perhaps this was performed by an angel against the Jewish people, able to affect those who are not circumcised, but weakening those who are circumcised. This can be shown from what is written in Exodus, where the angel could act before the circumcision of Eliezer according to Moses, but after he was circumcised, he had no power.

And learning such things, "Zipporah took a flint and circumcised her son," according to the common translations, says, "The blood of my son's circumcision has stopped," but in the Hebrew, it says, "You are a bridegroom of blood to me." For she knew about the angel who could act before the blood and would stop because of the blood of the circumcision; hence, it was said to him, "You are a bridegroom of blood to me."

But these things seem to be more intricate and not according to the common understanding, so I will speak cautiously about them. For this angel could act against those who are not circumcised from the people and only against all those who honor the Creator. And he could do this to the extent that Jesus did not take on a body.

But when he took on a body and was circumcised, all power against those who are circumcised in this worship was removed from him; for Jesus took him down by his divine nature. Therefore, he told his disciples to be circumcised and said to them, "For if you are circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you."

Book 5, Section 49

But the Jews do not take pride in avoiding pigs as something great; rather, they have learned about the nature of clean and unclean animals and understand the reason for this, with pigs being classified as unclean. These were symbols until the coming of Jesus, after which it was said to his disciple, who did not yet understand the matter, "Nothing unclean or common has ever entered my mouth," and "What God has made clean, do not call common."

Therefore, it is not only for the Jews but also for us that the avoidance is not just of pigs but also of goats, sheep, cattle, and fish, as the Egyptian priests do. But since "it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person," and "food will not bring us closer to God," we do not think highly of not eating, nor do we come to eat out of gluttony.

For as far as it depends on us, those who follow Pythagoras and avoid living beings rejoice. But see also the difference in the reasons for avoiding living beings between those who follow Pythagoras and those among us who are ascetics. For they avoid living beings because of the myth about the soul being reincarnated; and who would be foolish enough to kill a beloved son while praying?

But even if we were to do such a thing, we would do it because we are suppressing "the body" and enslaving it, wanting to kill "the members that are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire." And we do everything to "put to death the deeds of the body."

Book 5, Section 50

Moreover, Celsus, speaking about the Jews, says that they do not have a special favor from God and are not loved differently than others. He claims that angels are sent only to them, as if they receive some share of a blessed land. For we see that they consider themselves worthy of this land.

We will also refute this by saying that the favor shown to this nation by God is evident from the fact that they call the one true God by a name that is foreign to our faith. And as they are favored, they have not been abandoned, even though they are few in number, being guarded by divine power, so that they did not suffer anything under Alexander the Great, even though they did not want to take up arms against Darius due to certain treaties and oaths.

At that time, they say that the high priest of the Jews, dressed in priestly garments, worshiped Alexander, who claimed to have seen a vision in his dreams promising him that he would conquer all of Asia.

We Christians say that the favor from God and the special love shown to them has completely happened to them, but this grace has now passed to us, as the power among the Jews has shifted to those from the nations who believe in Jesus. Therefore, many Romans, wanting to stop Christians, have not been able to do so; for there was a divine hand fighting for them, wishing to spread the word of God from one corner of the land of Judea to all of humanity.

Book 5, Section 51

But since we have spoken as much as we can against Celsus, who accuses the Jews and their teachings, let us now present the following points. We are neither boasting about knowing the great God nor practicing sorcery, as Celsus thinks. We have been guided by Moses and our Savior Jesus, and we listen to the good teachings of the God in Moses. We accept Jesus, who is testified to be the Son of God, hoping for the best if we live according to his word.

We will now go beyond what we have previously stated, teaching where we come from, who our leader is, and what the law from him is. If Celsus wants us to be no different from those who honor the goat, the ram, the crocodile, the bull, the river horse, the dog-headed man, or the cat, as the Egyptians do, he would know this himself if someone agrees with him about it.

But we, with all our strength, have defended the honor of Jesus against many before this, showing that we have found something better. And we alone present the pure and untainted truth against the falsehood in the teachings of Jesus Christ, not establishing ourselves but the teacher, who has been confirmed by God and by many prophetic words among the Jews and by the clarity of his teachings. For it is shown that he is not an atheist, being unable to deny such things.

Book 5, Section 52

If we want to examine Celsus's words now, this is how it stands: we will also leave aside what is said about the teacher. Let someone think that he is truly an angel. Did this one come first and alone, or were there others before him? If they say that he was alone, they would be proven wrong by their own lies. For they often say that others came too, and together there were sixty or seventy. These were said to be bad and were punished with chains in the land, where their tears became the hot springs.

Moreover, at the tomb of this one, an angel came, some say one, others say two, who answered the women that he had risen. For the Son of God, it seems, could not open the tomb himself but needed another to roll away the stone.

Also, an angel came to Mary while she was pregnant with the carpenter, and another angel came to take the child away to escape. And why should we go into detail about all this and list those sent to Moses and others? If others were sent, it is clear that this one was also sent by the same God.

It seems that he has something more to announce, as if he were warning against some Jews who are acting wrongly or corrupting true worship or doing something unholy; for these things are hinted at.

Book 5, Section 53

Therefore, what has been said about our Savior Jesus Christ is enough to respond to Celsus's words. And so that we do not seem to go beyond any part of his writing, as if we are unable to speak against him, let us say this: even if we are going to repeat ourselves, we are challenged by Celsus to examine the matter as thoroughly as we can, if something more clear or newer comes to light.

He claims to leave aside what Christians argue about the teacher, not leaving out anything he could say, which is clear from what has been said above. Otherwise, he follows a rhetorical approach that does such a thing. But also, that we are not being challenged about such a great Savior of ours, even if the accuser thinks he is debating, will be clear to those who sincerely and carefully encounter all the prophecies and writings about him.

Next, since it seems he speaks permissively about the Savior, saying that someone might think this angel is truly an angel, we say that we do not take this as a concession from Celsus. Instead, looking at his work, we see that he has been made known to all of humanity according to his own word and teaching, as each person approaches him.

This work, as the prophecy about him named it, was not simply that of an angel but of the "angel of the great council." For he announced to people the great will of God and the Father of all concerning them, showing them in pure worship how to rise through great deeds toward God, and not approaching as those who distance themselves from God and head toward destruction through their unbelief about God.

Then he continues: if this angel came to people, did he come first and alone, or were there others before him? And he thinks that many would respond to each, but none of those who truly call themselves Christians say that only Christ has been made known to humanity. Celsus also says that other people have seen him, if they claim that he was alone.

Book 5, Section 54

Then he answers himself, as he wishes: thus, it is not only he who is said to have been made known to humanity. For he claims that those who have turned away from the Creator under the pretense of the teaching of the name Jesus have come to a lesser god and have approached a greater god and father who has come among them, saying that some had come from the Creator to humanity before this.

Since we are examining the matter sincerely, we will say that the well-known Apelles of Marcion, who became the father of a certain heresy and thought the Jewish writings were a myth, claims that this one alone has come to humanity. Therefore, if he only says that Jesus has been made known from God to people, Celsus would rightly bring up the matter of others who have come, disbelieving.

As we said before, he refers to the more strange announcements of the Jewish scriptures. And much more, he will not pay attention to what seems to have been heard from those written in Enoch. Therefore, no one can prove us wrong by saying that our Savior came alone and that many others have come many times.

Indeed, he mixes up the accounts of the angels who have come to people, placing those who came from the writings of Enoch in a way that does not seem to be understood, nor does he recognize that the books of Enoch are not regarded as divine in the churches. Thus, it would be thought that the sixty or seventy who came down were cast away and became bad.

Book 5, Section 55

But to give him even more credit for what he has not seen from what is written in Genesis: "When the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, they took wives for themselves from all whom they chose." Nevertheless, regarding these things, we will show that those who are able to hear the prophetic message have also brought these matters into the discussion about souls, as they became desirous in the human body.

He claimed that it was said "daughters of men." However, whatever it may be, concerning those desiring the daughters of men, the words do not support him in saying that only Jesus has been made known to humanity as an angel, a savior and benefactor of all who have turned away from the evil that has arisen.

Then he mixes up what he has heard and what is written, whether it is considered divine by Christians or not. He says that those who have come down, sixty or seventy, are punished with chains in the land. He carries this as if from Enoch, not naming him, saying that the hot springs are the tears of those, a matter neither spoken of nor heard in the churches of God.

For no one was so foolish as to think that tears could be made physical like those of the angels who came down from heaven. And if it is necessary to play along with what Celsus is studying, it should be said that no one would say that the hot springs, most of which are sweet, are the tears of angels, since the nature of tears is salty; unless, perhaps, the angels according to Celsus weep sweet tears.

Book 5, Section 56

Then he goes on to mix together the unrelated and dissimilar things, bringing them into the discussion about the sixty or seventy angels who, as he says, have come down. He claims that the hot springs weep, and that angels have come to the tomb of Jesus, with some saying there were two angels and others saying there was one.

I do not think that Matthew and Mark have recorded only one angel, while Luke and John mention two. This is not contradictory. For those who have written say that one angel rolled away "the stone" from the tomb, while others say that the two who appeared "in shining garments" were present at the tomb for the women, or that those seen inside were "sitting in white."

Now, each of these can be shown to be possible and to indicate some kind of variation in the accounts, which are prepared for those who are ready to see the resurrection of the word, not for the present discussion, but rather for the explanations of the gospel.

Book 5, Section 57

Strange things sometimes appear to people, and not only those who suspect them to be myth-makers, but also those who have shown a genuine interest in philosophy and truthfully present what has reached them. We have read such things from Soles the Chrysippus, some from Pythagoras, and also from certain modern thinkers, like Plutarch of Charon, in his writings about the soul, and from the Pythagorean Numenius in his second work about the immortality of the soul.

If the Greeks tell such stories, especially those among them who are philosophers, the things they say are not mocked or laughed at as fables and myths. But if those who are devoted to God, who would not even speak a lie about God, endure all kinds of suffering up to death, as if they have seen angels appearing, are they not worthy of belief? Are their words not placed among the true?

It is unreasonable to judge the matters of truth or falsehood in this way. For those who practice careful and thorough investigation of the places show with certainty that some tell the truth while others lie in their strange stories. Not all are worthy of belief, nor are all clearly proven to be fables and myths passed down to people.

Furthermore, regarding the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, it should be said that at that time, whether one or two angels were seen announcing that he had risen, and foreseeing the benefit for those who believe in such things, is not surprising. Always, those who believe in the resurrection of Jesus show a significant result of their faith, demonstrating a strong life and a change from the evil they have shed. It does not seem unreasonable to me that angels assist them in their return to God.

Book 5, Section 58

Celsus accuses that the angel who rolled away "the stone" from the tomb, where Jesus' body was, is like a young boy, taking a local accusation and saying that he found something wise against the word. He claims that the son of God, as it seems, could not open the tomb, but needed someone else to move the stone.

And so, I will not go into unnecessary details about the place or make any changes to the current discussion. I will say about the history that it seems more honorable for the lesser and servant to have rolled away "the stone" than for someone who stands up for the benefit of humans to have done this.

I do not say that those who plotted against him wanted to kill him and show everyone that he was dead, and that the tomb should not be opened at all, so that no one would see the living word after their plot. But the angel of God, who is stronger than those plotting against him, rolls away the heavy stone, so that those who think the word is dead will be convinced that "he is not" "with the dead," but lives and "leads" those who want to follow him.

This is to show the following things, which he had previously shown to those who have not yet moved on from the earlier time of their introduction. Then, I do not know how he shifts topics after this; I do not know what he thinks is useful regarding the angel who came to Joseph about Mary being pregnant, and again about the child being born and taken away to flee into Egypt.

We have already discussed these things in the earlier parts regarding what he has said. What does Celsus want to say about Moses and the others being sent angels according to the scriptures? For it seems to me that nothing connects him to what he wants, especially since no one among them has struggled about the nature of humans, so that he might turn back with all his strength from sins.

And others were sent from God, and let this one announce something more, while the Jews are failing and changing their piety and acting unholy, let the kingdom of God be given to "other farmers," those everywhere in their churches who take care and do everything to bring forth the teachings of Jesus through a pure life and a word that follows their life to the God of all.

Book 5, Section 59

Then Celsus says next: "Is it not clear that the same God is for both the Jews and these, and certainly for the Christians?" He seems to gather this from the fact that those from the great church agree on this and that the Jewish creation story is accepted as true regarding the six days and the seventh, in which, as the scripture says, "God rested from his works," retreating to his own place. But Celsus, not observing what is written or understanding it, says that he rested, which is not written.

Regarding the creation of the world and the Sabbath that follows for the people of God, it would be a "great" and mysterious and deep and "hard to explain" matter. Then, it seems to me that he wants to complete the book and thinks it should be great, adding something randomly, like what is said about the first man, as we say that he is the same as the Jews and that we trace the lineage from him in the same way.

But we do not know of any plots among brothers; Cain plotted against Abel and Esau against Jacob. For Abel did not plot against Cain, nor did Jacob against Esau. If this had happened, Celsus would have said that the plots among the brothers are the same as those we tell about the Jews.

Let it be that he speaks of our journey into Egypt and the return from there, not as a flight, as Celsus thinks. What do these things have to do with our situation or with the accusation against the Jews? There, he thought he could mock us in the discussion about the Hebrews, calling it a flight. But where it was necessary to examine the reality of the recorded plagues sent to Egypt by God, he willingly kept silent.

Book 5, Section 60

If we must speak accurately about Celsus, thinking that we hold the same views as the Jews regarding the things that are written, we will say that both of us agree that the books were written by divine spirit. However, we do not say the same about the interpretation of what is in the books. We do not live like the Jews, believing that the interpretation of the laws contains the will of the lawgiver.

And we say that "whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart," for those who have not embraced the way through Jesus Christ, the will of Moses' law is hidden. We know that "if anyone turns to the Lord" (for "the Lord is the Spirit"), the veil is taken away, and "with unveiled face" they reflect the glory of the Lord, as if looking in a mirror, and they receive the so-called divine glory into their own glory.

In this, there is the "face of the inner man," filled with light and glory from the truth regarding the laws.

Book 5, Section 61

Next, he says: "Let no one think that I am unaware that some of them claim that their god is the same as the Jewish god, while others say he is different, and that the son came from that one." If he believes that having many sects among Christians is an accusation against Christianity, then why should philosophy not also be accused for similar reasons? The disagreements among philosophers are not about minor things but about the most important matters. It would also be reasonable to accuse medicine for its various sects.

So let those who do not say the same thing about the Jewish god be among us. But those who show from the same writings that the god of the Jews is also the god of the nations should not be blamed for this. As Paul clearly says, coming to Christianity from the Jews: "I give thanks to my God, whom I serve with a pure conscience from my ancestors."

Let there also be a third group, calling some "soulish" and others "spiritual." I think he is referring to those from Valentinus. And what does this have to do with us from the church, accusing those who introduce natures that are either saved or destroyed by design?

Let there also be some who claim to be Gnostics, similar to those who call themselves Epicurean philosophers. But neither those who deny providence would truly be philosophers, nor would those who introduce strange ideas that do not align with the teachings from Jesus be Christians.

Let there be some who accept Jesus and claim to be Christians, yet live according to the Jewish law, wanting to live like the Jewish crowds. These are the twofold Ebionites, either confessing Jesus was born of a virgin, like us, or saying he was born like other people. What crime does this bring against those from the church whom Celsus has named from the crowds?

He also mentioned some who are called Sibylline, perhaps having heard accusations from those who think the Sibyl has become a prophet and those who call such people Sibylline.

Book 5, Section 62

Then, he pours out a heap of our names, saying that some are Simonian, who worship Helen or the teacher Helen and are called Helenians. But Celsus is mistaken, for the Simonian do not confess Jesus as the son of God; instead, they say that Simon is a power of God, pretending to be something, thinking that if he can imitate what Jesus seemed to be, he could also gain as much from people as Jesus did from many.

But neither Celsus nor Simon could understand how Jesus, as a good "farmer" of the word of God, was able to spread the word throughout much of Greece and among many barbarians, turning souls away from all evil and leading them to the creator of all things.

Celsus knows about the Marcianists from Marcillina and the Harpocratists from Salome, and others from Mariamme and others from Martha. But we, due to our strong desire for knowledge, have not only examined the things in the word and the differences within it, but we have also sought the strength and truth of those who have philosophized, and we have never associated with them.

Celsus also mentioned the Marcionites, led by Marcion.

Book 5, Section 63

Then, in order to seem to know others among those he named, he says that others have different teachers and demons, wandering badly and being misled in the great darkness of the followers of Antinous from Egypt, who are more lawless and filthy. And it seems to me that he has said something true, that some have found a leader among the great darkness of ignorance, wandering badly and being misled by different demons.

As for those concerning Antinous, comparing them to Jesus, we will not repeat what has been said before. And he says that they blaspheme against each other with both spoken and unspoken words; they would not agree on anything, hating each other in every way.

Moreover, it has been said to us that in philosophy there are sects fighting against each other, as well as in medicine. However, those who follow the word of Jesus and study his teachings think and say and do: "When we are insulted, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure; when we are slandered, we encourage." And we would not say anything spoken or unspoken about those who praise other beliefs beyond what we have received.

But if we could, we would do everything to turn them to what is better by bringing them to the one creator and doing everything as if we were going to be judged. If the heterodox do not listen, we keep the command given to them: "Avoid a heretical person after one or two warnings, knowing that such a person is warped and sins, being self-condemned."

Furthermore, those who understood "blessed are the peacemakers" and "blessed are the meek" would not hate those who distort Christianity, nor would they call the lost "Kirkas" and "Cycithra."

Book 5, Section 64

It seems to me that I have heard the apostolic saying: "In later times, some will depart from the faith, paying attention to deceiving spirits and teachings of demons, in the hypocrisy of liars, whose own conscience is seared, forbidding to marry, and abstaining from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe."

I have also heard the words of the apostle used against those who distort Christianity. Therefore, Celsus says that some are called "burned" by Christians. He himself says that some are called riddles, which we have not recorded.

Truly, the name of the scandal is very present in these writings, which we often mention regarding those who distort the healthy teaching to deceive the simpler and more gullible. There are some sirens dancing and sophists, sealing the ears and leading astray those who are persuaded.

We do not know who they are called, but I think that no one else in the word or in the sects is named. But this one, claiming to know everything, says such things: "He says that all will hear those who are so far apart and will be shamefully argued against by their quarrels, saying: 'The world is crucified to me, and I to the world.'"

For this seems to be the only thing Celsus remembers from Paul. Why do we not mention many other things written, such as: "For though we live in the flesh, we do not wage war according to the flesh; for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God"?

Book Six

Since he says that all will hear those who are so far apart saying: "The world is crucified to me, and I to the world," we will refute this lie. For there are some sects that do not accept the letters of Paul the apostle, like the Ebionites and those called Encratites. Therefore, those who do not use the apostle's words as if from some blessed and wise person would not say: "The world is crucified to me, and I to the world." Thus, in this, Celsus is lying.

He also spends time accusing the differences among the sects. But it does not seem to me that he clearly understands what he says or has carefully considered it, how more Jews claim to know than those who call themselves Christians in their writings, and whether they agree with their books or do not accept their writings at all. For we would find both in the sects.

After this, he says: "Well then, even if they have no beginning of doctrine, let us examine the word itself." But first, whatever they corrupt out of ignorance, they do not speak carefully about the beginnings, immediately arguing about things they do not know. These are the things.

And immediately, he contrasts the words of those who believe in the Christian teaching with those of the philosophers, wanting the good things of the philosophers to be said better and more clearly than by the Christians, so that he might attract those caught by the same doctrines to the good and the pious.

And having finished the fifth book, we will begin the sixth from the following points.

Book 6, Section 1

In this sixth book, we need to respond to the accusations of Celsus against Christians, dear Ambrose. We are not fighting against his ideas based on philosophy, as one might think. For Celsus presented many more ideas from Plato, claiming that they are better expressed by the Greeks and without the promise of being from God or the Son of God.

So we say that if the truth is more beneficial and brings more power to those who represent it, then it is possible, through kindness, to reach everyone, whether they are wise or foolish. It is clear that both Greeks and non-Greeks, even the most uneducated and simple people, can be turned around.

It is evident that the character of the speaker should be focused on being helpful and able to bring forth all kinds of understanding. However, those who only speak to the common people and are not able to grasp the meaning and order of the words being spoken have limited their understanding to those raised in words and teachings.

Book 6, Section 2

These things have been said to me while defending against the accusations made by Celsus and others about the simplicity of the scriptures, which seem to be dimmed by the brightness of the words in their composition. For our prophets, Jesus and his apostles, spoke in a way that not only contained the truth but also had the power to bring many people to it. Each person, according to their ability, can rise up to what is said to be in simple words, which are expressed without hesitation.

And if one dares to say it, the beautiful and carefully crafted words of Plato may have benefited a few, if they indeed benefited anyone, while the simpler and more practical words of many teachers and writers have benefited more.

It is clear that Plato is seen as a master of words, while Epictetus is admired for his ability to help others through his teachings. Those who hear his words can sense their improvement. We do not blame Plato (for many people have found him useful), but we also show what those who say, "My message and my preaching were not with wise words but with proof of the Spirit and power, so that our faith would not be in human wisdom but in the power of God," desire.

The divine word says that what is spoken is not enough by itself, even if it is true and trustworthy, to reach the human soul unless some power from God is given to the speaker and grace is added to the words. This is not ignored by those who speak wisely. The prophet says in the 67th and 78th psalms that "the Lord will give a word to those who preach with great power."

So, in order for the same teachings to be given to the Greeks and to those from our word, they cannot both lead and change souls in the same way. Therefore, the common people, as they relate to Greek philosophy, have gone out to many nations of the world, presenting, as the message desired, each listener according to their worth. They have also become much better in their ability to accept the good based on their own free will.

Book 6, Section 3

Therefore, let the ancient wise men be shown to those who can understand, and indeed let Plato, the student of Ariston, indicate in one of his letters that the first good is not "express" but comes from a great gathering and is suddenly like light that jumps forth from a fire into the soul. We, having heard these things, agree that they are well said, "for God has revealed these things and all that is well said."

For this reason, we say that those who accept the truth about God but do not practice the proper reverence for that truth will be subject to the punishments of sinners. Paul says about such people that "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness, because what can be known about God is plain to them; for God has shown it to them."

For his invisible qualities, since the creation of the world, are clearly seen in what has been made, his eternal power and divine nature, so that they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

And indeed, they hold onto "truth," as our own testimony shows, those who think that the first good is in no way "express" and say that it comes from a great gathering of things and that the sudden light that jumps forth from a fire nourishes itself in the soul.

Book 6, Section 4

But those who write such things about the first good go down "to Piraeus," praying to the goddess Artemis and looking at the festival held by private citizens. And having philosophized about the soul and the conduct of a well-lived life, they leave behind the greatness of what "God has revealed to them" and think of it as trivial and small, giving a "rooster" to Asclepius.

They imagine the "invisible" things of God and the ideas that come from the creation of the world and the senses, from which they rise to understand the things that can be thought of, yet they do not see his eternal power and divine nature. Instead, they become futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts are darkened in their ignorance about the divine healing.

It is clear to see those who think highly of wisdom and theology worshiping "in the likeness of an image of a mortal man," in honor of that being, while also going down with the Egyptians to worship birds, four-footed animals, or reptiles. And so that some may think they have risen above these things, they will find themselves having changed "the truth of God into a lie" and worshiping and serving "the creation rather than the Creator."

Therefore, God has chosen "the foolish things of the world" to shame the wise, and "the weak" and "the despised" and "the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are," so that no flesh may boast in the presence of God.

But first among us are the wise, Moses the oldest and the prophets who came after him, who did not know the first good as "express" but wrote about God revealing himself to those who are worthy and suitable, saying that "God appeared" to Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob.

Who was seen, and in what way, and how did he appear to those among us? They have left it to those who can examine themselves to understand how similar they are to those to whom God was revealed. He was seen not with the eyes of the body but with the pure heart. For according to our Jesus, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."

Book 6, Section 5

But the saying "suddenly like light that jumps forth from a fire" in the soul was known earlier by the word, which said through the prophet, "Light up for yourselves the light of knowledge." And later, John, who came after him, says that "what has come into being" in the word "was life, and the life was the light of men," which "is the true light that gives light to everyone coming into the world," and makes him "the light of the world."

For this light "shone in our hearts for the illumination of the gospel of the glory of God in the face of Christ." Therefore, the ancient prophet, prophesying many generations before the kingdom of Cyrus (for he was older than the fourteen generations), said: "The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?" And, "Your law is a lamp to my feet and a light to my paths," and, "The light of your face, O Lord, has been marked upon us," and, "In your light, we shall see light."

And calling us to this light, the word in Isaiah says: "Arise, shine, O Jerusalem; for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord has risen upon you." This same prophet, prophesying about the coming of Jesus, speaks of those sitting in the land and shadow of death, saying, "A light has dawned upon them," and again, "The people sitting in darkness have seen a great light."

So see the difference between what Plato said well about the first good and what is said in the prophets about the light of the blessed. Notice that the truth in Plato did not help those who sought genuine piety, nor did it help him who philosophized about the first good. But the simple words of the divine scriptures have inspired those who genuinely engage with them; among them, this light is nourished by a certain parable of oil, keeping the light in the wise five virgins.

Book 6, Section 6

Since Celsus also presents another saying from Plato's letter, he writes: "If it seemed to me that it was sufficiently written for the many and clear, what greater benefit could we have in life than to write and bring the nature into light for all?" Come, let us discuss briefly whether Plato had anything more serious than what he wrote and more divine than what he left behind, leaving each to examine according to their ability, showing that even our own prophets thought of something greater in their writings, which they did not write down.

For Ezekiel takes a "book," written "on the front and back," in which there was "lamentation and song and woe," and when the word commanded him, he eats the book so that he does not write it down and betray it to the unworthy. And John has a similar account, saying he has seen and done these things. But Paul also says, "He heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to speak."

But above all these, Jesus, who "spoke" the word of God "to the disciples" "privately," especially in the retreats, what he said is not written down. For it did not seem to them "sufficiently written" for "the many" nor "clear." And if I may speak the truth about such men, I say that they saw more from Plato than from what they received by the grace of God, some of which was "written" and how "written," and some not "written" at all for the many, and some were "clear" while others were not.

Again, John teaches us the difference between what is written and what is not written, saying he heard about seven thunders concerning some who were teaching him and forbidding him to write down their words.

Book 6, Section 7

Many things could also be found from Moses and the prophets, not only from Plato but also from Homer and the writings of the Greeks, which are full of the grace of God and greatness. These men did not, as Celsus thinks, hear such things from Plato. For how could they have heard what had not yet come into being?

And if someone tries to connect Celsus's words to the apostles of Jesus, who were younger than Plato, see if it is not absurd to say that Paul the tentmaker, Peter the fisherman, and John who left his father's nets heard from Plato in his letters and passed on such things about God.

Celsus has often claimed that it is reasonable to believe immediately, as if something new is being said compared to what was said before. But what has been said about these things is enough for us.

Since another saying from Plato is presented, where he says, "When questions and answers are being used," it shines wisdom on those who philosophize according to him. Let us show from the sacred writings that the divine word also urges us to dialectic, where Solomon says, "Education wanders without examination," and where Jesus, the son of Sirach, who left us the book of Wisdom, says, "Knowledge of the foolish is unsearchable words."

Therefore, we have more favorable corrections. For those who learn that the one who leads the word must be able to "refute those who oppose." But if some are lazy, not practicing to pay attention to the divine readings and to search the scriptures, and according to the command of Jesus, to seek the meaning of the scriptures and ask about them from God and knock on their closed doors, the word is not empty of wisdom.

Book 6, Section 8

Then he says with other Platonic words that "the good is known to few," since the many, filled with "improper contempt" and "high and vain hope," learn to say something as if it were true. Although Plato has said these things, he does not force anyone who wants to choose to believe what he promises about the nature of God and his son, nor does he command them to believe that such a being came down and spoke to him.

And regarding this, I say that Aristander wrote about Plato, not as the son of Ariston, but as a phantom, when he approached the Amphictyons in the form of Apollo. Many others among the Platonists have said similar things in the life of Plato. About Pythagoras, there are many stories of wonders, such as when he showed an ivory thigh at a Greek festival and claimed to have seen the shield he used when Euphorbus was present, and on one day to have appeared in two cities. What more is there to say?

The one who wants to accuse will tell of the wonders surrounding Plato and Socrates, and will mention the one who presented Socrates in a dream as a swan and the teacher saying about the arrangement of the young man, "This was indeed the swan." But also, the third one he saw with a third eye will be taken up as a wonder by Plato.

He will not spare the wicked and those who want to speak ill of what has appeared among the better people, slander and calumny; these are the ones who will mock Socrates' daemon as a fabrication. Therefore, we do not tell wonders about Jesus, nor did his genuine disciples write such words about him.

Celsus, who claims to know everything and willingly presents many of Plato's ideas, I think remains silent about the word concerning the son of God, which is said by Plato in his letter to Hermes and Coriscus. Thus, the saying of Plato goes: "And the God of all, the leader of both the beings and those that will be, the father and lord of the ruling and the cause, we swear by him; if we truly philosophize, we will all know clearly the power of happy men."

Book 6, Section 9

Celsus also presents another saying from Plato, which goes like this: "Moreover, I have more to say about these things; for perhaps I could speak more clearly about what I am saying. There is indeed a true word, opposite to the one who dared to write such things, which has often been said by me before, and it seems that it should be said again now. There are three things among beings, and a fourth must be added, and a fifth must be placed, which is known and true: one is a name, the second is a word, the third is an image, and the fourth is knowledge."

According to this, we might say that "the voice of one crying in the wilderness" is similar to the name mentioned by Plato, and after John, Jesus is shown by him, to whom the saying "the word became flesh" applies, being similar to the word from Plato. Plato indeed says that the third is an image. But we will say more clearly that the name of the image is placed on another, becoming in the soul after the word of the wounds, this being the Christ in each person from the word of Christ.

And if the fourth being, knowledge, is analogous to "wisdom" in the "perfect ones" according to us, Christ will be the one who can give knowledge.

Book 6, Section 10

Then he says that you see how Plato, although he insists that there is no "clear statement," still has a reasoning to avoid being thought to retreat into uncertainty. For it could be that "nothing" is also considered "clear." But since this leads to the need not to believe simply but to have reasoning about what is believed, we will also use the words of Paul, who reproaches the one who believes without thinking, in which he says, "unless you have believed in vain."

As for what Celsus forces us to repeat, saying with the arrogance of a show-off that Plato does not boast or lie, claiming to discover something new or to announce something from heaven, he admits where these things come from. Someone might then respond to Celsus, saying that Plato does boast in the speech of Zeus in the Timaeus, saying, "Gods of gods, of whom I am the creator and father," and so on.

But if someone defends these things because of the reasoning of the speaker about Zeus in Plato, why would the one examining the reasoning of the words of the son of God or those in the prophets of the creator not say even more than what is in the speech of Zeus in the Timaeus? For the characteristic of divinity is the announcement about future things, not said according to human nature and judged by their outcomes, that it was a divine spirit announcing these things.

Therefore, we do not say to everyone who approaches that they should first believe that the one I am introducing to you is the son of God, but we present the word according to each one's character and situation, learning "to know how we should respond to each one."

And there are those who are not able to be persuaded to believe this, while to others we approach with as much power as we can through questions and answers. But we do not say what was mentioned with mockery by Celsus, that you should believe that the one I am introducing to you is the son of God, even if he is bound in the most disgraceful way or punished in the most shameful way, even if he was most disgracefully treated in the eyes of all yesterday and the day before.

We do not say, "Believe this even more." For we try to speak to each one and provide more than what we have set forth above.

Book 6, Section 11

After this, Celsus says that if these (referring to Christians) introduce one person, while others introduce another, and there is a common and easy belief among all, "Believe, if you want to be saved, or go away." What will those truly wanting to be saved do? Will they throw dice to predict which way to turn and what to add?

And in response to this, we will say that if there were many similar to Jesus, told about in the lives of men as sons of God, and each of them attracting some followers to themselves, it would be ambiguous because of the similarity of the promise about being the son of God, as testified by those who believe in him.

It would have been fitting if there were those who introduce one person, while others introduce another, and there is a common and easy belief among all: "Believe, if you want to be saved." But now Jesus has been proclaimed throughout the whole world, being the only son of God among the human race.

For those who, like Celsus, claim to perform wonders and want to do so, thinking they can also achieve something similar to humans, have been shown to be nothing. Simon the Sorcerer and Dosithius from the same region were examples. For Simon claimed to be the great power of God, and Dosithius also claimed to be the son of God.

Nowhere in the world are there Simonian followers; yet Simon wanted to lead many to follow him concerning the danger of death. The Christians were taught to reject him, leading his followers away from idol worship. But the Simonian followers did not even attack the beginning; for the evil spirit that was plotting knew that nothing of its own would be lost from the teaching of Jesus.

The Dosithians did not thrive before either; now they are completely gone, so that their total number is not even thirty. And "Judas the Galilean," as Luke wrote in the Acts of the Apostles, wanted to make himself out to be someone great, even before him "Theudas." But since their teaching was not from God, they were removed, and "all who followed them were immediately scattered."

So we do not throw dice to predict which way to turn and what to add, as if we could be persuaded by the promise from God to the human race. But indeed, there is enough about these matters.

Book 6, Section 12

Therefore, we move on to another accusation from Celsus. He does not understand our words but claims that we say that wisdom among humans is foolishness to God, based on Paul's statement: "The wisdom of the world is foolishness to God." Celsus says that the reason for this has been stated before. He thinks the reason is that we want to attract the uneducated and foolish with this saying alone.

However, as he himself noted, he has said the same thing before, and we have responded to his argument as best as we can. Nevertheless, he wanted to show that this was shaped for us and taken from the wise among the Greeks. He claims that human wisdom is one thing and divine wisdom is another.

He presents words from Heraclitus, one of which says: "For human character has no understanding, but divine character does." Another says: "A foolish man listens to a spirit like a child listens to a man." He also quotes from Plato's written Apology of Socrates, where Socrates says: "For, O men of Athens, I have this name for no other reason than for wisdom. And what wisdom is this? It is perhaps human wisdom; for I truly risk saying that this is wise."

So these are the things that Celsus presents. But I will also refer to the letter of Plato to Hermias, Erastus, and Coriscus, where he says: "To Erastus and Coriscus, regarding this beautiful wisdom of the forms, I say that although I am old, I still need wisdom concerning the wicked and unjust, and some defensive power. For they are inexperienced because, being moderate and not evil, they have often been consumed by life. Therefore, I said that they need this, so that they are not forced to neglect true wisdom, but to take more care of human and necessary wisdom than they should."

Book 6, Section 13

So, according to this, there is divine wisdom and human wisdom. Human wisdom is what we call "the wisdom of the world," which is "foolishness to God." Divine wisdom, on the other hand, is different from human wisdom, and if it is divine, it is given by the grace of God to those who have prepared themselves to receive it, especially to those who understand the difference between each type of wisdom in their prayers to God.

For they say, "Even if someone is perfect among the sons of men, he will not be considered anything without your wisdom." We say that human wisdom is like a gymnasium for the soul, while divine wisdom is the ultimate goal. This divine wisdom is also called "solid food" for the soul, as it is said: "The solid food is for the perfect, who have their senses trained to distinguish good from evil."

This belief is indeed ancient. It is not, as Celsus thinks, based on the ancient teachings of Heraclitus and Plato. For before them, the prophets distinguished between each type of wisdom. It is enough to mention the words of David regarding divine wisdom, who says, "He will not see destruction when he sees the wise dying."

Thus, divine wisdom, being different from faith, is the first of the things called "gifts" of God. After that comes knowledge, which is for those who are skilled in such matters, and third, since it is necessary for the simplest to approach God with reverence, is faith. Therefore, Paul says: "For to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit."

Thus, you would not find those who happen to have received divine wisdom, but rather those who excel and stand out among all who pay attention to Christianity. No one will explain the matters of divine wisdom to the most uneducated or foolish.

Book 6, Section 14

And yet, Celsus says that there are others who are the most uneducated, like slaves and the most ignorant, who do not understand his commands or have learned the teachings of the Greeks. But we say that the truly uneducated are those who are not ashamed to speak to lifeless things, calling upon the weak for health and expecting the dead for life, and begging for help from the most hopeless.

And even if some say that these are not gods but imitations of the true ones and their symbols, they are still nothing less. They imagine the imitations of divinity in the hands of the unskilled. They are uneducated, slaves, and ignorant. We say that the last among us should be freed from this ignorance and foolishness, and that the wisest should understand and grasp divine hope.

We also say that it is not possible for someone who has not trained in human wisdom to approach the divine wisdom, and we acknowledge that all human wisdom is foolishness compared to the divine. Therefore, it is necessary for him to struggle with the argument, but the sorcerer calls us and says that we flee from the more graceful ones as if we are not ready to be deceived.

But we wrestle with the more rustic ones. For he has not seen from above and from the beginning, nor has he learned from outside teachings, the wise among us, like Moses, who was "trained in all the wisdom of the Egyptians," and Daniel, along with Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael, who were skilled in all the writings of the Assyrians, so that they were found to be ten times wiser than all the wise men there.

And even now, the churches have a few wise ones who have come, in proportion to the crowds, from what we call "wisdom according to the flesh," but they also have those who have moved from that to divine wisdom.

Book 6, Section 15

Then, after this, Celsus, as if confused about humility and not understanding it well, wants to speak badly of it among us. He thinks it is a misunderstanding of Plato's words, where he says in the Laws: "God, just like the ancient word, has the beginning, the end, and the middle of all things, moving straight according to nature; and always following him is the justice of the divine law, which the one who will be happy follows humbly and decorously."

He does not see that it is said in a prayer much older than Plato: "Lord, my heart is not lifted up, nor are my eyes raised too high, nor do I walk in great things or in wonders above me, unless I have humbled myself."

At the same time, it is shown that not everyone who is humble does so in an ugly or shameful way, like lying on the ground and covered in dust. For the one who is humble, according to the prophet, walks "in great and wonderful" things that are truly "great" teachings and "wonderful" thoughts, humbling himself "under the mighty hand of God."

And if some, due to their ignorance, do such things about humility, the fault is not in the teaching but in the ignorance of those who are trying to do better but fail because of their ignorance. For according to Plato, the humble and decorous person is the one who is decorous because he walks "in great" and "wonderful" things above him; and humble, since even in these things he humbles himself willingly.

Not by chance, but "under the mighty hand of God," through the teacher of such teachings, Jesus, who "did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant," and "being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death, even the death of the cross."

And so, the teaching about humility is so great that it does not have just any teacher, but it speaks of our Savior, who says: "Learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls."

Book 6, Section 16

After this, Celsus, as if confused about Jesus' statement regarding the rich, where he said, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God," claims that this is a distortion of Plato's words. Plato said that "it is impossible for a good person to be very rich."

Who would not find it amusing to point out to Celsus that he is wrong, not just among those who believe in Jesus but among all people? Hearing that Jesus was born and raised among the Jews and thought to be the son of Joseph "the carpenter," and that he had not learned letters, neither Greek nor Hebrew, as the truthful writings about him testify, he read Plato and, pleased with his statement about the rich, changed it to say, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God."

If Celsus had not been filled with hatred and disgust towards the gospels, he would have asked what exactly was meant by the camel, which is a creature known for its awkwardness, compared to the rich person, and what the narrow "eye of the needle" was meant to signify, claiming it to be a narrow and difficult path leading "to life."

He would have examined how often the camel is mentioned in the sacred writings and for what reasons, to understand the meaning of the saying about the rich. He would not have left unchallenged the idea that Jesus blessed the poor while tormenting the rich, whether in relation to their material wealth or their moral character.

For it is not the case that the saying praises all poverty and condemns all wealth; for even the most casual observer would not praise the poor, many of whom are of low character. But these matters are as they are.

Book 6, Section 17

Since he wanted to belittle what is written about the kingdom of God, Celsus did not present anything from our writings as worthy of mention, perhaps because he did not even know them. Instead, he quotes Plato's words from both the letters and the Phaedrus, while nothing similar is found in our texts. Let us briefly compare these to what is said about Plato, not to dismiss it, but to show that the philosopher should be honored in relation to the poet's piety, which should not be corrupted or stained by what we call idolatry.

As many would say, using the name and superstition. It is said in a somewhat Hebrew way in the seventeenth psalm that "God set darkness as a hiding place," to show that what is truly understood about God is hidden and unknown, as if God has concealed himself in darkness from those who do not carry the sparks of his knowledge and cannot see him because of the pollution of their minds, bound by the "humility" of men.

To show how rarely the knowledge of God reaches people, it is written that Moses entered "into the thick darkness where God was." And again about Moses: "Moses alone approached God, but the others did not draw near."

Again, to illustrate the depth of the teachings about God, which are incomprehensible to those who do not have the "spirit" that searches everything, even "the depths of God," it is said: "The deep is like a garment, his covering." But our Savior and Lord, the Word of God, presents the greatness of the knowledge of the Father, as it is fitting for him alone.

He is received and known. Secondly, to those who are enlightened by him, the Word and God says: "No one knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son and the one to whom the Son reveals him."

For no one can know the unbegotten and firstborn of all creation as the Father who begot him, nor can one know the Father as the living Word and his wisdom and truth. By sharing in this, the so-called "darkness," which "he set as a hiding place," and the so-called "garment" of his abyss, revealing the Father, whoever can comprehend him knows him.

Book 6, Section 18

I thought it best to briefly present some of the many ideas about God that have been understood by holy men, showing that what Celsus admired in the Platonic words has something more serious for those who have eyes to see the sacred writings of the prophets.

Celsus quoted Plato's words in this way: "About the king of all, everything exists, and for his sake, all things are, and he is the cause of all that is good. Secondly, concerning the second things, and thirdly about the third things. Therefore, the human soul desires to learn about these things, looking towards what is related to itself, of which it has nothing sufficient."

But concerning the king and what I mentioned, there is nothing like this. I could also mention what is said about the "seraphim," as written in Isaiah, who cover "the face" and "the feet" of God, and about the "cherubim," which Ezekiel described, along with their shapes and how God is said to be carried upon the cherubim.

However, since it has been said very secretly for the unworthy and shameless, who cannot follow the greatness and seriousness of theology, I did not think it fitting to discuss these matters in this writing.

Book 6, Section 19

Next, Celsus says that some Christians, having heard Platonic words, boast about the heavenly God, claiming to rise above the Jewish heaven. In this, he does not clarify whether they are rising above the God of the Jews or just the one they swear is in heaven. Now, concerning the other God promised apart from the one worshiped by the Jews, he does not intend to speak about that. Instead, he aims to defend himself and show that the prophets among us Jews did not take anything from Plato, for they were older than him.

Thus, we have not taken the saying, "About the king of all, everything exists, and for his sake, all things are," from Plato, but we have learned these things more clearly from the prophets, as Jesus and his disciples made known the will of the Spirit in the prophets (which was nothing other than the Spirit of Christ).

Neither did the philosopher first present the idea of the heavenly place, but David long ago described the depth of the multitude of those who have ascended to contemplate the things of God, saying in the book of Psalms: "Praise God, you heavens of heavens, and the waters above the heavens; let them praise the name of the Lord."

I do not deny that some have learned from Plato's Phaedrus, as some have written, that even the prophetic words have been expressed, in which it is said: "No one has praised the heavenly place, nor will anyone praise it worthily."

And in what follows, it is said that "the formless, shapeless, and unchangeable essence, truly being, is the only spectator of the soul's governor, concerning which the true science has this place."

And from these words, our Paul, longing for the heavenly and divine things and acting through all of that, says in his second letter to the Corinthians: "For the light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen; for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal."

Book 6, Section 20

For those who are able to hear, he presents the visible things as "seen" and the intelligible things, which can only be grasped by the mind, as "unseen." He knows that the visible things are "temporary" and the intelligible things are "eternal." Wanting to become like them, he considers all suffering as nothing and light, helped by his longing for those things.

He is not at all weighed down by the time of "suffering" and pain, but he lightens himself through the hope of those divine things. For we also have a "great high priest," who, because of the greatness of his power and mind, "has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God," promising those who truly learn the divine and live worthily to be raised up to the heavenly things. For he says, "That where I go, you may be also."

Therefore, we hope that after the pains and struggles here, we will reach the heights of heaven, and taking up "the water of life" as taught by Jesus, we will flow with the streams of contemplation along with the so-called waters "above the heavens."

They praise "the name of the Lord," and as much as we praise him, we will not be removed from the orbit of heaven, but we will always be in the presence of the unseen things of God. No longer will we be known "from the creation of the world by the things that are made," but as the true disciple of Jesus named it, saying: "Then face to face," and "when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away."

Book 6, Section 21

The scriptures that are read in the churches of God do not declare seven heavens or any fixed number of them. Instead, they speak of heavens, whether they refer to the spheres of the so-called wandering stars among the Greeks or something else that is more mysterious.

Celsus says that the way for souls to go to earth and return from earth happens through the wandering stars, according to Plato. But Moses, our oldest prophet, says that in the presence of our patriarch Jacob, he saw a divine dream, a ladder "reaching to heaven," with "angels of God" ascending and descending on it, and the Lord standing at the top of it.

He hints at whether these things or something greater than them are meant in the story about the ladder. A book about this has also been written by Philo, which is worthy of careful and wise examination by those who love the truth.

Book 6, Section 22

Next, Celsus, wanting to show off his knowledge, presents some Persian mysteries in our discussion. He says that the Persian teachings also hint at these things, especially the rites of Mithras. There is a symbol in it of the two regions in heaven, one of the wandering stars and the other of the fixed stars, and the soul's journey through them.

The symbol is a seven-gated ladder, with an eighth gate at the top. The first gate is of lead, the second of tin, the third of bronze, the fourth of iron, the fifth of a ceramic coin, the sixth of silver, and the seventh of gold. The first is assigned to Cronus, using lead to show the slowness of the star. The second is assigned to Venus, comparing her brightness and softness to tin. The third is for Zeus, the heavy and strong bronze. The fourth is for Hermes, who is known for all kinds of work and is a trader, and he is associated with iron. The fifth is for Ares, which is known for its rough and varied nature. The sixth is for the silver of the Moon, and the seventh is for the golden Sun, imitating their colors.

Then he examines the reason for this specific order of the stars, shown through symbols in the names of the rest of the matter, and he adds musical words as he explains the theology of the Persians. He also seems to want to present a second account, again based on musical ideas.

However, I think it is strange for Celsus to present this text, which is similar to what he himself has created, bringing in the accusations against Christians and Jews without any connection to Plato, as if they were enough for those people. He also includes the so-called mysteries of the Persians and their account.

For why should he present these things, whether false or true, to those who advocate for Mithras and the Persians? What then is more appropriate for him to present than any of the other mysteries along with their accounts? For it does not seem that the mysteries of Mithras are considered special among the Greeks compared to the Eleusinian mysteries or those given to the initiates in Aegina about Hecate.

And if he thought it inappropriate to compare those things as having no connection to the accusations against the Jews or Christians, how could he not see the same in presenting the Mithraic teachings?

Book 6, Section 23

If someone wants to take their ideas not from the least significant sect but from Jewish books read in their synagogues, which Christians also refer to, or from the Christians alone, to find deeper insights about the entrance of souls into divine visions, they should read the end of the prophecy of Ezekiel, where different gates are described, hinting at the various entrances of the holier souls to the better things.

They should also read from the Revelation of John about the heavenly city of God, Jerusalem, and its foundations and gates. If they can learn the way to the divine through symbols, they should read the Numbers of Moses and seek to understand the arrangements of the camps of the sons of Israel, noting which parts are set in the east as the first, which are in the west or south, and which are by the sea, and which are last in the north.

For they will see ideas that are not easily dismissed in these places, not as Celsus thinks, needing some foolish listeners and slaves. They will understand which ideas are in them and what the nature of the numbers assigned to each tribe is, about which I think it is not timely to explain now.

Let Celsus and those who encounter his book know that nowhere in the genuine and divine scriptures are seven heavens mentioned. Neither do our prophets, taking from the Persians or the Cabiri, nor do the apostles of Jesus, nor even the Son of God himself, say anything about that.

Book 6, Section 24

Next, Celsus claims that he will compare a certain Christian ritual with the previously mentioned Persian ritual, wanting to examine them together. He tries to show the differences between them by comparing them and exposing the Christian practices.

Where he knew the names of sects, he did not hesitate to mention those he thought he knew. But where he should have done more, if he really understood, he did not explain which sect fits the written description. It seems to me that some of these ideas come from the insignificant sect of the Ophites, which I think he has presented incorrectly.

We, however, have been diligent in our studies, where we found human fabrications, as Paul called them, capable of leading "into homes and capturing little women weighed down with sins, led by various desires, always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth." Thus, the description had every improbability, so that even the easily deceived "little women" and the most ignorant people could be easily led to accept the writing.

Indeed, although many have traveled through many places on earth and sought to know something everywhere, we have not found anything that fits the description.

Book 6, Section 25

In the description of circles, ten are separated from each other but joined together under one circle, which is said to be the soul of all and is named Leviathan. The Jewish scriptures hint that it was created by God as a game. For we find in the Psalms: "You have made everything in wisdom; the earth is full of your creation. This is the great and wide sea; there ships go, and small creatures with large ones, this dragon, which you made to play with." Instead of "dragon," it was Leviathan in Hebrew.

Thus, the irreverent description claims that Leviathan is the soul that has spread through all things. We also find the name Behemoth, which seems to be placed with the lowest circle. This Leviathan, the impure description has reshaped upon the circle and its center, mentioning its name twice.

Celsus also says that the description is marked with a thick black line and claims that this is called Gehenna, which is also Tartarus. We found Gehenna written in the Gospel as a place of punishment and sought to see if it was named in any ancient writings, especially since the Jews use that name.

We found that there is a place called the "Valley of the Son of Hinnom" in the scriptures, and in the Hebrew, instead of the Valley, we learned that it was called the Valley of Hinnom and Gehenna. By examining the readings, we also find in the territory of the tribe of Benjamin that Gehenna or the Valley of Hinnom is mentioned, where Jerusalem was located.

And by looking into the connection of the heavenly Jerusalem with the territory of Benjamin and the Valley of Hinnom, we find something about the place of punishments, relating to the purification of such souls through suffering, according to the saying: "Behold, the Lord comes like a furnace of fire and like a fuller's soap; and he will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver and gold."

Book 6, Section 26

And regarding the punishments that happen around Jerusalem, for those who take on the evil from their own souls, it is sometimes called lead-like. Therefore, the lawlessness is described by Zechariah as "a talent of lead."

As for what could be said about the place, it is neither possible to explain it to everyone nor to those of the present time. But it is also not safe to trust the clarity of such writings. For many do not need more teaching beyond what is said about the punishment of sinners.

For it is not useful to go into the higher matters due to the great fear of eternal punishment, even if one reduces the amount of evil and the sins that come from it. Thus, neither the description nor Celsus knows the account about Gehenna.

Since those people would not create drawings and descriptions that truly represent the reality. Celsus would not have included in his writing about Christians what is never said by Christians, but rather by some others, perhaps no longer existing, but having become very few and rare.

He has placed these accusations against Christians. And just as it is not fitting for those who follow the philosophy of Plato to defend Epicurus and his impious teachings, neither is it fitting for us to defend what is said in the writings and by Celsus.

Therefore, let us leave aside the things that Celsus has said about these matters as excessive and pointless; rather, we will accuse Celsus more than those who are held by such words.

Book 6, Section 27

Next, regarding the description, it is said that some strange and mutual sounds are presented by those who are called ecclesiastical. One speaks of a seal placed by a father, while another, called the son, responds: "I have been anointed with a white anointing from the tree of life," which we have not even heard happen among the heresies.

Then, it also defines a number said to be seven angels who give the seal, standing on either side of the soul of the person being freed from the body, some of light and others of the so-called rulers. It says that the ruler of the so-called rulers is called a cursed god.

Then, taking hold of the word, it rightly accuses those who dare to say this. For this reason, we also feel anger towards those who blame such people. If indeed there are some saying that the god of the Jews is a cursed one, the one who thunders and creates this world, and the god of Moses and of the creation of the world through him.

But it seems that Celsus is not wise in these matters, but rather completely ignorant due to his unphilosophical hatred towards us. He wanted to make the inexperienced among us fight against him through his writing, calling the good creator of this world a cursed god.

And it seems to me that he has made a similar accusation to the Jews, who have spread slander against the teachings of early Christianity, as if they had killed a child and were partaking of its flesh, and again that those who want to act in darkness are extinguishing the light.

Each person mixes with what happens to them; this slander has long persuaded many outsiders to believe that such are Christians, and even now it still deceives some who are turned away because of such things, so that they come to Christians for a simpler conversation.

Book 6, Section 28

Such a thing seems to me that Celsus is presenting, as if Christians say that the creator is a cursed god, so that anyone believing him might be led to accuse Christians as the most impious of all. He twists the facts and the reason for calling the god of creation through Moses cursed, claiming that he is deserving of a curse according to those who honor him in this way.

For he should know that those who follow the serpent, as if giving good advice to the first humans, surpassing the Titans and Giants of mythology, are so afraid of being called Christians that they do not dare to bring anyone to their council unless they place a curse against Jesus.

See how unreasonable Celsus has made his arguments against Christians, taking as Christians those who do not even want to hear the name of Jesus, even if someone is wise or of moderate character or just a person.

What could be more foolish or mad than those who, following the serpent as the leader of good things, would also accuse Celsus of being against the Ophites? Long ago, the philosopher who loved simplicity among the Greeks and set an example of a happy life, as if not hindered from being happy by complete poverty, called himself a Cynic.

But these impious ones, from the most hostile of men, the serpent, and the most terrifying, are not called men, but rather they act like serpents, being called Ophites, boasting about some Euphrates as a teacher of their impious words.

Book 6, Section 29

Then, as he insults Christians and accuses them of saying that the god of Moses and the law given through him is cursed, he asks: what could be more foolish or mad than this senseless wisdom? For what did the lawgiver of the Jews do wrong? And how do you take the creation story of that lawgiver, as you say, through some allegory of a serpent, while you unwittingly praise the creator of the world, who promised to increase their race until the ends of the earth and to raise them from the dead in body and blood, inspiring the prophets?

And again, do you insult this same god? But when you are pressured by these people, you admit to honoring the same god; however, when your teacher Jesus teaches the opposite of Moses, you seek another god instead of him and the father.

In these things, the most noble philosopher Celsus clearly slanders Christians. He says that when the Jews oppress them, they acknowledge the same god; but when Jesus teaches the opposite of Moses, they seek another instead. Whether speaking to the Jews or being among themselves, we know that there is one and the same god, whom the Jews have long worshipped and still promise to worship, not being impious towards him at all.

But we do not say that he will raise from the dead in body and blood, as mentioned above; for we do not claim that the seed is raised "in decay," "in dishonor," or "in weakness," as a "natural body," but rather we have spoken moderately about these things above.

Book 6, Section 30

Then, he goes on to repeat what he says about the seven ruling demons, which I think are not called by Christians but are taken from the Ophites. We have found that in the writings we have, the order is similarly laid out as Celsus described.

Celsus says that the first is shaped like a lion, but he does not say what the truly most impious call him. We have found that the angel of the creator, praised in the sacred writings, is said to be Michael, the lion-like one.

Again, Celsus claims that the second is a bull; however, we have a writing that says the bull-like one is Suriel. Then, Celsus says that the third is some kind of terrifying creature; but the writing says that the third is Raphael, the dragon-like one.

Again, Celsus claims that the fourth has the form of an eagle; but the writing says that the eagle-like one is Gabriel. Then, Celsus says that the fifth has the face of a bear; but the writing says that the bear-like one is Thauthabaoth.

Next, Celsus says that the sixth is said to have the face of a dog; but the writing says that he is Erathaoth. Finally, Celsus claims that the seventh has the face of a donkey and is called Thabaoth or Oniel; but we found in the writing that he is called Oniel or Thartharoth, being some sort of donkey-like one.

We thought it would be good to explain these things clearly so that we do not seem to be ignorant of what Celsus claimed to know. But we also want to present more accurately what Christians know, as these are not the words of Christians but are completely foreign to salvation and do not refer at all to Jesus or savior or god or teacher or son of god.

Book 6, Section 31

If anyone wants to learn about the creations of those sorcerers, through which they tried to lead people to their teachings as if they held some secret truths but did not succeed very well, let them listen to what they are taught to say after going through what they call the "barrier of evil," bound by the gates of the rulers of the ages: "I embrace the one king who is alone, the bond of blindness, the unexamined forgetfulness, the first power, kept by spirit, providence, and wisdom; from here I am sent sincerely, already a part of the son and the father; may grace be with me, yes father, be with me." They say that the origins of the eighth are from here.

Then they teach to say, going through whom they call Ialdabaoth: "You, with confidence, first and seventh, hold Ialdabaoth, the ruler, the word that exists in the pure mind, the perfect work for the son and the father, bringing forth the symbol of life, which you have closed in the ages, opening the gate to the world. I bring your authority back to you; may grace be with me, yes father, be with me." They say that the lion-like ruler sympathizes with the shining star.

Then they think that the one who has gone through Ialdabaoth and reached Iao must say: "You, ruler of hidden mysteries, son and father, second Iao and first master of death, part of the innocent. I bring my own symbol, bringing forth your ready authority; you have strengthened the word that has come from you, living." May grace be with me, father, be with me.

Next, they speak to Sabaoth, whom they think to address: "Ruler of the fifth authority, mighty Sabaoth. You have led the law of your creation by grace, freeing me, stronger than five; I see the symbol of your art, unblemished, kept in the image of the type, the body released from five; may grace be with me, father, be with me."

Then they address Astaphaios, whom they believe to say such things: "Ruler of the third gate, Astaphaios, overseer of the first water, seeing one who is a mystic, bring me the symbol of the pure spirit of the virgin, seeing the essence of the world; may grace be with me, father, be with me."

After him, they speak to Ailaoai, whom they think to say: "Ruler of the second gate, Ailaoai, bring me the symbol of your mother, hidden grace with powers of authority; may grace be with me, father, be with me."

Finally, they name the last one Horaion and think to say to him: "Having crossed the barrier of fire fearlessly, having received the first authority of the gate of Horai, bring me the symbol of your power, broken by the type of life in wood, taken in the image of the innocent; may grace be with me, father, be with me."

Book 6, Section 32

About these things, Celsus, who is thought to be very learned, but is more of a curious chatterer, has called upon those who want to present themselves to the one who encounters his writing and to us regarding what is written that there is no difficulty for us with Celsus's teachings, which he falsely claims about Christians, whether they think or know such things. Even if we wanted to know and explain these things, we should not be deceived by the promise of knowing more than us, as the sorcerers do, capturing those caught up in the fantasy of names.

I could also add more to show that we know the tricks of the deceivers, but we deny them as foreign, impious, and not at all related to the true words of Christians, which we confess until death. However, it is necessary to know that those who arranged these things neither understood magic nor distinguished the divine writings. They mixed everything together: from magic, they took Ialdabaoth, Astaphaios, and Horaion; from the Hebrew writings, they took Iao, known among the Hebrews, Sabaoth, Adonai, and Eloai.

The names taken from the writings are titles of the same and one god. This, which the enemies of god do not understand, as they themselves admit, they thought that Iao was one god, Sabaoth another, and Adonai, which the scriptures call Adonai, a third, and Eloai, whom the prophets call in Hebrew Eloai.

Book 6, Section 33

Then, Celsus goes on to present other myths, saying that some return to the ruling forms, so that some become bulls, and others dragons, or eagles, or bears, or dogs. We have found in the writings we have that Celsus called a square shape and what is said about the gates of paradise by those miserable ones.

It was depicted as a flaming sword, like a diameter of some fiery circle, as if it were guarding the wood of knowledge and life. Celsus, therefore, did not want to explain the speeches or could not present them, which those passing through each gate say according to the myths of the impious.

But we have also done this, so that we may show the end of the incomplete ritual to Celsus and to those who encounter his writing, to let them know that it is foreign to the piety of Christians regarding the divine.

Book 6, Section 34

After presenting the previously mentioned things and those similar to them, Celsus says the following: they add more upon more, prophetic words and circles upon circles, and the mysteries of the earthly church and circumcision, and some flowing power of a virgin, living soul, and the heaven being sacrificed so that it may live, and the earth being sacrificed with a knife and many being sacrificed so that they may live.

And it speaks of stopping death in the world when the sin of the world dies, and a narrow descent with gates opening automatically. Everywhere there is the wood of life and the resurrection of the flesh from wood, because I think their teacher was nailed to a cross and was a carpenter by trade.

As if that one had fallen from a cliff or had been thrown into a pit or strangled by a noose or was a leatherworker or a stonecutter or a blacksmith. There would be a cliff of life above the heavens or a pit of resurrection or a rope of immortality or a blessed stone or iron of love or a holy hide.

Or who would be ashamed to whisper such things like an old woman, singing a myth to a child? In these things, it seems to me that Celsus is producing nonsense. For it is likely that if he heard some phrase from a certain heresy, he did not understand it and, even according to his own desire, mixed up the words, showing that he knows nothing about either our beliefs or those in the heresies, as if he knows everything about Christians. This is clear from the text that follows.

Book 6, Section 35

For using the words of the prophets is ours, those who present Jesus as the Christ proclaimed by them and show that what is written in the gospels about Jesus has been fulfilled from the prophetic texts.

But when he speaks of circles upon circles, it may be that this is from the previously mentioned heresy, which claims that there is one soul that includes everything, which they say is the soul of the whole and Leviathan, the seven ruling circles.

It may also be a misunderstanding from Ecclesiastes, which says: "The spirit goes in circles, and the spirit returns to its circles." The mention of the mysteries of the earthly church and circumcision may have been taken from what some say about a certain heavenly church and that the earthly church is a shadow of a better age, and that circumcision is a symbol of purity that came from the law.

Some wisdom called Prunikos is named by those from Valentinus according to their wandering wisdom, which they claim is symbolized by blood flowing for twelve years. Hearing this, he, while producing everything from Greeks and barbarians and those in heresies, said: "A flowing power of a virgin."

The living soul is perhaps mentioned in the mysteries by some from Valentinus as the "soul creator," and it may also be said in contrast to the dead soul that the living soul is not born from the dead but from the one being saved.

I do not know of a heaven being sacrificed or an earth being sacrificed with a knife and many being sacrificed so that they may live. And it is not unlikely that Celsus has made these things up on his own.

Book 6, Section 36

We would say that stopping death in the world happens when the sin of the world dies, telling the secret story from the apostle like this: when "he puts all enemies under his feet," then "the last enemy, death, is destroyed."

It is also said: "When this perishable body puts on imperishability," "then the written word will come true: death has been swallowed up in victory." The narrow descent may be what those who believe in reincarnation say.

It is not unlikely that the gates opening automatically is said by some who hint and tell the story of "Open to me the gates of righteousness. I will enter and give thanks to the Lord; this is the gate of the Lord; the righteous will enter through it."

Again, in the ninth psalm, it says: "He lifted me up from the gates of death, so that I may declare all your praises in the gates of the daughter of Zion." The "gates of death" are said to be those that lead to destruction through sin, just as the "gates of Zion" refer to good deeds.

So also, the "gates of righteousness," which is the same as "the gates of virtue," are opened to those who pursue virtuous actions. As for the wood of life, someone may tell the story explaining what is written about the paradise of God planted by him in Genesis.

Celsus has often mocked what he did not understand about the resurrection; now, not satisfied with what has been said, he claims that the resurrection of the flesh is from wood, misunderstanding the symbolic meaning that through wood comes death and through wood comes life—death through Adam and life through Christ.

Then, playing with the idea of wood from two places, he mocks it, saying that it is taken up because our teacher was nailed to a cross or because he was a carpenter by trade, not seeing that the wood of life is written in the letters of Moses, and not realizing that nowhere in the gospels brought forth in the churches is Jesus himself called a carpenter.

Book 6, Section 37

He thinks that we are twisting the meaning of the cross by spreading the wood of life and, following his own mistake about this, he says that if that one had fallen from a cliff or had been thrown into a pit or strangled by a noose, there would be a cliff of life above the heavens or a pit of resurrection or a rope of immortality.

Again, he says that if the wood of life came from being a carpenter, then if he were a leatherworker, we would talk about a holy hide; if he were a stonecutter, about a blessed stone; if he were a blacksmith, about iron of love.

So who does not see the cheapness of his accusation, insulting the people he claimed would return as deceived? Next, he says that those who create the lion-headed, donkey-headed, and dragon-headed rulers fit with those who have mythologized similarly, not excluding those from the church.

For truly, even an old woman, drunkenly singing a myth to a child, would be ashamed to whisper such things, like those who created the donkey-headed beings and those at each gate as if in a public speech.

Celsus does not understand the teachings from the church, which very few have learned to grasp, those who have dedicated their whole lives to searching the scriptures according to Jesus' command, and more than the philosophers of the Greeks, who have grown weary in their pursuit of a supposed knowledge regarding the examination of the purpose of the sacred writings.

Book 6, Section 38

The man from the genealogy, not satisfied with what was written, wanted to increase our accusations, which have nothing in common with that, and instead of saying anything else, he repeats their claims as if they were ours.

He says: "Their wonder is not least; they explain something written among the higher heavenly circles, other things and two more, greater and smaller, of son and father." But we find in this writing the greater circle and the smaller one, on which it is written "father and son," and between the greater, where the smaller was, and another made from two circles, one outer yellow and the inner blue, with a written barrier in a shape like a wedge.

Above it, there was a small circle connected to the greater of the former, inscribed with "love"; below it was connected to the circle inscribed with "life." The second circle had written on it, intertwined and enclosing two other circles and another rhombus-shaped figure, "wisdom's foresight," and inside their common section was "wisdom's nature," while above their common section was a circle inscribed with "knowledge," and below it was another inscribed with "understanding."

We have included these in the argument against Celsus to present to those who encounter it a clearer understanding than what he has known and not from misunderstandings about what we are accused of.

If those who take pride in such things promise some kind of magical charm, which is for them the head of wisdom, we do not guarantee that. For we have not recorded such things; Celsus would know, who has often been caught in false testimonies and unreasonable accusations, whether he lies in these matters or if he has exposed something about foreign and strange beliefs in his own writing.

Book 6, Section 39

Then, he speaks about those who use some kind of magic and charm, calling upon strange names of certain demons, saying that what they do is similar to those who perform wonders on those who do not know. Some of their names are different among the Greeks and others among the Scythians.

He then presents from Herodotus that the Scythians call Apollo "Gongosyris," Poseidon "Thagimasada," Aphrodite "Argimbasa," and Hestia "Tabiti." He will examine whether Celsus lies about these things along with Herodotus, since he does not know that the same names are used by the Greeks regarding the gods they believe in.

For what likelihood is there that Apollo is called Gongosyris among the Scythians? I do not think that Gongosyris, when he came to Greece, presented the etymology of Apollo, nor that Apollo signifies Gongosyris in the Scythian dialect.

In the same way, he will not say the same about the others; for the Greeks, starting from other matters and etymologies, named their gods differently than the Scythians, and likewise the Persians from others, and the Indians or Ethiopians or Libyans, each naming them as they liked, without sticking to the original and pure idea of the creator of all.

It has been sufficiently stated to us before that those who wish to show that "Sabaoth" and "Zeus" are not the same, when we also present something from the divine writings about the dialects. Therefore, we willingly go beyond these things, in which Celsus calls us redundant.

Then again, he brings forth things from magical charm and perhaps attaches them to those who do not have the magicians' pretense of piety, or perhaps to those easily deceived by such things, so that they might seem to do something by divine power. He presents something, saying: "What need is there for me to list those who taught purifications or release songs or expelling cries or incantations or demonic formations, of garments or numbers or stones or plants or roots and all kinds of various charms?"

About these things, he does not require us to defend the reasonable, since we are not even involved in such suspicions in any significant way.

Book 6, Section 40

After this, it seems to me that he is trying to make a similar point to those who, out of great dislike for Christians, claim to those who know nothing about them that Christians are caught in the act of eating the flesh of children and engaging in sexual acts with their own women.

As these things are already being said by many and are completely foreign to our piety, they are recognized as false accusations against Christians. In the same way, such things would be found to be falsely stated by Celsus, in which he claims to have seen among certain elders of our faith books that are barbaric, containing names of demons and wonders.

He said that these supposed elders of our faith promise nothing good but only harmful things to people. If only all that Celsus says against Christians were like this, so that most people could refute them.

If they were to find such things to be false, it would be from having lived closely with Christians, and they would have heard nothing like that about them.

Book 6, Section 41

After this, as if forgetting that he is writing against Christians, he claims that a certain musician from Egypt named Dionysius said something about magic, that it can affect the uneducated and corrupt their morals, but it can do nothing to those who are philosophical, since they are careful about healthy living.

If we were to discuss magic now, we would add a few things about it that we mentioned earlier. But since we need to talk about the more relevant points in Celsus's writing, we say about magic that anyone wanting to examine whether philosophers have ever been caught up in it or not should read the writings of the magician and philosopher Apollonius of Tyana.

In these writings, a non-Christian philosopher said that certain philosophers, not of noble birth, were caught up in the magic of Apollonius as they approached him. I think he also told about Euphrates and a certain Epicurean.

We affirm, based on our experience, that those who follow Christianity through Jesus, who heals all, and live according to his gospel with the prayers he commanded, both day and night, are not caught up in magic or demons.

For truly, "the angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear him and delivers them from all evil." And "the angels" in the church are said to be small and arranged to oversee them "always," looking at "the face of the Father in heaven," whatever that face may be and whatever it means to see it.

Book 6, Section 42

Next, Celsus says such things about us from another starting point. They are very wrong and show great ignorance, wandering like those misled by divine riddles, making some kind of opposition to God, and calling the same being both the devil and Satan in Hebrew.

In another way, these things are completely mortal and not even worthy to be spoken of, since the greatest God, wanting to help people, has an opponent and is unable. So, the Son of God is defeated by the devil, and while being punished, he teaches us about these things.

By this punishment, he seems to suggest that Satan will also show great and marvelous works, stealing the glory of God. Those who want to be misled by this should turn to him, but instead, they should only believe in themselves.

These things are directly opposed to a sorcerer, who is working to protect those who oppose and challenge him. Then, wanting to explain the riddles, which he thinks we have heard about Satan, he mentions a certain divine war hinted at by the ancients, with Heraclitus saying: "One must know that the war is common and justice is strife, and everything happens in strife and moves forward."

And much earlier than Heraclitus, Pherecydes tells a myth of armies arrayed against each other. He gives one army a leader, Cronus, and the other, Ophion, recounting their challenges and struggles.

He describes how they made agreements, so that whichever of them fell into the abyss would be defeated, while those who drove them out and won would have heaven. He also speaks of the Titans and Giants and the mysteries surrounding them, saying they are fighting against the gods, and he mentions the Egyptians regarding Typhon, Horus, and Osiris.

Then, having laid out such things without offering comfort, he asks how those words are better than these, saying they are not similar to those about the devil or to a sorcerer opposing him.

Thus, he also hears Homer, as he brings in similar things to Heraclitus and Pherecydes and the mysteries about the Titans and Giants, hinting at the words of Hephaestus to Hera, saying: "Already I have been striving to escape, throwing my foot from the heavenly altar, and to those of Zeus towards Hera in this way: 'Do you not remember, when I fell from above, and from my feet I let down two anvils, and around my hands I tied a golden bond? You, however, hang in the air and clouds; the gods are far away on Olympus. They could not free me, but whoever I might catch, I would throw down from the altar, so that he might reach the earth lightly.'"

And while recounting the Homeric verses, he says that the words of the god towards the material world are the words of Zeus towards Hera, while the words towards the material world are hinted at as if they were originally flawed, and the god arranged them with certain proportions.

He also says that the demons around her, all who are violent, are cast away, punishing them on this path. These Homeric verses, understood in this way, he claims Pherecydes has said: "From that fate below is the fate of Tartarus; the daughters of Boreas, the Harpies and Storms, guard it, where Zeus casts out any god who acts violently."

He says that such thoughts are held about Athena's robe in the procession of the Panathenaea, seen by all. For he says it is clear from this that a certain unmothered and pure demon prevails over the bold ones of the earth.

Accepting the creations of the Greeks, he chooses to accuse us of such things, that the Son of God is punished by the devil and teaches us, as if we, being punished by the same, could endure. And all of this is laughable; for I think it would be right to punish the devil, but not to threaten those who are slandered by him.

Book 6, Section 43

So, see if the one accusing us, as if we are very wrong and misled by divine riddles, is not clearly mistaken himself, not realizing that he has introduced not only the much older writings of Heraclitus and Pherecydes but also the writings of Moses regarding this wicked being who fell from the heavens.

For the "serpent," from whom Ophion was born according to Pherecydes, is the cause of humanity being cast out of the divine paradise, and he hints at such things, deceiving the female gender with the promise of divinity and greater things. It is said that the man followed him.

And who else could be the destroyer in the Exodus of Moses but the one responsible for the destruction of those who obey him and do not resist his evil and do not oppose him?

Also, the one in Leviticus, the scapegoat, whom the Hebrew scripture calls Azazel, was no other than the one to be sent away and driven off into the wilderness; for all those who are contrary to the portion of God are desolate.

But also, the sons of Belial in the Judges are said to be his sons because of their wickedness. Clearly, in all these things, in the older writings of Moses, the devil is written to stand before God and ask for power against Job, so that he may overwhelm him with heavy trials, first by the loss of all his possessions and children, and second by covering him with a wild disease, so that all of Job's body is affected.

I will leave aside the accounts from the gospels about the devil tempting the Savior, so that I do not seem to bring in newer writings against Celsus.

And in the last part of Job, where the Lord speaks to Job through a storm and clouds, there are many things said about a dragon. I will not even mention the accounts from Ezekiel about "Pharaoh" or "Nebuchadnezzar" or the ruler of "Tyre," or those from Isaiah, where the king of Babylon is lamented; from these, one could learn a lot about wickedness, what its origin and birth are, and that it arose from certain winged beings who followed the first winged being.

Book 6, Section 44

For it is not possible for something that is truly good to be the same as something that is good by chance or as a result of something else. For the one who takes the living bread to sustain himself will never lose it. But if someone does lose it, it happens not because of his own fault, but because he has been careless about taking the living bread and the true drink.

From these, he is nourished and strengthened, and according to the wisest Solomon, who said about the truly rich that "he has made wings for himself like an eagle, and he returns to the house of his overseer."

It is necessary for the one who knows to use God as needed and to arrange those who fall into evil in a way that they may strive "lawfully" to take up virtue. So that, like gold tested in fire, they may be found worthy, and nothing false may be added to their rational nature, and they may be raised to the divine, reaching the highest happiness and, as I would say, the peak of goodness.

The Hebrew term for Satan and the Greek name for him, which some call Satan, are opposites. Anyone who chooses evil and lives contrary to it is like Satan, meaning he is opposed to the Son of God, who is justice, truth, and wisdom.

Moreover, the first of all who brings peace and lives happily is the one who fell from happiness. He walked "blamelessly" in all his ways until lawlessness was found in him, and being "the seal of likeness and the crown of beauty" in the paradise of God, he became filled with evil and was told a secret word: "You will be lost and will not exist forever."

So, having boldly and recklessly believed these few things in this writing, we might not have said anything. But if someone, having pondered the torment of the sacred writings, were to flesh out the discussion about evil and how it first arose and in what way it is destroyed, he would see that neither Moses nor the prophets ever dreamed of the will of Satan, nor did Celsus or anyone else who is drawn down and ensnared by this wicked demon understand the true ideas about him and from his word the soul.

Book 6, Section 45

Since Celsus also dismisses the things about the so-called Antichrist, he does not consider what is written in Daniel or what Paul says about him, nor the prophecies in the gospels about his coming. There is little to say about this.

Just as "the faces of people are not alike, so neither are their hearts alike." It is clear that there are differences in "the hearts of people" regarding what is good, not all being equal and similar to one another, but rather shaped and formed differently, and some, through neglect of the good, turning to the opposite.

For in those where evil is greatly spread and in those where it is less, what is strange about two extremes, as I would say, the extreme of good and the extreme of the opposite, occurring among people? So, the extreme of good is found in the person understood according to Jesus, from whom such a great return and healing and improvement has flowed to humanity, while the extreme of the opposite is found in the one called the Antichrist.

But God, having encompassed all things with his foreknowledge and seeing what pertains to both of these, wished to make them known to people through the prophets, so that those who understand these words may be drawn to the better and be kept away from the opposite.

It would be fitting for the better son, the best of all, to be called the Son of God because of his excellence, while the opposite son, the son of the wicked demon and Satan, would be called the opposite.

Then, since the evil is most characterized in the overflow of wickedness and its extremity, when it pretends to be better, it is for this reason that signs, wonders, and false powers are done through the cooperation of his father, the devil, concerning the worse.

For the cooperation that occurs with the sorcerers from demons leads to the most wicked of people being deceived, and this cooperation from the devil results in the deception of humanity.

Paul speaks about this so-called Antichrist, teaching and presenting with some concealment how and when he will appear to humanity and why. And see if Paul does not present these things very solemnly and does not mock anyone, even the least bit.

Book 6, Section 46

He says this: "We ask you, brothers, about the coming of our Lord Jesus (Christ) and our gathering to him, not to be shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter as if from us, as though the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way, for unless the rebellion comes first and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sits in the temple of God as God, showing himself as God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you, I told you these things? And now you know what is restraining him, so that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will consume with the spirit of his mouth and destroy with the brightness of his coming, whose coming is according to the working of Satan with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who are perishing, because they did not receive the love of the truth that they might be saved. And for this reason, God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

Each of these things fits well with the present discussion. The prophecy about him in Daniel is said to be able to turn the wise and understanding reader to marvel at the words as truly inspired and prophetic, in which the future kingdoms are mentioned, starting from the time of Daniel until the end of the world.

It will be given to the one who wishes to encounter it; but concerning the Antichrist, see if it is such: "And at the end of their kingdom, when their sins are fulfilled, a king will arise, bold in face and understanding riddles. And his power will be mighty, and he will destroy and direct and do and ruin the strong and the holy people. And the yoke of his oppression will be directed; deceit will be in his hand, and in his heart he will be magnified, and by deceit he will destroy many, and he will stand for the destruction of many, and he will crush them like eggs in his hand."

What Paul says about him, that he will sit in the temple of God, showing himself as God, is also mentioned in Daniel in this way: "And upon the holy place, the abomination of desolation will be set, and until the end of time, destruction will be given upon the desolation."

Thus, it seemed reasonable to me to present these things from many sources, so that we may understand a little about the purpose of the divine words, teaching about the devil and the Antichrist. Having considered these, let us see another saying of Celsus and strive against it as much as we can.

Book 6, Section 47

He said this after the preceding things: "From where did they come to call this one the Son of God? The ancient men called this world a child of God and a youth. Indeed, this one is very much like that child of God. They thought that we were calling him the Son of God, misrepresenting the things about the world as having come from God and being his son and God himself; for they could not understand, having seen the times of Moses and the prophets, that there is a son of God before the Greeks, and that the prophets among the Jews prophesied about him, as Celsus says.

But he did not even wish to mention what is said by Plato in his letters, which we referred to earlier, about the one who ordered this whole creation as being the Son of God; so that he himself might not be forced to accept that the creator of all is the Son of God, while the first and above all is his Father God.

If they claim that the soul of Jesus is united with such a Son of God in the highest way, we no longer separate it from him, which is not surprising. For the sacred words of the divine scriptures and others, which are two by their own nature, are thought to be one with each other and to exist.

For example, it is said about a man and a woman: "They are no longer two but one flesh." And about the perfect and united with the true Lord, in word, wisdom, and truth, it is said that "he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit."

If "he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit," who is more so than the soul of Jesus, or even if it is similarly joined to the Lord, who is the self-Word, self-Wisdom, self-Truth, and self-Righteousness? If this is the case, then the soul of Jesus is not two in relation to the "firstborn of all creation," the Word of God.

Book 6, Section 48

Then, if the philosophers from the Stoa say that the happiness of a man and of God is not greater for the one who is God above all, but that the happiness of both is equal, Celsus does not mock or ridicule this belief. But if the divine word claims that the perfect one is united with virtue, so that we do not separate the soul of Jesus from the firstborn of all creation, he laughs at the idea of calling Jesus the Son of God, not seeing what is said about him in the sacred writings, which is spoken of in a hidden and mysterious way.

To bring the one who wishes to follow this teaching to benefit from it, we say that the divine words say that the body of Christ is the whole church of God, with some of the believers being members of this body; just as the soul gives life and moves the body, not being able to move by itself. In the same way, the Word moves and acts upon the whole body of the church and each member of the church, doing nothing apart from the Word.

If this is not to be scorned, as I think it is, what is difficult about the highest and unexceeded union of the soul of Jesus with the self-Word, and that Jesus is not separated from the only-begotten and firstborn of all creation, nor does he become anything else apart from him? But these things are as stated.

Book 6, Section 49

Let us also consider the following, in which he speaks in one statement and does not say anything likely while accusing the creation of the world according to Moses. He even says that the creation of the world is very naive. If he thinks that it is naive and brings up some likelihoods, and even if we struggle against them, it does not seem reasonable to me to construct a way in which it is not naive.

But if someone wishes to examine what has moved us and what has been established with the revealed proof about the creation of the world according to Moses, let him take what has been discussed with us from the beginning of the book of Genesis until "this is the book of the generation of mankind," in which we have been able to establish from the divine writings who is the one "who was in the beginning," the heavens and the earth, and what is the invisible and unformed part of the earth, and what is the abyss and the darkness upon it, and what is the water and the "spirit of God" moving upon it, and what is the generated "light," and what is the "firmament" next to the "heavens" that were generated "in the beginning," and so on.

He declared that the writing about the generation of mankind is also very naive, neither presenting proofs nor struggling against them; for I think he had no words capable of overturning that "man was made in the image of God." But he does not understand the "paradise" planted by God and the previous life of man in it, and how he was cast out because of sin and settled opposite "the paradise of pleasure."

He who speaks very naively about these things should first be aware that "he placed the cherubim and the flaming sword that turns, to guard the way to the tree of life." If Moses wrote these things without understanding anything, but rather made something similar to what the poets of ancient comedy wrote, like "Proetus married Bellerophon, and Pegasus was from Arcadia," those who wanted to make people laugh composed such things.

It is not likely that he would leave writings to the whole nation about what he wanted to convince the lawmakers that they were from God, written without reason and said without any thought: "He placed the cherubim and the flaming sword that turns, to guard the way to the tree of life," or anything else mentioned about the generation of mankind that has been philosophized by the wise among the Hebrews.

Book 6, Section 50

Next, he claims that those who leave behind our writings, like Moses and the prophets, do not know what the nature of the world and the generation of mankind is, and he puts together a deep nonsense. If he thinks that the divine writings are deep nonsense, and even if we try to refute the apparent likelihoods he presents about this nonsense, now we are doing the same thing as he does, playing around and showing that he does not know at all what the nature of the mind and the word in the prophets is, and he arrogantly labels it as true.

Since he clearly and precisely brings accusations against the days of creation according to Moses, some say that light and heaven were created before the sun, moon, and stars, while others say it was after their creation. We will only point out to him that did Moses not mention that the world was created in six days, and forgetting this, he adds, "This is the book of the generation of mankind, in which on the day he made the heavens and the earth"?

But there is no likelihood that Moses said anything after the six days about "on the day he made the heavens and the earth." If someone thinks that these can be referred back to "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," let him be aware that before "let there be light, and there was light," and before "God called the light day," it is said, "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Book 6, Section 51

Now, I will explain the discussion about the intelligible and the sensible, and how the natures of the days are divided into both kinds. It is not necessary to examine the places; for we need to organize everything for the account of creation according to Moses. We have already prepared this account some time ago in response to Celsus, based on our previous understanding from many years ago, where we discussed the six days of creation according to Moses.

It is important to know that for the righteous, through Isaiah, the word promises that there will be days when the sun will not shine, but the "Lord will be their light," and "God will be their glory." However, I think he has listened to some wicked interpretation and poorly explained "let there be light" as if it were a request made by the creator. For the creator did not use light from neighbors like those who light lamps.

Listening to another irreverent interpretation, he asked, if there was a god opposed to the great God who did these things against his will, why would he create light? We need to defend ourselves against such claims, so that we do not seem to be accusing them of errors, as Celsus does, but rather addressing what we know accurately, following their ideas and carefully engaging with their writings.

Book 6, Section 52

After this, Celsus says: "As for the creation of the world and its destruction, whether it is uncreated and imperishable, or created but imperishable, or the opposite, I am not saying anything about this now." Therefore, we are not speaking about these things either, for the current discussion does not require it.

But we do not say that the spirit of God, which is above all, is something foreign that came about according to "the spirit of God moved over the waters," nor do we think that it was created by another god apart from the great God. We say that the spirit of God is not in need of anything to be removed.

Therefore, let those who say such things rejoice, and let Celsus, who does not truly accuse them, be careful. He should either not remember such things or, if he thinks he is being kind, he should carefully address them and struggle against the irreverent things said by them.

We have never heard that the great God requires the spirit from the creator. Then, he foolishly accuses with irreverent words, saying: "What god gives something as if he is in need?" For a god does not need anything. He also adds something that he thinks is wise, asking: "Why, when he created, did he not know that he was creating something bad?" He also says: "What does he mean by limiting a wicked creator who is acting against himself?"

Book 6, Section 53

Then I think he is mixing up different beliefs and not noting that some things belong to one belief and others to another. The things he says about Marcion are probably taken from some cheap and private accusations. He does not do this very wisely.

So, while explaining what is said about Marcion and not noting that he is speaking to him, he asks: "What secretly sends and destroys the creations of this one? What secretly invades and deceives and leads astray? What does he do to those who are condemned or cursed by him, as you say, to comfort them and take them away like a slave? What does he teach about escaping from the Lord? What does he mean by fleeing from the Father? What does he himself claim, without the Father's consent? What does he promise to be a father of others?"

And he adds something like this in amazement: "The god of those condemned by others is indeed a father of sinful and worthless desires, and as they say, he is unable to take revenge on the one he sent out."

Next, he speaks as if to us who confess that this world is not from a foreign or strange god, saying: "If these are the works of that god, how can he do evil? How can he be unable to persuade and correct? How can he complain about and hate and threaten and destroy his own creations that have become ungrateful and wicked? Or when does he take away this world that he himself made?"

It seems to me that he is not clearly explaining what the evils are, even though many beliefs among the Greeks have arisen about good and evil. He is taking as a consequence what they say are the works of the god above all and that this world is made by God, making God the creator of our evils.

So let him say how things are regarding evils, whether God made them or not, but it seems to follow from what has been said before. I wonder if he thinks that the works of the god above all and this world are evil, does he believe that God is responsible for the evils? He follows as far as what he says and himself.

For someone might say to Celsus: "If these are the works of that god, how can he do evil? How can he be unable to persuade and correct?" The greatest evil in words is when someone accuses those with different beliefs about certain doctrines as unhealthy, while he himself holds the same faults in his own beliefs.

Book 6, Section 54

Let us then briefly look at the good and evil according to the divine scriptures, and what we should say about them: how can God do evil? How can he be unable to persuade and correct? According to the divine scriptures, virtues are truly good, and the actions based on them are good, just as their opposites are truly evil.

We will focus on the words from Psalm 33, presenting them like this: "Those who seek the Lord will not lack any good thing. Come, children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord. Who is the man who desires life and loves to see good days? Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking deceit. Turn away from evil and do good."

For the phrase "turn away from evil and do good" does not refer to physical goods or evils, as some might name them, nor to external things, but rather to the goods or evils of the soul. For the one who turns away from such evils and does these good things will truly have life, "loving to see good days," of which the word for "righteousness" is "sun," and he will reach those days.

He is separated from God "from this present age of evil" and from the wicked days, about which Paul said: "Redeeming the time, for the days are evil."

Book 6, Section 55

If someone were to find fault with both physical and external things, considering those that contribute to a natural life as good and those opposing them as bad, then indeed, Jor says to his wife: "If we have received good things from the hand of the Lord, we will not accept evil."

Since it is found in the divine scriptures that God says, "I am the one who makes peace and creates evil," and again, it says about him, "that evil came from the Lord upon the gates of Jerusalem, the noise of chariots and horsemen," this has troubled many who encounter the scripture, unable to see what it says about good and evil.

It is likely that Celsus, confused by this, has said: "How can God do evil?" Or perhaps he has heard something more private about the local interpretation of the text. But we say that God did not create evil or the evil actions that come from it. For how could the preaching about judgment have boldness if it teaches that the wicked will be punished according to their evil actions, while the righteous will be blessed and receive rewards from God for living according to virtue?

I know well that some will take certain statements from the scripture and claim that these come from God, unable to show a single consistent interpretation of the scripture, which blames those who sin while accepting those who do good, and still saying the same things that confuse those who read the divine writings without understanding.

Now, I will explain the confusing statements, many of which require much interpretation, and I do not think it fitting to include them in the current discussion. Therefore, if someone hears what is mainly called evil, God did not create it, but only a few things followed from his previous works, just as the twisting of the wood and the shavings that follow the carpenter's work seem to be like the waste that falls from the stones and dust of the buildings.

Book 6, Section 56

But if those things that are called evils in a misleading way, referring to physical and external matters, who says that God has done any of these things to turn someone back? And what could be strange about this statement? For just as, if we were to hear that the pains inflicted by fathers, teachers, and tutors, or by doctors on those being treated, are called evils, we would not accuse the father or the teachers or the doctors.

So, if God is said to bring such things for the sake of turning back and healing those in need of such pains, there would be nothing strange about the statement. Nor would it be strange if it says, "evil came from the Lord upon the gates of Jerusalem," referring to the suffering caused by enemies.

Nor would it be strange if it says, "with a rod he will punish the lawless," those who abandon the law of God, "and with blows their sins." Nor would it say, "You have hot coals; sit on them; they will be your help."

In this way, we explain the statement "the one who makes peace and creates evil": for he creates physical or external evils, cleansing and educating those who do not want to be taught by word and healthy teaching. And this is how God is said to do evil.

Book 6, Section 57

But how can God be unable to persuade and correct? It has already been said that if this is a crime, Celsus's words would lead those who accept divine care to defend themselves. But someone could argue that God does not lack the ability to correct. For he corrects through all of scripture and through those who teach by God's grace to those who listen.

If there is something specific meant by this, it would be to correct and to succeed in the one being corrected and to hear the words of the teacher, which is contrary to the usual meaning of what is commonly understood.

But how can he be unable to persuade? This too could be brought up by all who accept divine care, and these things should be said. Since to be persuaded is somewhat like what happens to those who are cut, it is similar to a person being shaved. The act of giving oneself to the one who is cutting is not only dependent on the action of the one persuading but also on the acceptance of what is said by the persuader.

Therefore, it should not be said that God cannot persuade those who do not want to be persuaded, but rather that they do not accept the persuasive words of God. This is also true for humans, who are called creators of persuasion; it would not be wrong to say this. For it is possible for someone who is completely caught up in the principles of rhetoric and rightly uses everything to persuade, yet still seems not to persuade those who do not choose to be persuaded.

And that even if the persuasive words come from God, the act of being persuaded is not from God, Paul clearly teaches when he says, "The persuasion is not from the one calling you." This is also true when he says, "If you want to listen to me, you will eat the good things of the earth; but if you do not want to listen to me, a sword will consume you."

For someone to want what the one correcting says and to be worthy of the promises of God, there must be a choice from the listener and an inclination toward what is being said. Therefore, in Deuteronomy, it seems to be clearly stated: "And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God ask of you but to fear the Lord your God and to walk in all his ways and to love him and to keep his commandments?"

Book 6, Section 58

Next, it is necessary to respond to how he, having become ungrateful and wicked, regrets and blames his own craft, hates and threatens, and destroys his own creations. He slanders and falsely accuses what is written in Genesis in this way: "And the Lord God saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. And the Lord said, 'I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the earth, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens; for I am sorry that I have made them.'"

In this, he presents what is not written as if it were shown from what is written. For regret is not named as belonging to God, nor is it said that he blames or hates his own craft. But if God seems to threaten with the flood and to destroy his own creations in it, it must be said that, since the souls of men are immortal, the supposed threat aims to turn those who hear it back, while the destruction of men in the flood is a cleansing of the earth, as the Greeks who have philosophized well have said, "When the gods cleanse the earth."

And concerning the so-called human-like expressions used about God, we have already said quite a bit above.

Book 6, Section 59

Then, Celsus, perhaps realizing this himself, says what can be said by those defending the destruction during the flood: "If he does not destroy his own creations, where does he take them out of this world?" To this, we say that he does not completely remove those who suffered the flood from the whole world, which is made up of heaven and earth. Instead, he frees them from earthly life, and by releasing their bodies, he also frees them from being on the earth, which in many places in scripture is often called the world.

Especially in the Gospel according to John, the term "world" is often found referring to the earthly place, as in "The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world," and "In the world, you will have trouble; but take heart, I have overcome the world."

So, if someone hears that he takes them out of this earthly world, there is nothing strange about this statement. But if someone calls the system of heaven and earth a world, not all those who suffered the flood are removed from this so-called world.

Yet, someone might say, understanding the phrase "not looking at the things that are seen but at the things that are not seen," and "for the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made," that he has left the world, which is not seen and is simply called invisible, and that the argument leads him from here to the heavenly place, to the realm of the beautiful.

Book 6, Section 60

After examining the text, as if aiming to fill the book with many words, he uses other phrases similar to those discussed above. He says: "It is much more foolish to say that I am spending some days on the creation of the world before there were any days. For since heaven had not yet been made nor the earth was yet empty, nor was the sun yet shining here, how could there be days? What difference does this make? If we take this further, how would it not be strange for the first and greatest God to command, 'Let this be, and let that be,' and on one day to create this much, and on the second day to create that much more, and on the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth days?"

We would say that he commands, "Let this be, and let that be," when we present the phrase "He said, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm." This shows that the Son of God, the Word, is the careful creator, while the Father of the Word is the first creator who commanded the Son to make the world.

Regarding the creation on the first day of "light," on the second day "the firmament," on the third day gathering the "waters under the heaven" into their places, and thus the earth was made to grow by its own nature, and on the fourth day the "lights" and "stars," and on the fifth day the creatures of the sea, and on the sixth day the land animals and "man," we have said as much as we can in our discussions about Genesis.

In the earlier parts, we noted that according to the earlier version, six days have passed in the creation of the world, and we present the phrase, "This is the book of the generation of heaven and earth, when God created the heaven and the earth."

Book 6, Section 61

Then, again not listening to the phrase "And God finished on the sixth day his works that he had done; and he rested on the seventh day from all his works that he had done. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all his works that he had done," he thinks that "he rested on the seventh day" and "he ceased on the seventh day" are the same. After this, like a foolish craftsman who is tired and asks for a break, he does not even know what the day of rest and the Sabbath of God is, a day in which all those who have completed their works in the six days celebrate with God, and because nothing is left undone, they rise up to contemplate and join in the festival of the righteous and blessed.

Then, as if from the scriptures saying this or from us telling about God, he claims that being tired and resting is not fitting for the first God, neither to work nor to command. Celsus says that it is not fitting for the first God to be tired; we would say that neither does the Word of God tire, nor do those who are of a higher and divine order. For being tired is something of the body. You might ask whether it is of those in some kind of body or of those in the earthly and slightly better body.

But it is also not fitting for the first God to work. If you hear the term "work," it is not fitting for the second God or anything else of the divine. But let it be said in a way that is not literal, so we can tell that "the making of his hands declares the firmament" and "his hands established the heaven," and if anything similar is said, we are using the hands and parts of God in a figurative way. So what is strange about saying that God works? Just as it is not strange to say that God commands, so it is not strange for him to command, so that the things done by the one commanded may be good and praiseworthy, and for the one who commands to be God himself concerning these things.

Book 6, Section 62

Again, Celsus, perhaps not hearing the phrase "For the mouth of the Lord has spoken these things," and perhaps also misunderstanding the private interpretations about such matters, asks why the names of bodily parts are applied to the powers of God. He says: "Neither does he have a mouth nor a voice." Truly, there will not be a voice for God if voice is understood as air struck or a sound of air or some kind of air, or whatever those skilled in these matters define as voice. But the so-called voice of God is said to be seen by the people in the phrase "All the people saw the voice of God," where "seen" is taken in a spiritual sense according to the custom of the scripture.

But he does not say what else there is for God that we know. If he means bodily parts, we agree with him, acknowledging what we know to be bodily and more commonly named. If he means in general, we know many things that are heard about him. For he has virtue, blessedness, and divinity. If someone hears something higher than what we know, since everything we know is less than God, it is not strange for us to accept that there is nothing for God that we know.

For he is greater than all that is known, not only the nature of man but also the qualities of those who have ascended above him. But if he has read the words of the prophets, with David saying, "But you are the same," and Malachi saying, "And I do not change," he sees that none of us says there is change in God, neither in action nor in thought. For "the same" governs the changing things, as is natural, and his word chooses to govern them.

Book 6, Section 63

Then Celsus says, not noticing the difference between "in the image of God" and "of his image," that "the image of God" is the firstborn of all creation, the Word itself, and the truth itself, while "in the image" of God is how man is made. He also says that every man, of whom "Christ is the head," has "the image and glory of God." But he does not understand in what part of man the "in the image" of God is characterized, and whether it is in the body or in the soul that is no longer present, "the old man with his deeds," since it does not have these things, he claims, is "in the image" of the creator. He says that God did not make man in his image; for God is not like this, nor is he similar to any other form.

Just as it is with the composite man, I mean with the body, he thinks that the "in the image" of God exists in the lower parts, as Celsus has taken it, to be the "in the image" of God itself. For if the "in the image" of God is only in the body, it lacks the greater part, the soul, of the "in the image," and it exists in the perishable body, which none of us says. But if the "in the image" of God exists in both, it must mean that God is composite and somehow made up of both soul and body, so that the greater part, the "in the image," is in the soul, and the lesser part is in the body, which none of us says.

Therefore, the "in the image" of God is said to be in the inner man, who is being renewed and is made "in the image of the creator," when someone becomes "perfect, as the heavenly Father is perfect," and hears that "you shall be holy, for I am the holy Lord your God," and learning "become imitators of God," he takes on the characteristics of God in his virtuous soul. When he is also "a temple" of God, in the "in the image" of God, having a soul and in the soul through the "in the image" of God.

Book 6, Section 64

Again, Celsus speaks more to himself, saying things that no one among Christians with understanding gives. For he does not say that God participates in shape or color, nor does he participate in movement, since he is called to stand firm and to have a stable nature. He also says to the righteous, "You stand with me." If some words suggest some kind of movement, like the one saying, "They heard the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day," such things should be understood as God being thought of as moving toward those who have sinned, or as God being said to be in a state of sleep or anger or something similar.

But God does not participate in substance; rather, he is more the one who participates or is participated in by those who have "the spirit of God." And our Savior does not participate in righteousness; rather, being "righteous," he is participated in by the righteous. The discussion about substance is vast and hard to understand, especially if the true substance is said to be standing and incorporeal. To find out whether God, giving substances to those to whom he gives according to his own word and that word, is beyond substance in authority and power, or whether he himself is substance, but is said to be invisible by nature in the saying about the Savior, "who is the image of the invisible God," indicating that the incorporeal is from the "invisible" voice.

It should also be investigated whether we should speak of substance as substances, and of idea as ideas, and of the beginning as the only-begotten and firstborn of all creation, and beyond all these, his Father and God.

Book 6, Section 65

Celsus says that everything comes from God, but he does not know how everything is his. Our Paul says, "from him and through him and to him are all things," showing the beginning of all things' existence in "from him," the connection in "through him," and the end in "to him." Truly, God is from nothing. Since he says that God is not reachable by word, I clarify what is meant and say: if by "word" he means the word within us, whether it is internal or spoken, we also say that God is not reachable by the word. But if we understand the phrase "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," we declare that God is reachable by this Word, not only being grasped by it but also by whoever he himself reveals the Father to.

We would falsely claim Celsus's words that God is not reachable by the word. The term "unnameable" also needs distinction. For if nothing in words and meanings can present the qualities of God, then what is said is true, even if many qualities are not named. For who can give a name to the sweetness of a date palm and the sweetness of a fig? And who can distinguish and present each one's unique quality by name? Therefore, it is not surprising if God is not so named. But if you take "nameable" as something that can be presented by names to guide the listener and make him think about God according to what is possible for human nature, then it is not inappropriate to say he is nameable. Thus, we also distinguish that nothing has been suffered that is nameable.

It is true that God is beyond all passion. And these things are said in this way.

Book 6, Section 66

Let us also see his next statement, where he seems to personify something, after hearing these things saying: "How then can I know God? And how can I learn the way there? And how do you show him to me? For now you put darkness before my eyes, and I see nothing clearly." Then, to the one who is so perplexed, he seems to respond, saying that the reason for the darkness is that the eyes are covered, and he thinks he is giving back what was said before. Those whom someone leads from darkness into bright light, he believes, cannot withstand the brightness and are blinded, thinking they are made blind.

To this, we would say that all those who sit in darkness and remain in it see the bad craftsmanship of painters and sculptors, not wanting to look up and rise in their minds from visible things and all that can be sensed to the Creator of all, who is light. In the light, everything that follows the rays of the Word is found, showing how much ignorance, impiety, and lack of knowledge about the divine these things are worshipped instead of God, and guiding the mind that wants to be saved toward the uncreated and above all gods. "The people sitting in darkness," that is, the nations, "have seen a great light, and to those sitting in the land and shadow of death, light has dawned," that is, God Jesus.

Therefore, no Christian responds to Celsus or any of those accusing the divine Word, saying: "How can I know God?" For each of them, as is fitting, has known God. And no one says: "How can I learn the way there?" since they have heard the one saying: "I am the way and the truth and the life," and they have tasted the benefits of following the way. And no Christian would say to Celsus: "How do you show me God?"

Book 6, Section 67

In this, Celsus has said something true. When someone hears his words and sees that his words are of darkness, he says, "You put darkness before my eyes." Celsus and those similar to him want to present darkness before our eyes, but we remove the darkness of the impious beliefs with the light of the Word. A Christian might say to Celsus, speaking nothing clear or striking: "I see nothing clear in your words." Therefore, Celsus does not lead us from darkness into bright light, but wants to turn us from light into darkness, claiming that "darkness" is "light" and "light" is darkness, following the well-said words of Isaiah: "Woe to those who put darkness for light and light for darkness."

But we, when the Word opens the eyes of our souls, choose to stand in all ways in the light and do not want to approach darkness at all. The true light is alive, showing which is the brightness and which is the light, without presenting its own brightness through weakness to the eyes. If it must be said that one is blinded and harmed in sight, who else could we say suffers these things but the one who is held back by ignorance about God and is hindered by passions from seeing the truth? Therefore, Christians do not think they are made blind by the words of Celsus or any other foreign piety. Those who feel themselves being blinded by following crowds and nations celebrating demons should turn to the gracious Word, so that they may be like the poor and blind left by the way.

Those healed by Jesus, who said to him, "Son of David, have mercy on me," were given new and beautiful eyes, such as the Word of God could create.

Book 6, Section 68

Therefore, if Celsus asks us how we think we can know God and how we can be saved through him, we would respond that the Word of God is sufficient for those seeking him or accepting him when he appears, to know and reveal the Father, who is not seen before his coming. Who else can save and bring the soul of a person to the God above all gods but the Word of God? He, who "was in the beginning with God," became flesh for those who are bound to the flesh and became what is called "flesh," so that he could be seen by those who cannot see him as "the Word" and "was with God" and "was God."

Speaking physically and being proclaimed as "flesh," he calls those who are flesh, so that he may first shape them according to the Word that became flesh, and after that, lift them up to see him, who was before he became "flesh." Thus, they, having been helped and lifted from the fleshly introduction, say: "Even if we once knew Christ according to the flesh, now we no longer know him that way." Therefore, "flesh" became "flesh," and having become "flesh," "he dwelt among us," not becoming outside of us, but dwelling and becoming within us, and did not remain in his first form, but having lifted us to the rational "high mountain," he showed us his glorious form and the brightness of his garments, not only his own but also of the spiritual law, which is "seen in glory" with Jesus and Moses.

He also showed us all prophecy, which, after becoming human, did not die but was taken up into heaven, of which Elijah was a symbol. And he who saw these things might say: "We have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." Celsus has more privately shaped what he thinks we would say in response to his question: how we think we can know God and how we can be saved through him. But we would say the things that have been laid out before.

Book 6, Section 69

However, Celsus says that we respond as if by guesswork, admitting that our answer is like this: since God is great and hard to see, he sent a spirit of his own into a body like ours, so that we might be able to hear from him and learn. The God and Father of all is not only great to us; he has given of himself and his greatness to the only-begotten and firstborn of all creation, so that he may be the "image" of the invisible God and preserve the image of the Father in his greatness. For it was not possible to be a perfect image of the invisible God without also representing his greatness.

But God, as far as we are concerned, is an invisible spirit; to those who are pure in heart, he is seen in their understanding, that is, in their mind, but not in a heart that is impure. For it is not right for an impure heart to see God, but the heart must be pure to be worthy of seeing the pure. Let God be hard to see; but it is not only he who is hard to see, but also his only-begotten Son. For the Word of God is hard to see, and wisdom, in which God made all things, is also hard to see. Who can see the wisdom in which God made all things? Therefore, God is not hard to see because he sent the Son, who is easy to see.

Celsus did not understand this when he said that because God is hard to see, he sent a spirit of his own into a body like ours, so that we might be able to hear from him and learn. But as we have shown, even the Son, being hard to see, as he is the Word of God, through whom all things were made, "dwelt among us."

Book 6, Section 70

If Celsus understands what we say about the spirit of God, and that "those who are led by the spirit of God are the children of God," he would not say that God sent a spirit of his own into a body like ours. For God always shares his own spirit with those who are able to receive it, not by cutting or dividing it among the worthy. Our body is not spirit, just as fire, which is said to be God in "our God is a consuming fire," is not a body. All these things are said metaphorically to represent the nature of the spiritual in terms of familiar and bodily names.

Just as when sins are said to be wood, grass, and reeds, we do not say that sins are bodies; and when good deeds are said to be gold, silver, and precious stones, we do not say that good deeds are bodies. So, if God is said to be "a consuming fire," we do not think of him as a body, just as when he is called "spirit," we do not say he is a body. For in contrast to the physical, the Scriptures often call the spiritual things spirits and spiritual. For example, when Paul says: "But our sufficiency is from God, who made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the spirit; for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life," he names "letter" as the physical expression of divine writings and "spirit" as the spiritual meaning.

Thus, in "God is spirit," since both Samaritans and Jews performed the commandments of the law physically and literally, the Savior said to the Samaritan woman: "The hour is coming when neither in Jerusalem nor on this mountain will you worship the Father. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." By this, he taught that we should not worship God in the flesh or with physical sacrifices, but "in spirit." For it is also fitting to worship him "in spirit" and to serve him in a way that is understood as spiritual.

But we should not worship the Father in forms, but "in truth," which "came through Jesus Christ" after the law was given "through Moses." For when "we turn to the Lord" (and "the Lord is the Spirit"), "the veil that is over the heart is taken away," "when Moses is read."

Book 6, Section 71

Since Celsus does not understand the things about the spirit of God (for "the natural person does not accept the things of the spirit of God; they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually discerned"), he connects our words to his own ideas, thinking that when we say "God is spirit," it is no different from what the Stoics say, claiming that God is a spirit that pervades everything and contains all things within himself.

For the oversight and care of God extends through everything, but not like the Stoic spirit. The divine care encompasses all things, but it does not contain them like a body contains what is inside it; rather, it is like a divine power that surrounds the things it contains. The Stoics say that the principles are physical and therefore corrupt everything, even the God who is above all, unless they completely deny this. They think that the Word of God, which comes down to humans and the least of them, is nothing other than a physical spirit.

But for us, trying to show that the rational soul is better than any physical nature and essence, we would not say that the Word of God, through whom all things were made, is a body. The Word is not just for humans but also for the least of beings, governed by nature. Therefore, while the Stoics may burn everything, we do not know of an incorporeal essence being burned or dissolved into fire, whether it is the soul of a human, angels, thrones, dominions, principalities, or powers.

Book 6, Section 72

Therefore, it is in vain that Celsus says, not knowing the things of the spirit of God, that since the Son, who has become human, is a spirit from God, he would not be immortal. Then he again brings up his own argument, thinking that some of us do not agree that God is spirit but that his Son is, and he believes he is responding by saying that there is no such nature of spirit that always remains.

Just as when we say that God is "a consuming fire," he claims that there is no such nature of fire that always remains. He does not see how we say that our God is "fire," which consumes sins and evil. For it is fitting for a good God to reveal himself after fighting against evil, as he has become a fighter, to consume the evil of punishments with fire.

Then he again takes what we do not say, claiming that it is necessary for God to have breathed out. And following this, he argues that Jesus could not rise with the body; for God would not take back what he has given, a spirit polluted by the nature of the body. Therefore, it is foolish for him to respond to our words as if they were not our own.

Book 6, Section 73

Then, after saying many things above and mocking the virgin birth of God, to which we have responded as best we can, he says: if he wanted to send a spirit from himself, why would he need to breathe into a woman's womb? For he could already create humans and shape a body without putting his own spirit into such a pollution. Thus, he would not even believe it if it were immediately scattered from above.

He says this because he does not see the virgin and pure birth, which comes from no corruption, that is meant to serve the salvation of humans. He thinks that by discussing the Stoic idea and not understanding the things that are indifferent, he has made the divine nature impure by saying it became mixed in a woman's body, whether it was shaped into her body or not.

He makes a comparison to the rays of the sun becoming dirty in mud and foul bodies, and not remaining pure there. And if, according to Celsus's assumption, the body of Jesus was shaped without birth, those who see the body would not believe that it was not from birth; for what is seen does not reveal its nature or where it came from.

For example, if honey were something not from bees, no one would know this from taste or sight. Just as what comes from bees does not show its origin through the senses, but experience shows that it is from bees. In the same way, experience teaches that wine is from the vine; for taste does not reveal that it is from the vine. Thus, the physical body does not reveal the nature of its essence.

But we can perceive from the things in heaven, of which we see the essence and brightness, yet our senses do not tell us whether they are created or uncreated. Indeed, there have been divisions about these things; but those who say they are created do not agree on how they are created, for their senses do not inform them. And even if the argument finds that they are created, it does not explain in what way they have come to be.

Book 6, Section 74

Then, after repeating many things and mocking the opinion of Marcion, he says where Marcion's ideas are truly presented and where they are ignored. To this, we do not need to respond or refute. Then he again brings up what is about Marcion and what he says about him, discussing which of the accusations they escape and which they fall into. And when he wants to gather together the words that he claims are prophetic, he does so in order to accuse Marcion and those from him.

He clearly states from where it will be shown that the Son of God was punished in such a way. If it was not said about this? Then he again plays around and, as is his custom, mocks by introducing two sons of gods, one of the creator and another according to Marcion, and he describes their battles, saying they are like those of quails and of the fathers in a divine conflict. Or, because of old age, they are useless and talking nonsense, allowing the children to fight.

What he said above, we will say to him: which old woman, while rocking a child, would not be ashamed to say such things as this one does in the so-called true word? For it is necessary for him to stand firmly with his words, but he, leaving the matters aside, plays around and talks nonsense, thinking he is writing parodies or some jokes, not seeing that such a way of speaking goes against his own intention, wanting to lead us away from Christianity to his doctrines. If he had spoken seriously, it might have been more convincing; but since he mocks and plays around and talks nonsense, we say that he has fallen into such foolishness out of a lack of serious words (for he neither had them nor understood them).

Book 6, Section 75

Next, he says that since there was a divine spirit in the body, it should have been different from the others in some way, whether in size, beauty, strength, voice, impact, or persuasion. For it is impossible for something divine to be present without being different in some way. But this did not differ in any way; rather, as they say, it was small, unattractive, and lowly.

It is clear that if he wants to accuse Jesus, he believes he can find grounds for accusations in the writings that seem to support him. But where someone might say the opposite according to the same writings, he does not even pretend to know this. Therefore, it is agreed that the body of Jesus is described as unattractive, but not as it is presented as lowly. It is not clearly stated that it was small either.

The text is written like this in Isaiah, prophesying that he would come among many without a beautiful appearance or anything outstanding in beauty: "Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? We have announced him before him as a child, as a root in a dry land; he has no form (nor beauty; and we saw him, and he had no form) nor beauty; but his appearance was despised, rejected by men."

Did Celsus hear these things, since he thought they would be useful for accusing Jesus? He did not pay attention to what is said in the 24th Psalm, how it is said: "Gird your sword upon your thigh, O mighty one, with your glory and your majesty; and in your majesty ride forth and conquer."

Book 6, Section 76

Let it be that he has not read the prophecy or, if he has read it, he has been misled by those interpreting it as not prophesying about Jesus Christ. What will he say about the Gospel? In which it says that he went "up to a high mountain" and "was transfigured before" the disciples and appeared in glory, when "Moses and Elijah" appeared in glory and spoke of his departure, which he was about to fulfill in Jerusalem?

Or if a prophet says, "We saw him, and he had no form or beauty," and the rest, Celsus accepts this prophecy as referring to Jesus, being blind to the acceptance of the so-called prophecy and not seeing that it is a great preparation for the one who seems to be formless to be called the Son of God, prophesied many years before his birth and concerning his appearance.

But if another prophet speaks of beauty and attractiveness about him, does he no longer want to refer that prophecy to Jesus Christ? And if it were clear from the Gospels that "he had no form or beauty, but his appearance was despised, rejected by men," someone might say that Celsus did not speak according to the prophetic but according to the Gospel.

But now neither the Gospels nor the apostles show that "he had no form or beauty," clearly indicating that he is forced to accept what is true about Christ from the prophecy. This no longer allows for accusations against Jesus to continue.

Book 6, Section 77

Again, he says that since there was a divine spirit in the body, it should have been different from others in some way, whether in size, voice, strength, impact, or persuasion. How could he not see the difference in his body to those who could see it, and for this reason, such a visible thing should have appeared as it ought to each person?

And is it not amazing that the creator can change and alter the nature of a material that can take on any quality he wants? Sometimes it has the quality of "he had no form or beauty," and at other times it is so glorious and impressive that it makes the spectators fall down before such beauty, like the three apostles.

But he will say these are fictions and nothing different from the other strange things about Jesus. To this, we have already responded many times before. There is also something more mysterious in the word, declaring the various forms of Jesus, saying they are related to the nature of the divine word, not appearing the same to the many and those who follow him "up to the high mountain," which we have acknowledged.

For those still below and not yet prepared to ascend, the word says "he has no form or beauty." For those like these, "his form" is "despised and rejected by the sons of men," who are metaphorically called "sons of men."

For we would say that the words of philosophers appear much more beautiful, being "sons of men," compared to the word of God that is preached to many, which shows the foolishness of the "preaching." And because of the apparent foolishness of the "preaching," those who only see this say, "We saw him, and he had no form or beauty."

However, those who have taken on the power to follow him and ascend "to the high mountain" have a more divine form. They see it, if anyone is Peter, who has built the church upon himself, having taken on such a state that no gate of hell will prevail against him, raised by the word "from the gates of death, so that he may proclaim all the praises of God in the gates of the daughter of Zion."

And if there are some who have taken their origin from words of great sound, who lack nothing of a spiritual "thunder." And "his garments" are not "white," nor are they "like the light." If you ascend "to the high mountain," you will see his light and "the garments."

"The garments" of the word are the words of the scripture, the clothing of divine thoughts are these sayings. Just as he appears different below and is transformed when he ascends, "his face shines like the sun," so too are his garments. When you are below, they are not bright, they are not "white." But if you ascend, you will see the beauty and "the light" of the garments, and you will marvel at the transformed face of Jesus.

See if it is not the same in the Gospels about the Savior. For what is said about his birth, being descended from Abraham and "born of the seed of David according to the flesh," is "the book of the generation of Jesus Christ." But the more divine and greater things about him will be said and proclaimed by John, as he says, "I do not think the world can contain the books that would be written."

For the statement that "the world cannot contain the books that would be written" is not because of the number of writings, as some might think, but because of the greatness of the matters. The greatness of the matters cannot only be written down but cannot even be expressed in human language or in human dialects and voices.

Therefore, when Paul is about to learn the more divine things, he goes outside our earthly realm and is caught up to the third heaven, so that he may hear "unspeakable words." For what is spoken here is considered the word of God, of the word made flesh, and as "God" is "with God," he empties himself.

Thus, the word of God on "earth, since he became a man, we see as human." For it is always in the scriptures that "the word became flesh," so that he may dwell "among us." But if we lean into "the breast" of the incarnate word and follow him "up to the high mountain," we will say, "We have seen his glory."

Perhaps some of those who leaned on his breast and followed him "to the high mountain" said, "We have seen his glory," but they did not add, "glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." For this voice is fitting for John and those like him.

And in another higher account, those who were able to follow in the footsteps of Jesus, as he ascended and was transformed from the earthly appearance, will see his transformation according to each scripture. Just as to the many, Jesus appears as he is described, but to those who ascend "to the high mountain" and are transformed, very few of the disciples are able to follow him to the highest and most exalted mind, containing the words of the "hidden wisdom," "which God ordained before the ages for the glory" of his righteous ones.

But how can Celsus and the enemies of the divine word, who do not honestly examine Christianity, know the will of the various forms of Jesus? I say both in age and in what happened to him before his suffering and what happened after he rose from the dead.

Book 6, Section 78

Next, Celsus says this: If God wanted to, just like Zeus in the comedy, to wake up from a long sleep and save the human race from evils, why did he send this spirit to one corner, as you say? It would be necessary to send many bodies and to send them throughout the whole world.

But the comedian wrote in the theater that Zeus, after waking up, sent Hermes to the Athenians and Spartans. Do you not think it is more laughable to send the Son of God to the Jews?

Look at the shamelessness of Celsus, who takes a comic poet and compares the creator of all things to the one who sent Hermes after waking from sleep. We have already said before that God did not send Jesus to the human race as if he had just awakened from a long sleep.

He sent him according to the plan of the incarnation, having always blessed the human race for good reasons. For nothing good among humans has come about without the divine word being present in the souls of those who were able to accept such divine actions for even a little time.

But the supposed presence of Jesus in one corner has happened wisely, since it was necessary for those who have learned about the one God and read his prophets to learn about the prophesied one and for him to appear at the time when the word was about to be poured out from one corner over the whole world.

Book 6, Section 79

Therefore, there was no need for many bodies to be everywhere or for many spirits like Jesus to be sent, so that the whole human world could be enlightened by the word of God. For one word was enough, like "the sun of righteousness" rising, to send forth from Judea the rays that would reach the souls of those willing to accept him.

And if someone desires to see many bodies filled with divine spirit, let them consider those who teach the word of Jesus healthily and with a good life, who are also called "Christs" by the divine scriptures, in the saying, "Do not touch my Christs, and do not harm my prophets."

For just as we have heard, "the antichrist is coming," we have also learned that "many antichrists" are in the world. In the same way, since Christ has appeared, we see that many "Christs" have arisen in the world, who have loved "righteousness" and hated "wickedness." And for this reason, "God, the God of Christ, has anointed them with the oil of gladness."

But he, having loved "righteousness" and hated "lawlessness" for "his companions," has taken the first part of the anointing, and if it is necessary to name it this way, he has taken the whole anointing of the "oil of gladness." The companions of Christ, each as they have been given, have shared in his anointing.

Therefore, since Christ is "the head of the church," being one body with Christ and the church, "the oil poured on the head" has flowed down "to the beard," the symbols of the perfect man "Aaron," and has reached "down" this "oil" "to the hem of his garment."

And these things are said to counter the shameless words of Celsus, who says there was a need for many bodies to be sent everywhere. The comedian has made Zeus to be asleep and waking up, sending Hermes to the Greeks. But the word, knowing the sleepless nature of God, teaches us that God arranges the things of the world at the right times, as reason requires.

It is not surprising that because God's judgments are great and hard to explain, the "uneducated" souls are led astray, and Celsus along with them. Therefore, there is nothing laughable about the Jews, among whom the prophets have arisen, sending the Son of God; so that starting from there, he may rise physically and spiritually to the long-desired desolation of God, reaching the world of souls.

Book 6, Section 80

Next, Celsus seems to say that the Chaldeans are the nations from which the deceptive genealogy of humans has come. He also ranks the Magi among these nations, from whom the similar magic of their nation has spread to other nations, leading to their corruption and destruction.

The Egyptians, he claims, were wandering in their beliefs, having impressive temples for their supposed gods, but inside they had nothing but monkeys, crocodiles, goats, or snakes, or some other animals. Now, Celsus seems to say that the Egyptians are the most divine nation, perhaps because they have been at war with the Jews from the beginning.

The Persians, who marry their mothers and mingle with their daughters, are also thought by Celsus to be a divine nation. He even mentions the Indians, some of whom he said had tasted human flesh.

However, he did not say anything about the Jews, who have long been practicing their faith, not only calling them divine but also immediately washing them away. This is already said as if he were a prophet about them, not seeing the whole story of the Jews and their long-standing relationship with God.

He does not recognize that "through their fall, salvation has come to the nations," and "their failure has brought riches to the world," until "the fullness of the nations comes in," so that after this "all Israel," whom Celsus does not understand, "will be saved."

Book Seven

I do not understand how he says about God, who knows everything, that he does not know this: that he sends his son to bad people and sinners, and they will punish him.

But it seems that he now willingly chooses to ignore everything that Jesus Christ will teach, which has been seen by divine spirit and prophesied by the prophets of God. Those who do not follow this do not recognize that God sends his son to bad and sinful people and that they will punish him.

He immediately says that these things were said long ago in our defense. But since the sixth book has taken a sufficient description of these matters, we will begin to speak of God giving the seventh book, in which he thinks that everything said about Jesus has been prophesied by the prophets.

Since these are more and require more explanation, we did not want to cut off the discussion because of the size of the book, nor did we want to make the sixth book too great by not cutting off the discussion.

Book 7, Section 1

In six books before this, holy brother Ambrose, we have struggled as much as we could with writings against the accusations of Celsus against Christians, leaving nothing unexamined or unchallenged, and we have responded as best as we could.

Calling upon God through Jesus Christ, who is accused by Celsus, may the truth shine in our hearts, revealing the destructive nature of falsehood. We now begin the seventh book, speaking of that prophetic truth in our prayer to God: "In your truth, destroy them."

It is clear that those who oppose are destroyed by "the truth," for they are truly eliminated by God's truth, so that once they are destroyed, all those who are distracted may say the following to him: "I willingly offer you a logical and unbloody sacrifice to the God of all."

Book 7, Section 2

Now it is time to accuse Celsus of saying that the prophets among the Jews prophesied about Christ Jesus. First, we will examine his claims that those who introduce another god cannot respond to his challenges, while we, who hold to the same God, will seek refuge in the defense through the prophecies about Christ.

He says regarding this: let us see where they will find an excuse. Those who introduce another god will have none, while those who speak of the same God will say the same thing again, claiming that it had to be this way; this is wise because these things were foretold long ago.

We will say that the statements made about Jesus and Christians are weak, so that those who introduce another god and act impiously can easily respond to what Celsus has said. And if it were not unreasonable to give excuses to the weaker ones for accepting false teachings, we would have done this too, so that we could refute the falsehood that those who introduce another god have no defense against what Celsus has said.

But now we will carry on with the defense regarding the prophets in response to what has been said above.

Book 7, Section 3

He says then: the prophecies from the Pythia, or from Dodona, or from Claros, or in Branchidae, or from Ammon, spoken by countless other oracles, are not given any consideration. But the words spoken by those in Judea, whether said or not, are still regarded as wonderful and unchanging by those who are accustomed to them, even now among the Phoenicians and Palestinians.

Let us say about the oracles that have been mentioned that we can gather many things from Aristotle and those who have philosophized in the Peripatetic way to overturn the claims about the Pythia and the other oracles. It is also possible to show that the statements made by Epicurus and his followers about the same things reveal that some Greeks also reject the beliefs and wonders surrounding oracles in all of Greece.

But let it be established that there are no fabrications or pretenses by humans regarding the divine inspiration of the Pythia and the other oracles. Let us see if it can be shown to those who examine things honestly that even accepting these oracles does not require believing that there are certain gods among them, but rather that there are some evil demons and hostile spirits to humanity, preventing the ascent of the soul and the journey through virtue, and the restoration of true piety toward God.

Now let us tell about the Pythia, which seems to be more brilliant than the other oracles. Sitting at the mouth of the Castalian spring, the prophetess of Apollo receives a spirit through the female passages; filled with this, she utters what are believed to be solemn and divine prophecies.

Look then, through these things, if the spirit that comes from her does not appear unclean and profane, not entering the soul of the prophetess through pure and hidden channels, but through those things that are not even lawful for a sensible and human being to see, let alone speak of or touch. And this does not happen just once or twice (for perhaps it seemed more tolerable for this to happen), but as many times as she is believed to prophesy from Apollo.

But also, the state of ecstasy and madness that supposedly leads her to prophesy is not the work of a divine spirit; for the one possessed by the divine spirit should be much earlier than anyone who is taught from the oracles, the one who is able to connect what is in the middle and benefit from a natural life or for what is useful, especially at the time when the divine is present with him.

Book 7, Section 4

Therefore, we show by gathering from the sacred writings that the prophets among the Jews, illuminated by the divine spirit as much as was useful for them, were able to drive away the presence of the greater power. And through their connection to their souls, which I will call the touch of the so-called holy spirit, they became more perceptive in mind and brighter in soul, and even their bodies did not oppose a life of virtue, since according to what we call "the mindset of the flesh," they were made dead.

For through the divine spirit, the actions of the body and the hostilities that arise from the "mindset of the flesh" are believed to die when one is close to God. But if the Pythia is not in herself when she prophesies, what kind of spirit is thought to be pouring darkness over the mind and thoughts? Is it of the same kind as the demons, whom many Christians drive away without any elaborate or magical practices, but only with simple prayers and oaths, as much as a simple person can offer?

For indeed, ordinary people do such things, while the grace present in the word of Christ makes the power of demons seem cheap and weak, not at all needing to be defeated and easily able to leave the soul and body of a wise and strong person through logical proofs about faith.

Book 7, Section 5

But even if it is believed not only by Christians and Jews but also by many other Greeks and non-Greeks that the human soul lives and exists after separation from the body, the argument stands that the pure and unburdened soul, not weighed down by the lead of evil, is carried to the places of purer and ethereal bodies, leaving behind the thick bodies and the impurities within them. The worthless soul, however, is dragged down to the earth by sins and cannot even breathe here, and it is confined. Some go to "the graves," where shadows of souls appear as "ghosts," while others simply wander around the earth.

What kind of spirits should we think these are? Are they spirits that are bound by some magic or by their own evil constructions and places? The argument indeed suggests that such things are seen as worthless, using a predictive power that leads to the deception of people and aims to draw them away from God and from pure piety toward Him.

This shows that those who are nourished by the smoke from sacrifices and by the blood and burnt offerings are indulging in such things, and they are engaged in a life that seems to be living well, similar to base people who do not embrace a purer life outside of bodies but instead cling to the pleasures of the physical body.

If indeed there was a god, as the Greeks believe, Apollo in Delphi, which prophet should he choose: the wise one or one who is not found to be such, even if he is clever? How would he not prefer a man to prophesy rather than a woman? But if he wanted a female, perhaps because he could not or did not enjoy another or the female passages, why would he not choose a virgin rather than a woman who is fulfilling his will?

Book 7, Section 6

Now, the Pythia, who is admired by the Greeks, did not judge any wise man or even any man worthy of the divine inspiration, as the Greeks believe. Nor did she choose a virgin or a wise woman who benefited from philosophy, but rather an ordinary woman. For perhaps those who are better among humans were more capable of the work of her inspiration.

If indeed she was a god, it would have been fitting for her to use her foresight for the return, healing, and moral improvement of humans; however, history does not pass on anything like this about her. For even if she said that Socrates was the wisest of all men, she diminished his praise by what she said about Euripides and Sophocles, stating that "Sophocles is wise, but Euripides is wiser."

Thus, Socrates is thought to be greater than the wise tragic poets, who compete on the stage and in the orchestra, where some create sorrows and pity for the audience, while others create shameless laughter (for such is the nature of satirical dramas). It does not show anything noble through philosophy and truth, nor is it praiseworthy for its seriousness.

And perhaps he was called the wisest of all men not so much for his philosophy but for the sacrifices and offerings he made to the gods and other spirits. Because of this, the demons seem more likely to grant what is desired by those who offer to them rather than through the works of virtue.

Therefore, the greatest poet, Homer, while recording events, shows what most persuades the demons to do what the sacrificers want. He introduced Chryses, who, for a few crowns and the thighs of bulls and goats he sought for the Greeks because of his daughter, wanted to return Chryseis to him.

I remember that one of the Pythagoreans wrote about what is said in hints by the poet, noting that the words of Chryses to Apollo and the plague sent by Apollo to the Greeks teach that Homer knew of some wicked demons, pleased with the offerings and sacrifices, giving rewards to the sacrificers for the destruction of others if such things were prayed for by the sacrificers.

And the "Dodona" speaks of "the stormy winter," where the prophets are "footless and lying on the ground," rejecting the male gender for prophecy, as Celsus also pointed out. Let there be another similar to these, Clarius, and another in Branchidae, and another in Ammon, or wherever on earth they prophesy. From where then will it be shown whether they are indeed gods or some demons?

Book 7, Section 7

Among the prophets of the Jews, some were wise before their prophecies and divine inspiration, while others, enlightened by the prophecy itself, became such in mind. They were chosen by divine providence to believe in the divine spirit and its words because of the harshness of life, which was very easy and free, and they were unshaken by death and dangers.

For such are the prophets of God, who are said to have left behind the ease of Antisthenes, Crates, and Diogenes. Indeed, they freely corrected those who sinned, saying, "They were stoned, they were cut, they were tested, they died by the sword." They wandered in sheepskins, in goat skins, suffering, wandering in deserts and mountains and caves of the earth, of whom the world was not worthy.

Always seeing God and the invisible things of God, and not being seen by the senses, they are thus eternal. The life of each prophet is recorded; it is enough for now to mention the life of Moses (for his prophecies are also recorded in the law) and that of Jeremiah, mentioned in his prophecy of the same name, and that of Isaiah, who went about for three years "naked and barefoot."

Look also at the life of Daniel and his companions, who lived healthily, noting their diet and that their food was vegetables, while they abstained from meat. If you can, also consider those before them, Noah prophesying and Isaac praying prophetically for his son, and Jacob telling each of the twelve, "Come, that I may tell you what will happen in the last days."

These and many others prophesied to God and foretold the things concerning Jesus Christ. Therefore, we do not place any value on the words of the Pythia, or those from Dodona, or Clarius, or in Branchidae, or in Ammon, or by many other so-called prophets. But we have established what was prophesied by those in Judea, seeing that their strong, easy, and serious life was worthy of the spirit of God, prophesying in a new way and having nothing similar to the oracles of demons.

Book 7, Section 8

I do not know how Celsus said what he did; he added what was said by those in Judea in their own way. Or perhaps he claimed that things were not said, as an unbeliever might, and that what was not said was perhaps written down. For he did not see the times, nor that many years ago, countless prophecies were made about the coming of Christ.

Again, he wants to slander the ancient prophets, saying they prophesied in this way, which, he claims, is still done now by those around Phoenicia and Palestine. He does not clarify whether he speaks of some outsiders to the Jewish and Christian teachings or whether they prophesy in a Jewish manner like the prophets.

However it may be, he is shown to be false. For neither have any of those outside the faith made anything similar to the prophets, nor have any more recent prophets been recorded in Judea after the coming of Jesus. For the Holy Spirit is said to have left them, having acted impiously toward God and the one prophesied by their prophets.

At first, signs of the Holy Spirit were shown during the teaching of Jesus, and after his ascension, there were more signs; later, there were fewer. But even now, there are still traces of him among a few, the souls purified by his word and actions. "For the Holy Spirit will flee from deceitful thoughts and will turn away from foolish reasoning."

Book 7, Section 9

Since Celsus claims to explain the way of the oracles in Phoenicia and Palestine, having heard and learned everything, let us also consider these things. First, he says there are more types of prophecies, but he does not describe them; for he had none, but falsely stretched the truth.

He says that there are many, and they are often anonymous, arising from the occasion and occurring in temples and outside of them. Those who gather and hover over cities or camps pretend to be prophesying. It is easy and common for each to say, "I am God, or a son of God, or a divine spirit. I have come; for the world is perishing, and you, O people, are lost because of your injustices. But I want to save you; and you will see me again coming back with heavenly power. Blessed is the one who worships me now, but to all others, I will bring eternal fire upon cities and lands."

And people who do not know their own punishments will regret it in vain and groan; but those who believe me, I will keep safe forever. Then he continues, saying that they add unknown and strange things, and everything is unclear, of which no one with sense could find the meaning. For it is vague and nothing, and it gives every fool or sorcerer a reason to twist what is said however they want.

Book 7, Section 10

He should have, if he were wise about the accusation, presented the prophecies in their own words, whether they were spoken by God Almighty, or by the Son of God, or whether the Holy Spirit was believed to be speaking. For he would have struggled to refute what was said and to show that the words were not inspired, containing a call to turn away from sins and a rebuke of past wrongs, as well as knowledge of future events.

That is why those who recorded their prophecies preserved them, so that later readers might marvel at them as words of God and benefit not only from the warnings and calls to repentance but also from the predictions, being convinced of the divine nature of the spirit that had previously spoken, practicing piety according to the word, obeying the law and the prophets.

The prophets spoke what was necessary for those who heard them, useful and contributing to the correction of morals, without any concealment, according to the will of God. But the more mysterious and visionary things, which were beyond common understanding, were expressed through riddles, allegories, and what are called dark sayings or parables, so that those who do not shy away from effort but accept all toil for virtue and truth might examine and find them, and having found them, might manage them as the situation requires.

But Celsus, as if angry for not understanding such words of the prophets, insulted them, saying that they add unknown and strange things, and everything is unclear, of which no one with sense could find the meaning. For it is vague and nothing, and it gives every fool or sorcerer a reason to twist what is said however they want.

And it seems very cunning to me that he said these things, wanting to prevent those who encounter the prophecies from examining and questioning their meaning. He has suffered something similar to what he accuses others of, when a prophet entered to speak about future events, and someone asked, "Why did this possessed person come to you?"

Book 7, Section 11

It is likely that there are words much wiser than ours, which can show that Celsus is lying in these matters and that the prophecies are inspired. However, we have done our best to explain what Celsus calls unknown and unclear in our discussions about Isaiah, Ezekiel, and some of the twelve prophets.

As God gives understanding in his word, he will add to those who wish to know the truth, whether it is what is lacking or whatever we can clarify. Others who want to examine the scriptures, having a sound mind, could find the meaning of them, even though many parts are truly unclear. But as Celsus says, it is nothing.

Yet no fool or sorcerer can smooth out or twist what has been said however they want. Only someone wise in the truth of Christ can reveal all the hidden meanings in the prophets, comparing spiritual things with spiritual and constructing each finding based on the usual understanding of the scriptures.

Do not believe Celsus when he says that such people have been eyewitnesses. For in the time of Celsus, no prophets similar to the ancient ones had appeared, since even if they were similar to the old writings, later prophecies were recorded by those who accepted and admired them.

It seems clear to me that Celsus is lying, claiming that the so-called prophets, of whom he says he was an eyewitness, were refuted by him and admitted to needing something from him, and that they were confused, saying different things. He should have also named those he claimed to have heard, so that those able to judge could see whether he spoke the truth or lies.

Book 7, Section 12

He thinks that those defending the prophets about Christ cannot say anything when something wicked, shameful, or unclean is said about the divine or anything defiled. That is why, since there is no defense, he brings up many things that are not given.

It should be known that those who want to understand the divine scriptures and know that "knowledge of the foolish is unsearchable words," and who read "always ready to give an answer to anyone asking us for a word about the hope that is in us," do not only seek refuge in these things, but they also try to resolve the supposed accusations and show that there is nothing wicked, shameful, unclean, or defiled in the words, but that they should be accepted by those who do not understand the divine writing.

He should have pointed out what he thought was wicked or what he considered shameful or what he believed to be unclean or what he assumed was defiled, if he saw such things mentioned in the prophets. For his argument would have been stronger and more relevant to what he intended. But now he does not present these things; instead, he threatens that such things appear in the scriptures, lying about them.

Therefore, no argument is needed to show that there is nothing wicked, shameful, unclean, or defiled in the words of the prophets.

Book 7, Section 13

But God does not do or suffer anything shameful, nor does he serve evil, as Celsus thinks. For nothing of the sort has been said. Even if he claims that God serves evil or does or suffers the most shameful things, he should have presented the words from the prophets to support this and not want to stain his listeners in vain.

What Christ would suffer was foretold by the prophets, and they gave the reason for it. And God knew what Christ would suffer. But from where does Celsus say that these things were the most defiled and unclean? It seems he wants to teach how the most defiled and unclean things were what he endured, since he says: what else was it for God to eat the flesh of sheep and drink bile or vinegar, except to eat dung? But God did not eat the flesh of sheep among us.

To make it seem like he did, he says that Jesus, carrying a body, ate. But concerning the bile and vinegar, prophesied in "They gave me gall for my food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink," we are forced to repeat what has been said above because of Celsus. For those who plot against the truth always bring bile from their own wickedness and vinegar from their own faults to Christ of God, who "having tasted, does not want to drink."

Book 7, Section 14

Then after this, wanting to overturn the faith of those who accepted the prophecies about Jesus, he says: "Come, if the prophets said the great God, so that I may not say anything heavier, to serve or to suffer or to die, God would need to die or serve or suffer." Since it was said that he would die, is it to be believed that he was God? But the prophets would not have said this; for it is bad and unholy.

So whether they said it or did not say it, we should consider whether the action is worthy and good for God. To the shameful and evil, even if all men seem to say it, one should not believe. How then are the things done about this one considered holy as concerning God? It seems that through these things, there is something strong to persuade those who hear about the prophecy of Jesus.

But he tries to overturn the argument by saying: "So whether they said it or did not say it, we should consider." It would have been necessary, if he wanted to stand by what was said not by false reasoning but by proof, to say: "So it must be shown whether they did not say it or whether, as they said, the things about Christ are fulfilled in Jesus." And he should provide the proof that seems to him.

For thus it would appear, what the prophecies say concerning Jesus, how this one falsely makes our interpretation. And it would be found whether he boldly overturns what we bring from the prophets to the discussion about Jesus, or whether he shamelessly tries to force the clarity of the truth as if it were not true.

Book 7, Section 15

Since he puts forward some impossible and inappropriate things about God, he says: "If these were prophesied about the God of all, should we believe such things about God?" He thinks he is constructing an argument that even if the prophets truly spoke about the Son of God in such ways, it would be impossible for him to suffer or act, and one must believe what was said.

It should be noted that his argument is unreasonable, as it would lead to contradictions. If the true prophets said that God would serve, suffer, or die, then these things would happen concerning God, for it is necessary that the prophets of the great God do not lie. But even if the true prophets say the same things, since what is impossible by nature cannot be true, what the prophets say about God would not happen.

When two connected things lead to opposing conclusions in what is called "through two tropes," the idea in both is negated. This is shown in the claim that the prophets say the great God would serve, suffer, or die. Therefore, it follows that the prophets did not say that the great God would serve, suffer, or die, and the argument goes like this: if the first is true, then the second is true; if not the first, then not the second; therefore, not the first.

The Stoics also use this kind of reasoning, saying: "If you know that you are dead, you are dead; if you know that you are dead, you are not dead." It follows that you do not know that you are dead. This way of reasoning connects the statements: if you know that you are dead, then what you know is true, so you are dead. Again, if you know that you are not dead, and what you know is true, then you are not dead, since the dead know nothing.

It is clear that if you know that you are dead, then you are not dead. And it follows, as I said, that you do not know that you are dead. This is similar to Celsus's argument, as we have previously explained.

Book 7, Section 16

But neither do the prophecies about Jesus match what we have discussed. For the prophecies did not say that God would be crucified; they say about the one who accepted death: "And we saw him, and he had no form or beauty, but his appearance was dishonorable, leaving aside the sons of men; a man in pain and suffering, and knowing how to bear weakness."

So see how clearly they described the suffering man as human. And Jesus himself, knowing that he was a dying man, says to those plotting against him: "Now you seek to kill me, a man, who has told you the truth that I heard from God." If there was anything divine in this man who was thought of as human, which was the only begotten of God and the "firstborn of all creation," he said: "I am the truth," and "I am the life," and "I am the door," and "I am the way," and "I am the living bread that came down from heaven."

There is indeed another argument about this and his essence, apart from the one concerning the human nature of Jesus. Therefore, even the very simplest Christians, who are not skilled in arguments, would not say that the truth or life or way or the living bread that came down from heaven or the resurrection has died. For he says that he is the resurrection, teaching in the appearance of a man according to Jesus: "I am the resurrection."

But no one among us is so foolish as to say: "The life has died," or "The resurrection has died." It would have been reasonable for Celsus's argument to hold if we claimed that the prophets said that God, the truth, life, or resurrection died, or anything else that he says is the Son of God.

Book 7, Section 17

Therefore, Celsus is only correct in one place: but the prophets would not have said this, for it is bad and unholy. What is this? That the great God would serve or die? It is worthy of God what is prophesied by the prophets, that a "reflection" and "character" of the divine nature would dwell in the holy soul of Jesus, so that he might sow the word, making it familiar to the God of all who accepted him into his own soul, who cultivated and brought everything to completion, having the power within himself of the divine word that would be in the body and soul of man.

Thus, it will be, so that his rays are not hidden in that one alone, nor is it to be named that the light of these rays is anywhere else but the divine word. Therefore, what is said about Jesus, as far as it is understood in his divinity, is holy and does not oppose the idea of the divine. But as far as he was a man, he was adorned more than any other man with the highest share of self-knowledge and wisdom, enduring as a wise and perfect man what he needed to endure for the sake of all humankind or even for all rational beings.

And it is not strange for a man to die, and his death is not only an example of dying for piety, but also a beginning and progress in the overthrow of evil and the devil, who has claimed all the earth. The signs of his overthrow are those who, during the presence of Jesus, fled from those who held them captive by demons, and by being freed from their slavery, they dedicated themselves to God and, as much as they could, became purer every day in their piety toward him.

Book 7, Section 18

Next, Celsus says such things: but will they not think again? If the prophets of the God of the Jews said that this child would come, how can he, through Moses, legislate to become rich and powerful, to fill the land, and to kill enemies, and to kill all people? This is what Moses himself does in the eyes of the Jews, as he says, and besides this, if they do not obey, he threatens them with the actions of their enemies. But the son of God, the "Nazarene" man, contradicts the law and does not allow wealth, power, wisdom, or glory to be claimed against the father. Instead, he says one should not worry more about food than "the ravens," nor about clothing than "the lilies," but should provide for one who strikes once and strikes again.

Does Moses or Jesus lie? Or did the father forget what he commanded through Moses? Or, knowing his own laws, did he change his mind and send the angel against those who oppose him? Celsus suffers from these things, claiming to know everything, but thinking that the meaning of the scriptures is only in the literal words, not seeing that the word would not so obviously promise physical wealth to those who live rightly, showing that the most just live in extreme poverty.

Indeed, the prophets, having lived purely, went about in sheepskins and goat skins, suffering, being mistreated, wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground; "many are the afflictions of the righteous," as the hymn says. If Celsus read the law of Moses, it is likely that he thought the saying "you will lend to many nations, but you will not borrow" was directed to the one who keeps the law, believing it to mean that in the promise it is said that the righteous will become so wealthy that he will lend not only to the Jews but to many nations.

So how much wealth would the righteous have, receiving the wages of his righteousness according to the law, so that he could lend "to many nations"? It follows from this understanding that the righteous never borrows, since it is written: "but you will not borrow." Did then the nation remain for so long in the piety according to Moses, clearly seeing that it was false, as Celsus claims? For no historian has ever recorded someone becoming so wealthy as to lend "to many nations."

But it is not likely that they would hear the law taught in such a way, as Celsus thought, and clearly seeing falsehoods in the promises of the law. If someone brings up the recorded sins of the people as an example of their neglect of the law, perhaps because they are condemned as false, it should be said to him that one must consider the times in which the whole people are recorded after doing evil before the Lord, to improve and change their piety according to the law.

Book 7, Section 19

But even if the law promised them power, saying, "You will rule over many nations, but they will not rule over you," it is clear that the people understood the promises of the law much more deeply. Celsus misinterprets some words, suggesting that the whole earth would be filled through the Hebrew seed, which, as it relates to history, has become true after the coming of Jesus, who brings blessings.

But also concerning the promise that the Jews would kill their enemies, if someone were to carefully examine the words, they would find it impossible to take the literal meaning. It is enough to refer to the Psalms, where the righteous is introduced saying to others: "In the morning, you will kill all the wicked of the earth, to destroy from the city of the Lord all who do iniquity."

So pay attention to the wording and the intention of the speaker. If he could recount great deeds, which are meant for those who wish to read, it would be clear that at no other time of day but in the morning, he would kill "all the wicked of the earth," leaving none of them alive. And if he destroyed from Jerusalem anyone doing "iniquity," you would find many such things in the law, like "we did not leave any of them alive."

Book 7, Section 20

Celsus also claims that those who do not obey the law will suffer the same things that the enemies did. Before he presents anything to them, Celsus will use what he thinks are contradictions to the law from the teachings of Christ, and he will speak about the things mentioned earlier.

So we say that the law is twofold: one part is for the literal meaning, and the other is for the deeper understanding, as some before us have taught. The literal part is not so much from us as it is from one of the prophets who said that "the judgments are not good" and "the commandments are not good." But the deeper understanding, according to the same prophet speaking from God, is said to be "good judgments" and "good commandments." For the prophet does not clearly say opposite things in the same context.

Thus, Paul also said that "the letter kills," which is equal to the literal meaning, while "the spirit gives life," which corresponds to the deeper understanding. Indeed, there is something analogous in Paul to the supposed contradictions according to the prophet. For where Ezekiel says, "I gave them bad judgments and bad commandments, in which they will not live," he also says, "I gave them good judgments and good commandments, in which they will live." These are equivalent.

So also Paul, where he wants to criticize the legal letter, says, "If the ministry of death written in letters on stones came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not gaze at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, which was fading, how will the ministry of the spirit not be more glorious?" And where he admires the law and accepts it, he calls it spiritual, saying, "We know that the law is spiritual," and he accepts it when he says, "So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good."

Book 7, Section 21

If the wording of the law promises wealth to the righteous, then Celsus thinks that the blind wealth is meant in the promise. But we, seeing clearly, understand that one becomes rich "in every word and all knowledge," and we command "the rich in this present age not to be haughty nor to hope in the uncertainty of riches, but in God, who richly provides for all things for enjoyment, to do good works, to be generous, and to share."

For "the true riches" are "a ransom for a man's soul," according to Solomon, and the opposite of this, poverty, is deadly, because "the poor do not endure threats." Likewise, concerning the teachings about wealth and power, it is said that "one righteous person can chase a thousand, and two can put ten thousand to flight."

If these things are understood in relation to wealth, see if it is not consistent with God's promise that the one who is rich "in every word and all knowledge" and in all good works lends to "many nations," as Paul lent "round about" from "Jerusalem" to "Illyricum," fulfilling "the gospel of Christ" to all nations to whom he went.

And since, according to revelation, the divine was made known to him, enlightening his soul by the divinity of the word, for this reason, he did not borrow nor need a man to serve him the word. Thus, it is written, "You will rule over many nations, but they will not rule over you," subordinating the power from the word to the teaching of Christ Jesus, who ruled over them from the nations, never being subject to men as becoming greater. Thus, he also filled the earth.

Book 7, Section 22

If we need to talk about killing, we should also discuss the power of the righteous over everything. It is said, "In the morning, I will kill all the sinners of the earth, to destroy from the city of the Lord all who do iniquity." Here, "earth" refers to the flesh, which has a mindset that is "hostile to God," and "city of the Lord" refers to one's own soul, in which there is "a temple of God," filled with glory and a correct understanding of God, admired by all who see it.

So, when the rays of the sun, "the righteousness," shine upon his soul, he is empowered by them and strengthened to remove all "the mindset of the flesh," called "sinners of the earth," and he destroys from his own soul "the city of the Lord" all the thoughts and memories that oppose the truth. In this way, the righteous also eliminate every "captivity" that comes from evil, so that not even a little bit of evil is left behind.

We hear this also in the 137th and 136th Psalms, which say, "O daughter of Babylon, the miserable one, blessed is he who repays you for what you have done to us; blessed is he who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock." The "little ones" of Babylon, meaning confusion, are the thoughts that arise in the soul from evil. The one who overcomes them, as if striking their heads against the solid and strong word, crushes the "little ones" of Babylon "against the rock," and for this reason, he is called "blessed."

Therefore, let God command to kill all the evils and all that is born of evil, teaching nothing contrary to what Jesus proclaimed, and let God bring about the destruction of the enemies and all evil in the eyes of those "in secret" among the Jews. Let it be so that those who do not obey the law and the word of God, being likened to the enemies and made from evil, suffer these things, which they deserve for turning away from the words of God.

Book 7, Section 23

Clearly, from these things, how Jesus the "Nazarene" does not contradict the laws about wealth and the difficulties mentioned about it being hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God. Whether a rich person is taken simply, being drawn by wealth and hindered like a thorn bush from bearing the fruits of the word, or whether it is about someone who is rich in false teachings, concerning which it is written in Proverbs, "Better is a poor righteous person than a rich liar."

It is likely from "whoever wants to be first among you must be your servant" and "the rulers of the nations lord it over them" and "those in authority are called benefactors," that Celsus understood that Jesus opposed the desire for power, which should not be seen as contrary to "you will rule over many nations, but they will not rule over you," especially because of the meanings given in the text.

Next, Celsus throws in remarks about wisdom, thinking that Jesus teaches not to be dismissive towards the Father who is wise. But let us ask him: which wise person? If it is the one who relies on the so-called wisdom "of this world," which is foolishness "with God." We would say that it is not dismissive towards the Father to such a wise person; but if someone understands wisdom as Christ, since Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God, we say that not only is he not dismissive towards the Father to such a wise person, but he also greatly differs from those who are not like him, the one adorned with the gift called "wisdom," given through the Spirit.

Book 7, Section 24

Again, we say that claiming glory from people is not only against the teaching of Jesus but also against the old scriptures. If someone were to accuse themselves of the sins of the prophets, they would say that instead of the greatest evil, they would suffer the loss of worldly glory. They say this: "Lord, my God, if I have done this, if there is injustice in my hands, if I have repaid evil to those who have done evil to me, then let me fall empty from my enemies. Let the enemy pursue my soul and overtake it, and let him trample my life to the ground and lay my glory in the dust."

But neither does it say, "Do not worry about what you will eat or what you will drink. Consider the birds of the air or the ravens, that they do not sow or reap, and your heavenly Father feeds them. How much more valuable are you than the birds?" And "Why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field," and the following is contrary to the blessings in the law.

The law teaches that the righteous will be filled when they eat, and Solomon said this in a similar way: "The righteous eat and fill their souls, but the souls of the wicked are in need." For it is necessary to see the food of the soul shown in the blessings according to the law; it is not the body that is filled, but the soul alone.

From the gospel, one should take perhaps something deeper and perhaps something simpler, that one should not be surprised by concerns about food and clothing, but should practice simplicity and trust in God's provision, if one is to care only for the necessities.

Book 7, Section 25

Celsus, not contrasting what seems to be against the law with what comes from the gospel, also says this: that if someone strikes you once, you should offer the other cheek. But we will say that he should know both the "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" which was read long ago and also "but I say to you," "to the one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other."

However, since Celsus seems to be confused by those who separate the divine nature according to the gospel from the legal nature, we must point out that he knows the old writings, which say, "to the one who strikes you on the right cheek, offer the other."

In fact, it is written in the Lamentations of Jeremiah: "It is good for a man when he bears the yoke in his youth; he sits alone and is silent, for he has borne it upon himself. He will give his cheek to the one who strikes him, and he will be filled with insults."

The gospel does not contradict the law of God, nor does it speak about the specific legal punishment. Neither does either Moses or Jesus lie, nor did the Father who sent Jesus forget what he commanded Moses. But even after knowing his own laws, he sent the angel against those who oppose.

Book 7, Section 26

If we need to say a little about the different forms of government, which the Jews followed according to Moses in the past, and which Christians now seek to establish according to the teaching of Jesus, we will say that neither did the calling of the nations fit with the law of Moses as a written law under the Romans, nor did the old Jews have a system of government that was unchangeable. If they had obeyed the proposed system according to the gospel, they would have been unable to act against enemies or those judged worthy of punishment by fire or stoning according to the law of Moses.

If the Jews themselves could not do these things as the law commanded, how could Christians? Again, if you take away from the Jews who had their own system of government and land, they would have nothing left but to be completely destroyed. When enemies attack the nation, they would be unable to defend themselves because they are hindered by their own law.

And while they did not want to keep the old law, now they are trying to hold onto the gospel of Jesus Christ, which has already destroyed the city and the temple of the Jews, along with the worship and sacrifices that were offered there. Just as those things were no longer wanted, the same way the Christians have grown in number and boldness.

Despite many obstacles that arose to prevent the spread of Jesus' teaching throughout the world, since it was God's will to benefit those from the nations through the teaching of Jesus Christ, every human plan against Christians has been brought low. As kings and leaders of nations and people everywhere have humbled them, they have only grown stronger and more numerous.

Book 7, Section 27

Next, Celsus, by attributing to us things we have not said about God, wants to twist what we have not established, such as the idea of God having a physical body and being human-like. If he claims that we speak about God in this way, it is necessary for us to clarify his words and explain our own views while addressing his ideas.

If he combines things he has heard from no one or assumes he has heard them from simple and uneducated people who do not understand the meaning of the words, we should not be concerned with unnecessary matters. For it is clear that the words say God is incorporeal; that is why it is said, "No one has ever seen God," and "the firstborn of all creation is said to be the image of the invisible God," as if referring to something without a body.

Moderately, we have examined and discussed how we understand the phrase "God is spirit," and that "those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

Book 7, Section 28

After discussing the things about God, in which he slanders us, Celsus asks us where we are going and what hope we have. He claims that we say our voices are directed to a better land. He also says that it is told of ancient divine men that they have a blessed life for blessed souls, and they named some as the islands of the blessed, while others called it the "Elysian Fields," from where one is freed from evils, just as Homer said: "But they will send you to the Elysian Fields and the ends of the earth, where life is easiest."

Plato, believing the soul is immortal, referred to that place as "the land," saying it is "something very great," and that we dwell from the pillars of Hercules to Phasis in a small part. Just as ants or frogs live around the sea, there are many others living in various places. For there are many hidden and diverse places around the earth, where water, mist, and air flow together; and the earth itself lies pure in the pure heaven.

Celsus assumes that we have taken ideas about another land that is better and very different from this one from certain supposed ancient divine men, especially from Plato, who philosophized about the pure land lying in the pure heaven in the Phaedo. He does not see that Moses, who is much older than the Greek writings, introduced the idea of God promising a holy land that is "good and large, flowing with milk and honey" to those who live according to his law.

He does not consider that the "good land" is thought to be the land of the Jews, which is also cursed from the beginning due to the works of Adam's transgression. For it is said, "Cursed is the ground because of you; in pain, you shall eat of it all the days of your life," referring to the whole earth, which "in pain," meaning through toil, every man eats "in Adam," and he eats "all the days of" his "life."

And as "cursed" is the whole earth, "thorns and thistles it shall bring forth" "all the days" of the man cast out of paradise, and "in the sweat of your face," every man eats his bread. "Until you return to the ground from which you were taken."

Thus, there is much to say about all that pertains to this place, which can clarify the meanings of the words. But we will limit ourselves to a few points here, wanting to avoid distractions, since it is thought that the things said about the land of Judea refer to the "good land." This is the land that God promises to the righteous.

Book 7, Section 29

If indeed "the whole earth" is "cursed in the works" of Adam and those who died in him, it is clear that all its parts share in the curse. This includes the land of Judea, so it cannot be applied to the "good and large land, a land flowing with milk and honey." Even if Judea and Jerusalem are shown to be a symbolic shadow of the pure land in the pure heaven, where the heavenly Jerusalem is, the apostle speaks of it, saying that those who are raised with "Christ" seek "the things above" and find no connection to Jewish mythology. He says, "But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to countless angels in festal gathering."

To convince someone not to speak about the good and large land promised by Moses, let them consider all the prophets, who teach about the return to Jerusalem of those who have wandered and fallen away from it, and who are restored to the place and city of God, as it is said, "In peace and holiness is his place." They also say, "Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, his holy mountain, beautiful in elevation, the joy of all the earth."

It is enough to refer to the 36th and 37th psalms, which speak about the land of the righteous: "Those who wait for the Lord shall inherit the earth," and a little later, "The meek shall inherit the earth and delight themselves in abundant peace," and again, "Those who bless him shall inherit the earth," and once more, "The righteous shall inherit the earth and dwell upon it forever."

See if it is not shown that the land is pure in the pure heaven to those who can hear these things said in the same psalm: "Wait for the Lord and keep his way, and he will exalt you to inherit the earth."

Book 7, Section 30

It seems to me that the things said about the precious stones here have some connection to the stones mentioned in the better land, taken by Plato from those written about the city of God in Isaiah. About which it is written: "I will make your battlements of jasper and your stones of crystal and your walls of precious stones," and again, "I will make your foundations of sapphire."

Those who interpret Plato allegorically tell a more serious story about the philosopher's ideas. But the prophecies, from which we think Plato was influenced, were written by those who lived closely with the prophets and dedicated their whole lives to studying the sacred writings, showing a purity of life and a love for divine knowledge.

For us, it is necessary to show that we did not take the ideas about the holy land from the Greeks or Plato; rather, they, being younger, took them not only from the ancient Moses but also from most of the prophets. They either misunderstood some hints about such things or altered the sacred writings to say something about the better land.

Clearly, Haggai presents that "the dry land" is different from "the earth," calling this dry land the one we are on. He says: "Once more, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the dry land and the sea."

Book 7, Section 31

Just as he presents the story from Plato's myth, found in the Phaedo, he says this: What he reveals is not easy for everyone to understand unless someone is able to perceive it. He asks what it is when he says, "Because of weakness and slowness, they are not able to reach the highest air," and "If nature were able to bear it, observing, they would know that this is the true heaven and the true light."

In the same way, we discuss the holy and good land and the city of God in it, not thinking that it is a clear reality based on the present, but rather we refer to the explanations of the prophets, telling what we can about the city of God from the 35th and 37th psalms.

The ancient words of Moses and the prophets speak of the true things that are more universal, such as "true light" and "heaven," which is different from "the firmament," and the "sun of righteousness," which is different from the physical sun. He simply states that in contrast to the physical things, which are not true, "God, his works are truly real," while the works of God are placed among lesser things, called "the works of his hands."

He criticizes some by saying through Isaiah, "They do not see the works of the Lord, and they do not understand the works of his hands." And that is enough for now.

Book 7, Section 32

Since the discussion about the resurrection is long, hard to understand, and needs a wise person to explain it, if there is anything else that has been said more clearly, it is to present what is worthy of God and the greatness of the teaching. It teaches that the body is like a tent for the soul, as the scriptures say, in which "the righteous, being burdened, groan, not wanting to take it off but to put on something better."

Celsus, not understanding this, mocks what is said about the resurrection, thinking that we speak of it because we have heard from private individuals who cannot explain it. It is important to note that we do not speak of resurrection as Celsus thinks, but knowing that the soul, by its nature, is without a body and invisible, needs a body according to its nature in that place.

Wherever it has shed its previous body, it is necessary to put on something more fitting for the higher places. And where it has put on the body it had before, it desires a better garment for the purer, more ethereal, and heavenly places.

It has shed its body for this life, taking on what is necessary for the time of being in the womb, until it was in it, a small space. It has put on what was necessary for living on earth. Then, again, while there is a "tent" of an earthly house, it is necessary for the tent to be dissolved, and they say that the earthly house of the "tent" will be replaced by an "eternal house in the heavens."

The people of God say that "the mortal must put on immortality," which is different from the immortal, and "the corruptible must put on incorruption." For the wisdom that applies to the wise, and righteousness to the righteous, and peace to the peaceful, this wisdom applies incorruption to the incorruptible and immortality to the immortal.

So look at how the teaching encourages us, saying to "put on" incorruption and immortality, which, like garments for the one who puts them on, do not allow the one wearing them to perish or die. And let this be said to those who do not understand what we mean by resurrection, and for this reason, they laugh and mock what they do not understand.

Book 7, Section 33

Thinking that we can know and see God, he brings together what he wants about the resurrection and says such things: When they are challenged and questioned from all sides, they return as if they have heard nothing, asking the same question: How then can we know and see God? And how can we go to him?

Let the one who wants to know understand that even if we need a body to be in a physical place, and such a body as is fitting for that physical place, we do not need a body to know God. For knowing God is not through the eyes of the body, but through the mind, seeing the "image" of the creator and knowing God through God's providence.

And to see God, the heart must be pure, from which no evil thoughts come, no murders, no adulteries, no fornications, no thefts, no false testimonies, no blasphemies, and no evil eye or anything else wicked. This is why it is said, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God."

Since our intention is not enough to keep the heart "pure" in every way, but we need God to create it such, it is said by the knowledgeable one who prays, "Create in me a clean heart, O God."

Book 7, Section 34

But we will not ask how we can go to God as if he were in a place. For God is greater than any place and encompasses everything, and nothing contains God. Therefore, going to God is not commanded to us physically. The scripture says, "You shall walk behind the Lord your God," and the prophet, being united with God in prayer, says, "My soul clings to you."

Celsus deceives us by saying that we expect to see God with our bodily eyes, to hear his voice with our ears, and to touch him with our hands. We know that the eyes called "eyes" by the divine words are not the same as the eyes of the body, and the same goes for the ears and hands. There is a divine sense that is different from what is commonly called by many.

For when the prophet says, "Open my eyes, and I will behold your wonders from your law," or "The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes," or "Light up my eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death," no one thinks that he means to perceive the "wonders" of the divine law with the eyes of the body, or that the commandment of the Lord is enlightening the eyes of the body, or that a sleep of death happens to the eyes of the body.

And when our Savior says, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear," the one who understands these words knows they refer to a deeper kind of hearing. Even if it is said that "the word of the Lord" came to the hand of the prophet Jeremiah or another, or that "I sought God with my hands and was not deceived," no one is so foolish as to think that hands are literally meant, as John says, "Our hands have handled the word of life."

If you want to learn about a higher sense that is not physical, listen to Solomon in the Proverbs saying, "You will find divine understanding."

Book 7, Section 35

Therefore, we do not need to go to God in the way that Celsus suggests, to places like Trophonius, Amphiaraus, and Mopsus, where he says gods appear in human form and, as Celsus claims, are not false but real. For we know that these are demons, fed by offerings of fat and blood and the smoke from sacrifices, and they are held captive by their own desires.

Celsus speaks poorly about these so-called human-like gods, saying that someone will see them not just once, as the one who deceived them did, but always mingling with those who wish to see them. It seems that he has made the appearance of Jesus after his resurrection to the disciples into a kind of phantom, as if it appeared to them just to be seen.

He thinks that these so-called human-like gods always mingle with those who want to see them. But how can a phantom, as he says, appear to deceive those who see it and then act in such a way after being seen? How can a phantom drive away demons and perform other significant actions, not just in one specific place like the human-like gods he mentions, but throughout the whole world, gathering and drawing to itself those who seek a good life?

Book 7, Section 36

After this, in response to what we have said as best as we can, Celsus says again: How can someone know God without being aware? What can be learned without perception? Then, in reply to this, he says that the voice is not of a man or of the soul, but of the flesh. Nevertheless, they should listen, if they can hear, as a timid and body-loving race. If you close your eyes and turn away from the flesh, and awaken the eyes of the soul, only then will you see God.

And if you seek a leader on this path, you should avoid the deceivers, magicians, and idols, so that you are not completely laughed at, while others show the gods they point out. They blaspheme these idols, and they consider even those as truly worse than idols, worshiping what is dead and seeking a father like themselves.

First, we must speak about the personification of God. He has given us words as if we are speaking about the resurrection of the flesh, that virtue is to maintain the will and character of the one being personified, while vice is when someone attributes unsuitable words to the face of the speaker.

And those who are equally criticized in personification are the uneducated and barbaric, or those who are familiar with the household and have never heard or spoken well of philosophical ideas. The one who personifies should not be expected to know the one being personified. Again, those who are wise and know the divine should not attribute things said out of personal passions by the uneducated and ignorant.

For this reason, Homer is admired in many ways, as he has maintained the characters of the heroes, as they were originally presented, like Nestor, Odysseus, Diomedes, Agamemnon, Telemachus, or Penelope, while Euripides is mocked by Aristophanes for being untimely in his speech because he often attributed words of doctrines he learned from Anaxagoras or some other wise man to barbarian women or servants.

Book 7, Section 37

If this is the virtue of personification and this is the vice, how can anyone not reasonably laugh at Celsus for attributing things not said by Christians to Christians? For if he creates words of private individuals, how can he distinguish between perception and thought, and between what is sensible and what is intelligible, while also arguing similarly to the Stoics about how perceptions grasp what is perceived and how all understanding depends on the senses?

But if he is reshaping the words of philosophers and carefully examining the power of Christ, he has not followed them either. For no one has learned that God is invisible and that there are some invisible creations. That is, intelligible things, one might say, as if defending the idea of the resurrection: how can someone know God without being aware? Or, what can be learned without perception?

And it is not only in the writings of a few learned individuals that it is said, but also in more common texts that "the invisible things of God are clearly seen from the creation of the world." Therefore, it is necessary to know that even for living humans, one must start from the senses and the sensible things, intending to rise to the nature of the intelligible, but one should not remain in the sensible.

Nor can they say it is impossible to learn about intelligible things without perception. How can someone say that it is possible to learn without perception? They will not reasonably challenge Celsus for saying that the voice is not of a man or of the soul, but of the flesh.

Book 7, Section 38

Therefore, when we speak of the divine mind and essence as simple, invisible, and incorporeal, we cannot say that anyone can grasp God except through the image of that mind. Now, to use the words of Paul, "through a mirror and in a riddle, but then face to face." When I say "face," let no one misunderstand the meaning of the mind being shown by it, but let them learn that "in the unveiled face, reflecting the glory of the Lord, and being transformed from glory to glory," it is not a physical face that is taken in these matters, but understood in a different way, just as we understand eyes and ears.

And all those things we previously mentioned that are similar to the parts of the body. So, a person, that is, a soul using a body, is called "the inner person" or "soul," which responds not as Celsus wrote, but as the person of God teaches. A Christian would not use the voice of the flesh, having learned to "put to death the deeds of the body" and "always carrying the death of Jesus in the body," and "put to death the members that are on the earth," knowing what is meant by "my spirit will not remain in these people forever because they are flesh," and knowing that "those who are in the flesh cannot please God." Therefore, everything he does is to not be at all "in the flesh," but "in" only "the spirit."

Book 7, Section 39

Let us see to whom he calls us, so that we may listen to him. How can we know God? He thinks that no Christians can understand what he says, for he says: "Nevertheless, let them listen." If they can understand anything, then we should consider what he wants us to hear from what he says. The philosopher must teach us. But he is insulted; and he should show goodwill in the introduction of his words to those who listen, yet he says to those who are dying until death. So that they do not swear or even raise their voices about Christianity.

And prepared for every kind of violence and every way of death, as a timid race. He says we are a body-loving race. Those who say, "Even if we once knew Christ according to the flesh, now we no longer know him." And thus, they easily place the body above piety. So that not even a garment could be easily taken off by a philosopher. Therefore, he says to us that if you close your eyes to the senses and turn away from the flesh, and awaken the eye of the soul, only then will you see God.

And he thinks that these things (I mean the two eyes) are taken from the Greeks, and that we should not be overly philosophical. It should be said that Moses, writing about the creation of the world, introduces man as seeing in one way and not seeing in another. Seeing when it is said about the woman that "the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes and desirable to make one wise," not seeing in the sense of being blind, as the serpent said to the woman, "For God knows that in the day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened." And also in "they ate, and the eyes of both were opened."

Their eyes were opened in the sense of perception, which they had closed well, so that they would not be hindered from seeing with the eye of the soul. But those who previously had eyes that saw with the soul and rejoiced in God and his paradise, I think they closed their eyes because of sin. Hence, our Savior, knowing this duality of eyes in us, says: "For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind," hinting at those who are blind in the eyes of the soul, which the word makes see, but those who see with the senses are made blind.

So that the soul may see clearly what it needs to see. Therefore, in everything that is Christian-like, the eye of the soul is awakened, and the eye of the senses is closed. And the awakening of the greater eye and the closing of the eyes of the senses is understood and seen by each one as God and his Son, who is the Word and Wisdom, and the rest.

Book 7, Section 40

Next, Celsus makes a statement about all Christians, claiming that they are entirely foreign to the teachings of Jesus. For he says that the Ophites, as we mentioned before, deny Jesus altogether, or if there are others who think similarly, they are those who worship idols, deceivers and sorcerers. And those are the ones who learn the names of the gatekeepers in a miserable way. Therefore, he says this in vain to Christians: even if you seek a leader of this way, the deceivers and sorcerers and those who worship idols are to be avoided by you.

And not knowing that such people speak badly of Jesus and all true piety, he accuses us of being in their company with his own words. So that you are not completely laughed at, he shows others, the gods he points out, as if they were idols, while he himself worships them as even worse than idols, and seeks a father like himself. For not knowing what Christians say and what those who make up such myths say, he thinks that the accusations brought against us are relevant to us.

It is clear from this that such a deception and those wonderful companions and the words of demons, related to the lion, the amphibian, and the donkey, and the other divine gatekeepers, whose names the miserable ones learn in a wretched way, are deceiving and torturing you. And he has not seen that none of those who think the lion-like, the donkey-like, and the amphibian are gatekeepers of the ascent to death stand for the truth that appears to him.

But what we say through piety, so to speak, becomes excessive, as they offer themselves in every way to death, and the torturing is brought to those who suffer none of these things. And he reproaches us, who are being tortured for piety, about their myths regarding the lion-like and the amphibian, and the other stories. Therefore, we do not flee from the discussion about the lion-like and the others because of Celsus, for we have not taken such a beginning; but following the teaching of Jesus, we say the opposite of what they say, not agreeing that such a face is Michael or any other of the previously mentioned figures.

Book 7, Section 41

To whom does Celsus want us to follow, as if we would not be confused by ancient leaders and holy men? He sends us to inspired poets and wise philosophers, without naming them, and he promises to show us the guides, declaring the inspired poets and wise philosophers without distinction. But if he had named each of them, it would seem reasonable for us to compete, knowing that he gives us blind guides regarding the truth, so that we might stumble, or even if they are not completely blind, they are certainly mistaken about many truths.

So whether he wants Orpheus to be an inspired poet, or Parmenides, or Empedocles, or even Homer or Hesiod, let him show how these guides will lead us better and how they will help us in life compared to those who have left everything for the teaching of Jesus Christ. They have abandoned all idols and institutions and only look to the Father of the Word through the Word of God.

But who are the wise or the philosophers, from whom Celsus wants us to hear many divine things, while leaving behind the servant of God, Moses, and the prophets of the Creator of all? They truly have said many things inspired by God and have revealed the way of piety, leaving nothing unknown of their own mysteries, but through great kindness, they give theology to those who are more understanding, lifting the soul from the things of this world.

Yet, they also come down to the lower conditions of ordinary men and simpler women, and to those who are helped by no one but Jesus alone, to see how they might live better with the doctrines they could understand about God.

Book 7, Section 42

Then after this, Celsus sends us to a more active teacher of theology, Plato, quoting his words from the Timaeus, which say: "It is impossible to find the creator and father of this whole thing." Then he adds, "You see how the way to the divine and the truth is sought, and how Plato knew that it was impossible for all to go this way."

Since for this reason it has been discovered by wise men, as if we might grasp some idea of the unnameable and first cause, either through composition or analysis or analogy, I would be amazed if you could follow him in teaching what is otherwise unspeakable. For they are completely bound by the flesh and see nothing pure.

Therefore, Plato speaks greatly and not lightly about the words he has laid down. But see if the divine word is not more loving, as it introduces the "Word was with God in the beginning," becoming flesh so that the Word might reach all, which Plato also says is "impossible to find."

Let Plato say that "the creator and father of this whole thing" is "impossible to find," showing that it is impossible for human nature to find God in a worthy way, unless it is in a greater way and beyond most people. If this were true, then God would be found in truth by Plato or some other Greek.

They would not call anything else a god and worship it, either leaving this one behind or taking along what cannot be included with such a god. But we declare that human nature is not self-sufficient to seek and find God purely, without being helped by the one being sought, who reveals himself to those who acknowledge him, showing himself to those he judges to be worthy to see him, as it is natural for God to be known by man, and for man's soul, while still in the body, to know God.

Book 7, Section 43

But Plato also says that "the one who is found is impossible to speak of to all," and "the creator and father of this whole thing" is said to be unspeakable and unnameable, but can be spoken of by a few. Then, as if forgetting what Plato said, Celsus claims that God is unnameable. Since for this reason it has been discovered by wise men, as if we might grasp some idea of the unnameable and first cause.

We say that not only is God unspeakable, but also other things that follow him. Paul, having been forced, says this: "He heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to speak," using "heard" instead of "understood," similar to "let the one who has ears hear."

We say that "the creator and father of this whole thing" can be seen as "the work." It is seen not only according to "blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God," but also according to what is said about the image of "the invisible God," in "he who has seen me has seen the Father who sent me."

For in this, no one with sense would say that Jesus refers to his visible body when he said, "He who has seen me has seen the Father who sent me." For they will see the Father God, and all those who say, "Crucify him," and Pilate, who had authority over his human form, which is absurd.

That "he who has seen me has seen the Father who sent me" does not refer to the common understanding, as is clear from what he said to Philip: "I have been with you so long, and you do not know me, Philip?" This he said to him after he asked, "Show us the Father, and it is enough for us."

So, if someone understands how to hear about the only begotten Son of God, the firstborn of all creation, since "the Word became flesh," they will see how, having seen the image of "the invisible God," they will know "the Father and creator of this whole thing."

Book 7, Section 44

Celsus thinks that one can know God through composition like the geometry taught, or through analysis from other things, or by analogy similar to the same analogy. He wonders if one can approach the good in this way. But the Word of God says, "No one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son reveals him," by some divine grace, not by a godless approach to the soul, but with some inspiration.

It is shown that God can be known. It is likely that the knowledge of God is greater than what human nature can grasp (which is why there are so many mistakes about God among people), but through the goodness and love of God, and through a strange and divine grace, the knowledge of God reaches those who are prepared by God's foreknowledge, so that they may live worthily of what they have known, not at all diminishing their piety towards him.

Nor would they be thought to be the most foolish, believing that piety is something that leads to death. I think God sees the arrogance or the pride of those who think highly of themselves for knowing God and learning divine things from philosophy, similar to those who are most uneducated, who go to idols and their temples and the rumored mysteries.

He "chose the foolish things of the world," the simplest among Christians, living more moderately and purely than many philosophers, "to shame the wise," not being ashamed to speak to lifeless things as if they were gods or images of gods. For who with sense would not laugh at those who, with such great philosophy about God or gods, turn to idols and either offer prayers to them or think they must ascend from the visible to the invisible?

But a Christian, even the simplest one, believes that every place in the world is part of the whole, with the whole world being the temple of God. "In every place," he prays, closing the eyes of his senses and awakening the eyes of his soul, he rises above the whole world.

He does not stop at the vault of heaven, but in his mind becomes a place beyond the heavens, guided by the divine spirit, and as if outside the world, he offers his prayer to God not about the things that happen here. For he learned from Jesus not to seek anything small, that is, anything physical, but only the great and truly divine things, which are given by God to lead him to the blessedness that is with God through his Son, the Word of God.

Book 7, Section 45

Let us see what he teaches us, to see if we can follow them. He says that we are completely bound by the flesh, if we live rightly and according to the word of Jesus, hearing the words, "You are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you." He also says that we cannot see anything pure, those who are tempted cannot even be polluted by the thoughts of evil, and in prayer saying, "Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me," so that with a pure heart we may see God.

What he says is this: essence and generation are intelligible, visible; with essence is truth, but with generation is illusion. Therefore, knowledge is about truth, but opinion is about the other. Thinking is for the intelligible, but sight is for the visible. The mind knows the intelligible, but the eye sees the visible.

Just as the sun is in the visible, it is neither the eye nor sight, but it is the cause of seeing for the eye and of the visible being seen. In all sensory things, it is the cause of becoming, and it does not see itself. In the intelligible, it is like that, as neither mind nor thought nor knowledge, but it is the cause of thinking and of being known through it, and of knowing all intelligible things and truth itself and essence of being, being beyond all, being intelligible in some ineffable power.

These things have been said to people who have sense; if you understand any of this, good for you. And if you think that a spirit comes from God to announce divine things, that spirit would be the one proclaiming these things, by which many good men of old announced many good things. If you cannot hear them, be silent and cover your own ignorance, and do not say that the seeing are blind and the running are lame.

For they themselves are completely detached from their souls and mutilated, living with the body, that is, with the dead.

Book 7, Section 46

In response to this, we will say that those who study should not hate anything that is well said. Even if those outside the faith speak well, do not quarrel with them or seek to overturn what is healthy. For some, being insulted, wish to show piety towards the God of all, accepting the faith of private individuals and the piety of the wise with reason, offering thanks and prayers to the creator of the universe, and sending them as through a high priest who presents sincere piety to people.

They call those who are detached from their souls and mutilated, while living with the dead body, those who study from a disposition that says: "For living in the flesh, we do not wage war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly but powerful to God." They should not think it wrong to say this about people who pray to God, while making their own souls lame and "mutilating the inner man," cutting him off through slander against others, those who wish to live well.

What is reasonable and stable is naturally sown by the creator in the rational nature. But those who learn from the divine word and do good, blessing those who insult them, enduring those who persecute them, and encouraging those who slander them, these would be the ones who set right the foundations of the soul and cleanse and prepare the whole soul.

Not to separate essence from generation and the intelligible from the visible, and to connect truth with essence while fleeing from illusion that comes with generation in every way, seeking, as they have learned, not the things of generation. For these are "visible" and therefore "temporary," but the greater things, whether someone wants to call them essence or because they happen to be "invisible," or because their nature is beyond perception, "not visible."

Thus, the disciples of Jesus see the things of generation. They seem to use a foundation for understanding the nature of the intelligible: "For the invisible things of God since the creation of the world, that is, the intelligible, are clearly seen in being understood." And they do not stand merely having ascended from the creations of the world into the invisible things of God; but they have sufficiently trained themselves and understand them, ascending to the eternal power of God and simply to his divinity, knowing that the loving God "has revealed the truth" and "made known himself" not only to those who are close to him but also to some outside of sincere piety and piety towards him.

But some, having ascended by God's providence to such knowledge, acting unworthy of that knowledge, are impious and "hold the truth in unrighteousness," having no place for defense before God regarding the knowledge of such things.

Book 7, Section 47

Indeed, those who have understood what is written by Celsus and who philosophize according to these teachings are testified by the divine word, which says that "knowing God, they did not glorify him as God or give thanks, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened."

It is clear to see how those who claim to be wise show great foolishness when, after such knowledge, they change the glory of the incorruptible God into an image resembling corruptible man and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

Therefore, they are left behind by providence, as they have not lived worthily of what has been revealed to them by God, and they are condemned "to the desires of their hearts into impurity," and their bodies are dishonored "in shameful acts and immorality," instead of which they exchanged "the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator."

Book 7, Section 48

Those who are despised by them as private individuals and are called foolish and slaves, even if they only believe in God. Accepting the teaching of Jesus, they are so afraid of lust and impurity and all the shameful acts in gatherings that they avoid all associations, completely cleansing many of them, not just from all mixing.

And one priest among the Athenians, not believing his own male desires to be their master and able to control them as he wishes, thinks he is pure by washing the male parts according to the established Athenian rituals. But among Christians, one can see men who do not need to wash with water to serve the divine purely, but are content with words instead of water, having cast out all desire from their minds, and they serve the divine with prayers.

Among others, those who are thought to be gods are very numerous virgins, whether guarded by men or not (for this is not what we are examining now). They seem to continue in purity for the sake of honor towards the divine. But among Christians, they do not practice complete virginity for human honors, nor for wages and money, nor for glory, but as they "have tested to know God," they are kept by God in a tested mind and in "doing what is right," filled with all righteousness and goodness.

Book 7, Section 49

These things have been said to me not in a spirit of rivalry with those things that are well said and understood among the Greeks, nor accusing the healthy teachings, but wanting to show that these things, and even greater and more divine things, are said by the divine men, the prophets of God and the apostles of Jesus.

It is examined by those who wish to be more perfect Christians and who understand that "the mouth of the righteous will meditate wisdom, and his tongue will speak justice; the law of his God is in his heart." But also among those who, whether due to much private life, simplicity, or confusion from those encouraging them towards logical piety, these things are not shaken.

But God, who is believed above all, and his "only-begotten Son," the Word and God, would often find a greater purity, simplicity, and moral character than that which the "wise men" claim to possess, who are often accused of being with children in places where it is not lawful, "working shameful acts among males."

Book 7, Section 50

He did not clearly explain how there is wandering after birth, nor did he present what he wanted, so that we might understand by comparing his ideas with ours. The prophets, hinting at wisdom regarding the matters of birth, say that a sacrifice "for sin" should be offered and that those recently born are not clean from sin.

They also say, "I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins my mother conceived me." They also declare that "the sinners were alienated from the womb," saying strangely that "they were led astray from the belly, they spoke falsehoods."

Thus, the wise among us slander the nature of the senses, so that in some way it is said that the bodies are vanity, as "the creation was subjected to vanity, not willingly, but because of the one who subjected it in hope." In another way, vanity is "of vanities," as the preacher said, "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity."

Who has so slandered the life of the human soul here, as the one who said, "But all is vanity. Is every man living?" For he did not hesitate about the difference between the life of the soul here and outside of this place, nor did he say, "Who knows if living is dying, and dying is living?"

It is bold to speak the truth in "our soul was humbled to the dust" and "you brought me down to the dust of death." As well as "Who will rescue me from this body of death?" It is also said, "He will transform the body of our humiliation."

The prophet is also the one who said, "You have humbled us in a place of evil." By "evil place," he means the earthly place, from which Adam was cast out of paradise because of wickedness, which is man. And the one who says, "Now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face."

He also says, "While we are in the body, we are away from the Lord," therefore "we prefer to be away from the body and to be at home with the Lord," look at how he has contemplated the different life of souls.

Book 7, Section 51

And what need is there for me to further oppose the words of Celsus? Since much earlier, these things have been said by us, when it is clear from what has been said what our will is. In these matters, he seems to suggest that if a divine spirit comes down from God to proclaim the divine, then this would be the spirit that proclaims these things.

Indeed, many old men filled with this spirit have announced many good things. But he did not see the difference from what we have accurately stated. To those who say that "your incorruptible spirit is in all," God rebukes those who stumble a little. They also say other things, including "receive the Holy Spirit," showing a different measure of what is given compared to what is indicated by "you will be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days from now."

It is the work of those who have carefully understood to see the difference between those who have received the truth and those who have a brief thought of God, and those who have been more inspired and are always with God, led by the divine spirit. If this had been examined and understood by Celsus, he would not have called us ignorant nor commanded us not to speak of blinding those who are in the material arts of men, thinking that they show piety through the statues.

For no one, seeing with the eyes of the soul, honors the divine in any other way than by always looking to the Creator of all and offering every prayer to him, doing everything as in the eyes of God, in the sight of the one who sees us and our thoughts. Therefore, we pray to see and to be guides for the blind, until they come to the word of God and recover the sight of their souls that has been blinded by ignorance.

And if we also do what is worthy of what was said to the disciples, "You are the light of the world," and of the teaching that "the light shines in the darkness," we will also be "light" for those in darkness and will educate the foolish and teach the little ones.

Book 7, Section 52

Let Celsus not be angry when we say that the lame and those whose souls are fixed on what is thought to be sacred rush toward these things as if they were truly sacred, not seeing that nothing made by humans can be holy.

Those who follow the teaching of Jesus also run, until they reach the end of the race, saying with a strong and truthful disposition: "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith; now there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness."

And each of us runs "in such a way that it is not unclear," and "in such a way" that he strives against evil "as if not beating the air," but against "the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience."

Let Celsus say that we live in the dead body, hearing: "If you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live," and learning that "if we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit."

Let our works show that the one who says we live in the dead body is lying.

Book 7, Section 53

After these things, then, he says to us: how much better would it have been for you, since you desired to innovate something, to study about another one of those who died bravely and received a divine myth? Come on, if Heracles and Asclepius and those who were honored in the past did not please you, you had Orpheus, a man known to have used a holy spirit and who also died violently.

But perhaps he was chosen by others. At least Anaxarchus. He, when struck down and crushed in a very unlawful way, boldly spoke of his punishment, saying: "Strike, strike the pouch of Anaxarchus, for you do not strike him." This was the voice of some true divine spirit.

But even to him, some natural philosophers followed, did they not? Epicurus, who, while his master was twisting his leg, smiled and said without fail: "You will crush me," and when he was crushed, he said, "Did you say you would crush me?" What kind of thing did your god say while being punished?

And you even have the Sibyl, whom some of you use, as if you had appointed her as a servant of God. Now, you can write many blasphemous things about her, but you place a god who lived a very outspoken life and died the most pitiful death. How much more suitable was Jonah "in the gourd" for you, or Daniel from the beasts, or those who are even more monstrous?

Book 7, Section 54

Since he sends us back to Heracles, let him present to us the records of his words and defend his shameless servitude to Omphale, showing whether he was worthy of divine honor, the one who forcibly took the ox from the farmer and, after being drunk, said to him while he was cursing: "How long will you eat?"

Even until now, the demon of Heracles is said to receive the sacrifice along with the harvests. He calls us to the same argument about Asclepius, which we have already mentioned. But we are sufficient for those.

What is more, he wonders if Orpheus, who is known to have used a holy spirit, lived well? I wonder if Celsus, in his rivalry with us and to belittle Jesus, now praises Orpheus, when he encountered him? He did not turn away from the impious myths about the gods, as if the works of Homer were more worthy of being expelled from good society; for Orpheus spoke much worse about the so-called gods than Homer did.

Anaxarchus was indeed brave, saying to the tyrant Aristocreon of Cyprus: "Strike, strike the pouch of Anaxarchus." This is the only thing about Anaxarchus that the Greeks marvel at, because if, as Celsus says, it was fitting to honor a man for his virtue, it was not reasonable to call Anaxarchus a god.

And he sends us back to Epicurus, marveling at what has been said about him, but not to compare his words about the twisting of the leg to the strange works of Jesus, which Celsus disbelieves, because it has been said with divine power even until now, not only by the simpler ones but also by many of the wiser ones.

Book 7, Section 55

Then he says, after listing so many men: "What did your god say while being punished?" We could respond to him that, in the midst of his beatings and many abuses, he remained silent, showing more endurance and patience than anyone else in Greece who happened to speak.

If Celsus wants to believe this, let him read what has been written by honest men, who have truthfully reported the strange things and counted his silence among the beatings. But even while being mocked, wearing the "red cloak" and the "crown of thorns" on his head, and taking the "reed" in his hand instead of a scepter, he used great gentleness, saying nothing rude or angry to those who dared so much against him.

So it was not from a lack of courage that he remained silent during the beatings and endured everything brought against him by the mockers, as some think. And the words, "Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not as I will, but as you will," show that he had a reason for wanting to avoid the so-called cup, which we have examined and explained more in other places.

To hear the words more simply, see if the prayer was said with piety toward God, not thinking that any circumstance should come before it, but enduring what happens when the time is right. And the voice was not given up, but it was pleasing to what was happening and preferred the circumstances that came from providence, saying: "Yet not what I want, but what you want."

Book 7, Section 56

Then I do not know why he wanted us to call the Sibyl a child of God more than Jesus, claiming that we have written many blasphemous things about her without proving what we have written. He would have shown if the older texts were purer and did not contain what he thinks has been written.

But without proving that these are blasphemies, he then repeatedly spoke most clearly about the life of Jesus, not stopping to consider each of the things done and believed in his life, so that by saying this, he might seem to be proving something without evidence and to insult someone he does not understand.

For if the kinds of the clearest life were shown in his actions, we would have competed with each of those who seemed to be the clearest to him. It could also be said that Jesus was treated most pitifully in death, just as it could be said about Socrates and Anaxarchus, whom he mentioned briefly, and about countless others.

Is the death of Jesus pitiful, but not the death of those others? Or is the death of those others not pitiful, but the death of Jesus is? You see here that Celsus's aim was to insult Jesus, moved by some spirit, brought down and defeated by Jesus.

So that he no longer has the stench and blood that deceives those seeking God in the earthly images and does not look up to the true God who is above all.

Book 7, Section 57

Then he seems to have a goal, wanting us to think of Jonah as a god rather than Jesus. Jonah, who preached repentance to the city of Nineveh, is preferred over Jesus, who preached repentance to the whole world and accomplished much more.

He wanted us to call the one who was "in the belly of the sea monster" a god, who did so in a remarkable way for "three days and three nights," but he did not want to acknowledge Jesus, who accepted death for humanity, as being worthy of honor, even though he was testified to by God through the prophets.

Jonah was swallowed by the sea monster to avoid preaching what God commanded, but Jesus, after teaching what God wanted, accepted death for humanity. Then he says that we should rather worship Daniel, who came up from the lions, than Jesus.

Daniel overcame the wildness of all power and was given to us the authority to "trample on snakes and scorpions and over all the power of the enemy." Then, having no other examples to mention, he says: "Or are these even more monstrous," wanting to insult both Jonah and Daniel? For the spirit in Celsus did not know how to bless the righteous.

Book 7, Section 58

After this, let us also see his next statement, which goes like this: "There is also this command for them, not to defend against the one who insults; and if he strikes your other cheek, you should offer the other one too." This is ancient and has been mentioned well before, but they remembered it in a more rustic way.

For even Plato has Socrates speaking to Crito saying: "One must never do wrong." "Certainly not." "Nor should one retaliate against the wrongdoer, as most people think." "Since one must never do wrong, it seems." "What then? Is it necessary to do evil, Crito?" "Not at all, Socrates." "And what? Is it just or unjust to retaliate and do evil to someone who is suffering wrong, as most say?" "Not at all." "For doing evil to people is no different from doing wrong." "You speak the truth." "So, one should neither retaliate nor do evil to anyone, even if they suffer anything from them."

This is what Plato says, and again he says: "So consider well. Do you agree and think it is right, and let us begin from here, thinking that it is never right to do wrong, nor to retaliate, nor to defend against someone doing evil to you; or do you stand apart and not agree with this principle? For it seems to me that it has always been this way."

Thus, Plato liked it this way, and it has also been established by divine men before. But concerning these and the others, whatever they corrupt, let the mentioned things be enough; and whoever wishes to seek more of them will know.

Book 7, Section 59

To this and to everything that Celsus has shared, not being able to look at the truth, he claims that these things are also said among the Greeks. He says this: if his teaching and will are healthy, it has been said among the Greeks by Plato or some wise Greek, among the Jews by Moses or some of the prophets, and among Christians in the writings of Jesus or by some of his apostles.

It should not be thought that what is said among the Jews or Christians is less because it has also been said among the Greeks, especially if it can be shown that the Jewish texts are older than the Greek ones. Nor should it be thought that what is said by the beauty of the Greek language is always better than what is expressed in simpler words by the Jews or Christians.

Indeed, the first Jewish writings, which the prophets used, have been left to us in books. They are written in Hebrew with a wise structure in that language. And if we need to consider the identity of the teachings, even if the words seem paradoxical, it must be shown that what is said by the Jewish prophets is better than the words of Christians.

Thus, the argument should be built from something about their food and preparation. Let there be some healthy food that gives strength to those who eat it. This should be prepared in such a way and seasoned with such delights that not the unlearned peasants and those raised in country houses and poor should eat it, but only the rich and those who indulge.

Yet it is not thought that it is prepared in a way that seems cleaner to those who are considered more pure. But as the poor and the more rustic and most people have learned to eat, let all the multitudes eat. If then it is given from such a preparation to those considered cleaner, it should not harm anyone among the many who eat such foods.

But from such a preparation, the masses of people should live more healthily. For whom should we accept the healthy foods for the sake of the community? Should it be those who prepare them usefully for the learned or for the masses?

Let it be granted that health and well-being come from those prepared in this way or that way, but it is clear that the truly humane and communal approach is to be more beneficial for the health of the many than for the few.

Book 7, Section 60

If the example is understood, it should be transferred to the quality of the food for rational animals. And see if Plato and the wise Greeks, in what they say, are well similar to those who have cared for the purer ones, while looking down on the masses of people.

The prophets among the Jews and the disciples of Jesus, who rejoice in the variety of their words and, as the scripture names it, "the wisdom of men" and "wisdom according to the flesh," would be similar to those who have prepared the healthiest quality of food for the masses, not alienating their dialect nor making it strange to hear as if it were unfamiliar speech.

For if it is intended to make the logical food gentle and mild for the eater, how much better would the argument be if it is prepared for the many who are gentle and mild rather than for the very few and small number, so that it may be given to those making it gentle and mild?

Just as if Plato wanted to benefit the Egyptians or the Syrians with healthy teachings, being a Greek, he would have thought to learn the dialects of those who are heard, and, as the Greeks say, to barbarize more for the improvement of the Egyptians and Syrians than for the Greeks, who cannot say anything useful to the Egyptians and Syrians.

Thus, the divine nature that is foreseen does not only belong to those who are considered educated among the Greeks but also descends to the common people of the listeners, so that by using their familiar words, it may provoke the crowd of common people to listen, able to aspire to understand even the deeper hidden meanings in the writings after a single introduction.

And it is clear that those reading these will see that there can be much deeper understanding than what appears on the surface, for those who dedicate themselves to examining the argument will make it clear. And it will be revealed according to the proportion of their leisure for the study of the argument and their eagerness for it.

Book 7, Section 61

Therefore, it has been prepared that, as Celsus says, Jesus spoke more rusticly, saying, "To the one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other one too," and "If someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well."

He has made the argument more beneficial and presented it in this way, just as in Plato's Crito, where even the common people cannot easily hear, but only those who have studied the serious philosophy of the Greeks with difficulty.

It should also be noted that the idea of being gentle is not corrupted by the simplicity of the words. But in this, Celsus slanders the argument, saying: "But concerning these and other things that corrupt, let the mentioned things be enough; and whoever wishes to seek more of them will know."

Book 7, Section 62

Come, let us also see the following things, in which he says these things: let us stand there; temples, altars, and statues are not tolerated. For neither the Scythians nor the Libyan Nomads nor the atheistic Seres nor any other very rude and lawless nations do this.

That the Persians think this way too, Herodotus tells us: "I know that the Persians, according to their laws, do not establish statues, altars, or temples, but they consider those who do so to be foolish." This seems to me to be true because they do not believe that the gods are human-like as the Greeks do.

Moreover, Heraclitus expresses something like this: "They pray to these statues, just as if someone were to speak to the walls of their houses, not knowing the gods or heroes, who they are." What could be wiser than what Heraclitus teaches us? He clearly indicates that it is foolish to pray to "the statues" if one does not know "who the gods and heroes are."

Heraclitus says this, while others dishonor the statues directly. If they are made of stone, wood, bronze, or gold, which someone has crafted, they would not be gods. This wisdom is ridiculous. For who else but a complete fool thinks these are gods, rather than offerings and statues of gods?

If one should not even consider divine images, there is another form of god. Just as it seems to the Persians, they themselves are deceived when they say, "God made man in his own image," meaning that the form is similar to himself.

But they will agree that these are for the honor of certain beings, whether similar or dissimilar in form, and they are not gods to whom these things are dedicated, but demons. No one should serve demons who honors a god.

Book 7, Section 63

And in addition to this, it should be said that if the Scythians, the Libyan Nomads, and the Seres, whom Celsus calls atheists, do not tolerate temples, altars, and statues, it is not equal that their refusal to accept these things is the same as our refusal to accept theirs.

For we must examine the doctrines from which those who do not tolerate temples and statues come. If they do not tolerate them because of healthy doctrines, the one who does not tolerate them is praised; but if from false beliefs, he is blamed.

For it is possible for the same thing to arise from different doctrines. For example, those who follow the philosophy of Zeno of Citium reject adultery, as do some followers of Epicurus and completely private individuals. But see how much disagreement there is about the rejection of adultery among so many.

Some say that it corrupts the social order and is against nature for a rational animal to take another man's wife and ruin another man's household, while others, following Epicurus, do not commit adultery not for this reason, but because they avoid it.

But because the law has set limits on pleasure, there are many obstacles to pleasure that are similar to the pleasure of adultery, and there are often dangers in watching the husband's exit from the house and those who think about him.

As if, under certain conditions, it were possible to commit adultery without being noticed by the husband of the woman and all his relatives, and those among whom one might be blamed for committing adultery.

Even if the Epicurean commits adultery for pleasure, if a private individual were to commit adultery when he is present, he would not commit adultery, but would sometimes be found out due to the fear of the law and the punishments, not committing adultery.

And it is not because he seeks more pleasures that such a person would refrain from committing adultery. Therefore, you see that the one thing considered is the act of refraining from adultery, which, according to the intentions of those refraining, is not the same but becomes different.

For it can be from healthy doctrines or from wicked and irreverent ones in Epicurus or from such a private individual.

Book 7, Section 64

Just as the act of refraining from adultery seems to be one thing but is actually influenced by different doctrines and intentions, so too do those who do not tolerate worship at altars, temples, and statues, like the Scythians, the Libyan Nomads, the atheistic Seres, or the Persians, act based on different beliefs.

Christians and Jews do not accept such practices because they believe that worship should not be directed toward such material things. None of them tolerate the idea of worshiping the divine through such forms, whether because they think it is wrong to treat the divine as something physical or because they believe that such worship leads to inappropriate pleasures.

Christians and Jews follow the command to "fear the Lord your God and serve Him only" and "you shall have no other gods besides me," and "you shall not make for yourself an idol or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or on the earth below or in the water beneath the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them."

Because of these beliefs, they not only avoid temples, altars, and statues, but they are also ready to die when necessary, so as not to pollute their understanding of the divine with such unlawful practices.

Book 7, Section 65

It has been said above about the Persians that they do not build temples but worship the sun and the creations of the divine, which is forbidden to us. They are taught not to worship "the creation instead of the Creator," but to know that "the creation will be freed from the bondage of decay into the freedom of the glory of the children of God," and that "the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God," and that "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of the one who subjected it in hope."

It is better to honor the divine in a place that is free from the bondage of decay and futility, rather than to worship the son of God, the firstborn of all creation. This is enough concerning the Persian people. They turn away from altars and statues, worshiping "the creation instead of the Creator."

Since he also presented a saying of Heraclitus, indicating that it is foolish to pray to "the statues" if one does not know "who the gods and heroes are," it should be noted that one can know the true God and His only Son, and those honored by God with the title of god, sharing in His divinity, are different from all the gods of the nations, who are called "demons."

It is indeed possible to know God and still pray to "the statues."

Book 7, Section 66

Not only is it foolish to pray to "the statues," but it is also silly for many to pretend to pray to "the statues," like those who follow the teachings of the Peripatetic philosophers or those who admire Epicurus or Democritus. There should be nothing false in the soul of someone who truly believes in the divine.

We do not honor the statues, nor do we think of them as other gods. Therefore, we criticize Celsus and all who agree with him for claiming that these are gods, as they seem wise and honor the statues. Many people not only think they are showing respect by worshiping them, but they also fall into the error of believing these are gods, refusing to accept that what they worship is not divine.

Celsus claims that these are not to be considered gods but offerings to the gods, without proving this point. How can these be offerings of the gods and not of humans, as he suggests? It is clear that these offerings come from people who are confused about the divine.

We do not consider the statues to be divine images, since they do not represent the invisible and incorporeal nature of God. Since Celsus thinks we fall into contradictions when we say that the divine is not human-like, and when we believe that "God made man in His own image," we should clarify that "in the image of God" refers to the rational soul, which is made according to virtue.

Celsus, not seeing the difference between the image of God and "in the image of God," claims that we say "God made man in His own image" and that man is similar to Him. This has already been mentioned above in relation to these points.

Book 7, Section 67

Then he goes on to say about Christians that they will claim these things are worthy of honor, either similar or dissimilar in appearance, and that they are not gods, but demons. He argues that one should not serve demons if one worships God.

If he understood the discussion about demons and what each of them does, whether called upon by those skilled in these matters or willingly giving themselves to act as they wish and can, and if he had grasped the complex and difficult nature of the discussion about demons, he would not have accused us of saying that one should not serve demons if one worships the true God.

We are so far from serving demons that we even drive them away with prayers and teachings from sacred writings, distancing ourselves from human souls and from the places where they have established themselves, even from animals. For often, in times of distress, demons act in certain ways.

Book 7, Section 68

Because of the above points, it is not necessary to repeat what has been said about Jesus, that they clearly do not consider him to be a god or even a demon, but rather worship a dead person. Leaving that aside, let us look at the following words of Celsus, in which he asks: Why should we not serve demons?

Is everything not governed by the will of God, and is all provision not from Him? Whatever happens, whether it is the work of God, angels, other demons, or heroes, all of these have a law from the greatest God, and each has been given power according to their worth. Therefore, should not the one who truly worships God justly serve this one who has authority from above?

For it is not possible, he says, to "serve" the same master as many "lords." Look at how much is taken away here, needing careful examination and deeper knowledge about the governance of all things. For how can it be said that everything is governed by the will of God? This should be examined, and whether this governance extends even to those who sin or not.

If governance reaches even to those who sin, not only among humans but also among demons and any other beings that might sin, let the one who says this see the absurdity of claiming that everything is governed by the will of God. For it follows that both the sinful actions and everything that comes from evil are governed by the will of God, which is not the same as saying that God does not prevent these things from happening.

If someone were to hear that governance is indeed over those who act wrongly, it is said that those actions from evil are governed (clearly, everything is governed by the will of God), and no one who sins goes against the governance of God. The same should be said about providence, and it should be stated that everything from Him signifies something true when providence is serious.

But if we simply say that everything that happens is by providence, even if something bad occurs, it would be a lie to say that everything is from providence. If not, then even the things that follow from the providence of God should be said to be from the providence of God. It is also shown that whatever happens, whether it is the work of God, angels, other demons, or heroes, all of these have a law from the greatest God, and it does not present a true account.

For even those who act unlawfully do not follow the law from the greatest God. The term "acting unlawfully" indicates not only foolish humans but also foolish demons and foolish angels.

Book 7, Section 69

We do not only say that there are foolish demons, but almost everyone who considers demons to exist says the same. Therefore, not everything has a law from the greatest God. For whatever comes from personal carelessness, evil, wickedness, or ignorance of what is good falls away from the divine law. It does not have the law of God but, to use a new name according to the scriptures, it has the law of "sin."

According to most who consider demons to exist, the foolish demons do not have the law from God but act unlawfully. For us, all demons have fallen away from the path of goodness and were not demons before. There is a kind of those who have fallen from God that belongs to demons.

Therefore, one should not serve demons if one worships God. It is clear that the matters concerning demons and those who call upon demons relate to various charms, curses, or other such practices. These are what those who have learned to call and summon demons through spells and magic do.

Thus, the service of all demons is foreign to us who worship the true God. The service of demons is the same as the service of the so-called gods; for "all" the gods of the nations are demons. This is also evident from the strange practices that have arisen around the so-called sacred places and temples, where those who engage in the service of demons through magic have been led astray.

Therefore, it is considered necessary for us to flee from the service of demons as if it were destruction. We say that the service of demons is any worship that is considered by the Greeks at altars, images, and temples of the gods.

Book Eight

It is also necessary to say that each one has received power from the greatest God according to their worth to present something of much deeper knowledge and ability. Are the demons, like the public servants in the cities, set over the necessary but gloomy matters of the states, thus being wicked demons appointed by the one who governs all things according to the word of God? Or are they like those who rob in the wilderness, appointing one to lead them in their actions, which they choose to steal and plunder the souls of humans?

It is necessary to speak well about these things in the future. To defend Christians, one must turn away from worshiping anything other than the true God and the firstborn, the "word of all creation."

It should be explained that "all who came before me are thieves and robbers," and "the sheep did not hear them," and "the thief does not come except to steal, kill, and destroy." If anything similar has been said in the sacred writings, such as "Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing will harm you," and "you will tread upon the lion and the serpent."

Celsus certainly did not know these things; for if he had known, he would not have said them. Whatever happens, whether it is the work of God, angels, other demons, or heroes, all of these have a law from the greatest God, and each has been given power according to their worth. Therefore, should not the one who has authority from above be justly served by the one who worships God?

For it is not possible to "serve" the same master as many "lords." This will be discussed in the following book. Since we have taken a self-sufficient description from the seventh volume, written in response to the work of Celsus.

Book 8, Section 1

I have now reached the point of completing seven books, and I want to begin the eighth. May God and his "only-begotten" Word be with us, so that we may boldly refute the lies of Celsus, which are falsely titled "True Word," and strongly prove the teachings of Christianity.

As we pray, "we intercede for Christ, as God calls us 'for our sake,'" let us say according to the words of Paul and intercede "for Christ" on behalf of humanity, just as the Word of God encourages us toward friendship with himself, wanting to bring justice, truth, and other virtues to those who were in darkness about God and ignorant of the Creator before accepting the teachings of Jesus Christ.

And again, I say that God may grant us the bold and true Word, the Lord who is strong and powerful "in the battle" against evil. Now, we must proceed to the next words of Celsus and what follows from them.

Book 8, Section 2

He has also attacked us before this. Why do we not heal demons? And we have responded to what he said about demons according to what seems to us the will of the divine Word. Then he leads us further, saying toward his attack.

If we wanted to heal the demons, it would not be possible to "serve" the same master as many "lords." He thinks this is a sign of division among those who, as he himself named, separate themselves and break away from other people. He believes that those who say this are trying to remove their own passion from God.

Therefore, he thinks that among humans, a servant should not reasonably "serve" another human, as one would harm another by different servitude, nor should one who has reached a position conspire with another as if harming him. He believes that not serving at the same time different heroes and such demons is reasonable.

But with God, to whom no harm or sorrow reaches, he thinks it is unreasonable to serve many gods in the same way as one would serve humans and heroes and such demons. He also says that one who serves many gods is a friend to one of the great gods, and in this way, he does this and adds that it is not right to honor anyone who does not receive this from him.

For he says that honoring and worshiping all of them does not trouble the God of whom they all are.

Book 8, Section 3

Let us see if we accept the saying "no one can serve two masters" reasonably, which adds that "either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other." Then he continues with "you cannot serve God and mammon."

Our defense calls us to a deeper and more profound discussion about gods and lords. For the divine scripture knows that there is one great Lord above "all the gods." Among these "gods," we do not hear of those worshiped among the nations, since we have learned that "all the gods of the nations are demons," but rather "gods," of which the prophetic word knows some assembly.

And it distinguishes the one God above all, assigning to each its own work. "God" stands "in the assembly of gods; in the midst, he will judge the gods." For he is "the God of gods, the Lord," who through the Son "called the earth from the rising of the sun to its setting."

And we are commanded to confess "to the God of gods," having learned that "God is not the God of the dead but of the living," which is said not only through the dead but also through countless others.

Book 8, Section 4

Such things also teach us to examine and think about the Lord and lords, where it says: "give thanks to the God of gods, for his mercy endures forever; give thanks to the Lord of lords, for his mercy endures forever." It is stated that God is "the king of kings and lord of lords."

The Word knows both those called gods and those that truly exist, whether they are called or not. Paul also teaches the same about the existing lords, saying, "for even if there are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, as there are many gods and many lords."

Then, since "the God of gods" calls "from the east" and "from the west" to his own portion through Jesus, the Lord Christ shows through whom he has crossed all boundaries and calls to himself from all boundaries, that he is different from all who rule.

Therefore, knowing this, Paul says with what I have presented: "but for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him."

Seeing something wonderful and mysterious, he adds to them: "but knowledge is not in all." But when he says, "but for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things," he speaks of "us" concerning himself and all who have come to the one God "of gods" and to the one Lord "of lords."

He has ascended to the one God without division, without separation, and without distinction, honoring him through the only Son, the Word and Wisdom of God in Jesus, who is seen by all who try in every way to draw near to the Creator God through chosen words, actions, thoughts, and ideas.

Besides these, I think that those who transform "into an angel of light" have made the "ruler of this age" follow them, with a host of gods and demons arranged according to eleven divisions. Among these, concerning himself and the philosophers, he says: "we are with Zeus, while others are with other demons."

Book 8, Section 5

Therefore, among many called gods or lords, we do everything so that we do not only elevate those worshiped as gods among the nations on earth, but also those whom the scriptures call gods, about whom the "foreigners" know nothing through Moses and our Savior Jesus, the "covenants" of God, and those who are strangers to the promises revealed through them.

He who does nothing friendly to demons rises above all servitude to demons, and he surpasses the portion of those called gods by Paul, whether as they are or as things once were, not "the visible but the invisible." And seeing someone, in what way "the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God," "not willingly but because of him who subjected it in hope," praising creation and seeing in what way "all will be freed from the bondage of corruption" and will reach "the freedom of the glory of the children of God," is not drawn to serve God and another at the same time, nor to "serve two masters."

Therefore, there is no voice against those who understand such things and do not want to "serve" many "lords," but rather are content with the Lord Jesus Christ, teaching those who serve him, so that they may be trained to be worthy of the "kingdom" of God and the Father.

But they also separate and break away from the foreign "citizenship" of God and the strangers to his "covenants," so that they may "live as citizens in heaven," approaching the living God "and the city of God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to countless angels in festal gathering and to the assembly of the firstborn, enrolled in heaven."

Book 8, Section 6

But we do not turn away from serving God, as it seems that a person is harmed by serving another alongside him. We avoid serving anyone other than God through his Word and his truth, so that we do not harm ourselves by separating from the portion of the one God, living in his blessedness with a chosen spirit of adoption, which is among the sons of the Father in heaven, not with mere words but with great deeds, calling out in secret, "Abba, Father."

The ambassadors of the Spartans did not worship the king of the Persians, even when the heavily armed men strongly urged them. They feared their one lord, the law of Lycurgus. But those who represent a much greater and divine ambassador "for Christ" would not worship the Persian ruler, nor the Greek leaders, nor the Egyptians, nor any other nation, even if the armed men of the rulers, who are demons and angels of the devil, tried to force them to do so and persuaded them to greet the law of all the earth with joy.

For Christ is the Lord of those who represent "for Christ," for whom they intercede, being the Word who was "in the beginning," who was "with God," and who is "God."

Book 8, Section 7

Then, since it seemed to Celsus that there was a deeper argument to be made about heroes and certain demons, he spoke after discussing the slavery of humans, saying that it is harmful for someone to serve another alongside the first one, if he wishes to serve a second. He suggests that it would be the same for heroes and such demons.

He should be asked what he means by heroes and what kind of demons he is talking about. Therefore, it is necessary for the one serving this hero not to serve another, and for the one serving this kind of demon not to serve another as well. This is similar to the harm done to humans who serve a first demon before a second one.

But what kind of harm does he think there is in serving heroes or such demons? He will be forced either to fall into a sea of nonsense and reject what has been said, or, if he does not want to be foolish, to admit that he knows neither the nature of heroes nor that of demons.

As for the discussion about humans, if someone serves a second one while being harmed by the first, it must be said: what harm does he claim happens to the first human if the one serving him wishes to serve another?

Book 8, Section 8

For if someone speaks as an ignorant person and claims that serving the gods is harmful in terms of money and things outside of us, he would be refuted by the well-known statement of Socrates: "Anytus and Meletus can kill me, but they cannot harm me; for it is not right for the better to be harmed by the worse."

If he means harm in terms of movement or relationship, it is clear that no harm occurs to the wise when someone serves two wise ones in separate matters. If this is not reasonable, then his example of "no one can serve two masters" is taken in vain.

Moreover, the argument about serving God alone will prevail through the Son who brings us to God. But we do not serve God out of need or because he would be upset if we do not serve him. Instead, we serve him because we benefit from our service to God, becoming free and unaffected through serving the one true God by his only Son's Word and wisdom.

Book 8, Section 9

See how unreasonable it is to say that if there are other forms of service, it shows that serving God can be done without any harm to us, simply by bringing us to one of the gods. But just as one might feel unwell when saying this, if there are other forms of service, then he repeats and corrects what he has said. It is not right to honor anyone unless this honor comes from God.

Let us ask Celsus about those who are honored as gods, demons, or heroes: from where does he prove that they are honored by God and not from human ignorance and folly? Indeed, as you said earlier, Celsus, the children of Hadrian are honored, but you would not say that this honor comes from the God of all as it does for Antinous.

We will say the same about others, demanding proof that their honor comes from the one true God. If he brings up a similar case about Jesus, we will show that his honor comes from God: "so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father." For the prophecies before his birth were signs of his honor.

Moreover, the wonders done by him were not magic, as Celsus thinks, but were divine acts foretold by the prophets, showing that he had a testimony from God. Thus, the one who "honors the Son" does nothing unreasonable and benefits from honoring him. And by honoring him, he gains truth, wisdom, justice, and everything that the divine words say the Son of God is.

Book 8, Section 10

That the honor given to the Son of God leads to a healthy life. Likewise, the honor given to God the Father does as well. Consider whether we are not taught from "whoever boasts in the law, by breaking it, dishonors God" and from "how much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the one who has trampled the Son of God and regarded the blood of the covenant as common, by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace."

For if "by breaking the law" one dishonors God, then the one who does not trample the Word "tramples the Son of God." It is clear that the one who keeps the law honors God, and the one who is adorned by the Word of God and his works reveres God.

If Celsus knew who belongs to God and that only the wise do, and who the outsiders are, and that all the wicked do not strive for virtue, he would see how one who honors and reveres all those of God does not grieve God, of whom all are.

Book 8, Section 11

Next, he says this: "And indeed, the one who claims that there is one lord, speaking about God, is acting impiously by dividing the kingdom of God and causing division." This is because there is a choice and the existence of another opposing force against him.

He had the space to present these things if he showed through logical arguments that those worshiped by the nations are gods, and that those concerning the statues, temples, and altars are thought to be some lowly demons. But the kingdom of God, which is continuously spoken of and written about among us, we hope to understand and become like, so that we may be ruled by God alone, and our kingdom may also be the kingdom of God.

However, he teaches many of us to honor gods. He ought to consider more the following: to speak of a kingdom or of God. Therefore, neither are there divisions among the gods nor is there any god opposing him, even if there are giants or titans who wish to fight against God due to their own worthlessness.

With Celsus and the others, they wage war against the one who has set forth many things about Jesus and against him who is for the salvation of our race, being present in all the world, as each one can understand, having given himself fully.

Book 8, Section 12

If someone were to say something convincing about us next, they might argue: "If these people healed no one else but one God, then perhaps there would be a clear argument against the others." But now, since they have shown this one God, they are overly religious and still think nothing wrong about God, even if his servant is healed.

It should also be said that if Celsus understood the saying "I and the Father are one" and the prayer mentioned by the Son of God in "as I am in you and you are in me," he would not think that we serve another besides the one true God. "For the Father," he says, "is in me, and I am in the Father."

If someone is distracted by these things, let them not think we are turning to those who deny that there are two natures, Father and Son. Let them remember that "the heart and soul of all who believed were one," so that they may see the "I and the Father are one."

Thus, we serve one God, the Father and the Son. And we still have a clear argument against the others, and we do not worship the one who has been shown as not existing before. For we trust the one who said, "Before Abraham was, I am," and who said, "I am the truth."

No one among us is a slave, thinking that the essence of truth did not exist before the time of Christ's appearance. Therefore, we worship the Father of truth and the Son, who is the truth, being two in nature but one in agreement, harmony, and identity of purpose.

As the one who has seen the Son is "the radiance of glory" and the exact representation of "the nature" of God, he has seen in him the image of God.

Book 8, Section 13

Then, does he think that by worshiping with God, we follow his Son, and that we do not only worship God but also his servants? If he understands the true servants of God along with the only-begotten Son of God, like Gabriel and Michael and the other angels, he would say that these should be honored.

Perhaps we would say that the healing he refers to is about cleansing and the actions of the healer, as we discuss these things. But now, thinking of the worshiped ones by the nations as demons does not lead us to follow those who heal such beings. The word shows that they are servants of the evil one, the ruler of this world, who turns away from God as much as he can.

So, we do not honor those whom other people worship. We turn away from honoring and serving them. For we would not say that they are servants of the one true God if we were taught that they are demons. Therefore, we honor the one God and his one Son, the Word and the Image, with our prayers and requests as much as we can, bringing our prayers to the God of all through his only-begotten Son.

To him, we first offer our prayers, hoping to present him as a "sacrifice" for "our sins," as the high priest of our prayers, sacrifices, and intercessions to the one true God. Thus, our faith about God is confirmed through his Son, who assures us, and Celsus has no reason to show any division about the Son of God.

We indeed honor the Father, marveling at the Word, wisdom, truth, righteousness, and all that we have learned about the Son of God, and so also about the one born from such a Father. And this is that.

Book 8, Section 14

Since Celsus again says that if you teach them that this one is not the Son of that one, but that one is the Father of all, whom alone they should truly worship, they would not want to worship him unless he is also the leader of their stance. And they have named this one the Son of God, not because they greatly honor God, but because they greatly promote him.

We, however, have learned who the Son of God is, and that he is "the radiance of his glory and the exact representation of his nature," and "the outflow of God's power and the genuine expression of the glory of the Almighty," and "the radiance of eternal light and the spotless mirror of God's activity and the image of his goodness." We know that this Son is from that one, and that one is his Father.

There is nothing inappropriate or unsuitable in saying that such a unique Son exists. No one would convince us that such a one is not the Son of the unbegotten God and Father. If Celsus has heard that some do not acknowledge the Son of God as the Son of the Creator of all things, he himself would see and those who agree with such a statement.

Therefore, Jesus is not the leader of a stance but of all peace. He said to his disciples, "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you." And since he knew that the people of the world, not of God, would wage war against us, he added, "Not as the world gives peace, do I give peace to you."

We take courage through him, even if we are troubled in the world, saying, "In the world, you will have trouble; but take heart, I have overcome the world." And we say that this one is the Son of God. As for God, whom we greatly honor according to Celsus's words, we also know his Son, who is greatly exalted by the Father.

Let there be some disagreement among the many who believe and accept that the Savior is the greatest God, but we do not believe such a thing, as he says, "The Father who sent me is greater than I." Therefore, we would not place him under the Father we now call.

As Celsus slanders us, he speaks of the Son of God.

Book 8, Section 15

After this, Celsus says that he does not praise these things for a purpose, but will use the voices of those people. For somewhere in the heavenly dialogue, they say with these words: "If the Son of God is stronger, and his Son is the Lord of the man, who else will rule over the Almighty God? Why are many afraid of the well, yet no one goes to the well? Why are you so cowardly in raising such a great path? You are unaware; for I have courage and a sword."

Thus, this is not what they have in mind, the supreme God, but the one whom they place under that Father, about whom they gather to worship, so that they may honor this Son of Man, whom they declare to be stronger and the Lord of "the Almighty God."

From this, they have the command not to "serve two lords," so that their stance is protected around this one. And in these matters again, I do not know from which very insignificant sect he has taken these things, as he accuses all Christians of them. I say insignificant because it is not even ours, to those who have often trained against those from the sects, making clear the opinion from which Celsus has taken these things, if indeed he has taken them and not invented them or added to them.

For we, who say that the Creator of all and the visible world is, claim that the Son is not stronger than the Father but rather lesser. And we say this to him, believing his words: "The Father who sent me is greater than I." And none of us is so foolish as to say, "The Son of Man is the Lord of God."

We say that the Savior reigns most, when we understand him as God, the Word, wisdom, righteousness, and truth, all of which are subjected to him, but not even the Almighty Father and God. Then, since the word reigns without force, and there are some who are still wicked, not only humans but also angels and all demons, we say that he does not reign over them yet, since they do not willingly submit to him.

In another sense, we say that he does reign over them (as we say that humans reign over irrational animals, not having subjected them to their leadership, as someone who has tamed lions and beasts reigns over them), but he does all things so that he may also persuade those who do not now obey him to submit to him.

Therefore, what Celsus says about us is a falsehood, as he claims that we say, "Who else will rule over the Almighty God?"

Book 8, Section 16

Then I think that he again brings things from another sect, saying, "How many are afraid of the well, yet no one goes to the well?" and "Why are you so cowardly in raising such a great path? You are unaware; for I have courage and a sword." We, from the church of the named Christ, say that these things are not true.

Having said this, he seems to follow with things that have nothing to do with us. For our point is not to worship a god from some hypothesis, but the Creator of all and of anything that is not visible or shown. They will know that those who walk "another path" and "other ways," denying this one, have only a new idea and name for God, claiming themselves to be greater than the Creator.

And if someone says that the Son is stronger and the Lord of "the Almighty God," we have shown that it is not necessary to "serve two lords," since we have established that there is no division about Jesus and that he can be shown to be the only Lord, serving the Son of God, the Word of God.

Book 8, Section 17

After this, Celsus says that we avoid altars, statues, and temples because he thinks that our faith is a sign of an invisible and unutterable communion. He does not see that for us, altars are the leading place of each of the righteous, from which true and spiritual fragrant "offerings" and "prayers" rise from a pure conscience.

Therefore, it is said by John in the Revelation: "The offerings are the prayers of the saints," and by the hymn writer: "Let my prayer be like incense before you." Statues and offerings suitable for God are not made by base craftsmen, but are made and shaped in us by the Word of God. The virtues are imitations of the firstborn of all creation, in which there are examples of righteousness, self-control, courage, wisdom, piety, and the other virtues.

Thus, in all, those who have established self-control, righteousness, courage, wisdom, piety, and the other virtues according to divine reason create statues. We are convinced that it is fitting to honor the original of all statues, the image of "the invisible God," the only-begotten God.

But also those who put off "the old man with his deeds and put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge according to the image of the one who created him," take up "the image of the one who created." They make statues within themselves, whatever the God over all desires.

Just as among sculptors, some are wonderfully skilled in their work, like Phidias or Polyclitus or painters like Zeuxis and Apelles, others are less skilled than these, and still others even less than the second group, and there is a great difference in the making of statues and images.

In the same way, some are making statues of the God over all that are better and according to perfect knowledge, so that there is no comparison between the statue of Zeus made by Phidias and the one made "according to the image of the Creator." For in all creation, the one in our Savior is much better and superior, as he says: "The Father is in me."

Book 8, Section 18

And in each of those who strive to imitate him, there is a statue "according to the image of the Creator," which they create with a pure heart to see God, becoming "imitators" of God.

And all Christians, whom we mentioned, try to establish altars and what kind of statues we present, not lifeless and insensible ones, nor those that serve the lifeless demons, but those of the Spirit of God. These statues of virtue and "according to the image of the Creator" are like those who dwell within us.

Thus, the Spirit of Christ rests upon those whom I will call conforming to him. And wanting to present such things, the Word of God wrote about God in a promise to the righteous, saying: "I will dwell in them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people."

And about the Savior: "If anyone hears my words and does them, I and my Father will come to him and make our home with him."

Let the one who wants to examine the altars I mentioned, the altars that Celsus speaks of, and the statues of the pious towards the God of all, know that the statues of Phidias and Polyclitus and those similar to them are clearly lifeless and will decay over time, while these remain in the immortal soul as long as the rational soul desires to remain in it.

Book 8, Section 19

If we must compare temples, to show those who accept Celsus that we do not avoid establishing temples for the mentioned statues and altars, but we turn away from building lifeless and dead temples for the giver of all life.

Let the one who wishes to hear understand how we are taught that our bodies are "the temple of God," and "if anyone destroys the temple of God through immorality or sin, he will be destroyed as truly impious in the true temple."

Among all such named temples, the holy and pure body of our Savior Jesus is greater and different. He, knowing that he could be plotted against by the wicked regarding the temple of God within him, did not think that the intention of those plotting against him was stronger than the divine power that builds the temple. He said to them: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

But he was speaking about the temple of his body. In another way, the divine words teach about resurrection, saying that those who can hear the divine words will be rebuilt with living and precious stones, hinting that each of those who breathe, through the same word, is a precious stone of the whole temple of God.

As Peter says: "But you are being built up as living stones into a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." And Paul says: "Being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone."

This has a mystical meaning, as seen in the words of Isaiah. Thus, it is said regarding Jerusalem: "Behold, I am preparing for you a stone, your foundation, and your foundations will be sapphires, and I will set your battlements with jasper and your gates with crystal stones, and your children will be taught by God; and in much peace will be your children, and you will be built in righteousness."

Book 8, Section 20

Therefore, some of the righteous are like a coal stone, others like sapphire, others like jasper, and others like crystal. Thus, all the righteous are a whole kind of chosen and precious stones.

And the thought about stones and their nature can be explained. And it can be said that the name of the precious stone refers to souls, but it is not the time to explain this. It is only necessary to briefly mention the purpose of our temples and the one temple made of precious stones for God.

For just as in the recognized temples, each city honors its own, those who are in the more precious temples would boast about their excellence to challenge the lesser ones. In the same way, when those accuse us, since we do not think we should honor the divine in lifeless temples, we compare our temples and show that they are not lifeless nor similar to their lifeless gods, and that there is no comparison between our statues and the idols of the nations, nor between our altars and theirs.

Thus, we avoid establishing altars, statues, and temples, not because we seek an invisible and unutterable communion, but because we have found through the teaching of Jesus the way to true piety. We flee from the false appearances of piety that lead people away from the true piety found through Jesus Christ, who is the only "way" of piety, truly saying: "I am the way, the truth, and the life."

Book 8, Section 21

Let us also look at what Celsus says about God. And how he urges us toward the use of idols, or as I would call them, demon-worship, since he does not know what is truly sacred, and what the sacrifices made to him are.

What he says is like this: "God is common to all, good, ungrudging, and free from envy." So, what prevents those who are most devoted to him from participating in the public festivals? I do not know what he imagines when he thinks that the good, ungrudging, and envious God allows those devoted to him to partake in public festivals.

And I say that it would follow that if it were shown that the public festivals have no flawed aspect and are established as followers of the worship and piety toward him, then it would be acceptable for them to participate in those festivals. However, if the public festivals have no valid reason for their name, as they do not align with the worship of the divine, but are merely imitations of human history or natural phenomena like water or earth, it is clear that those who wish to honor the divine would reasonably avoid participating in public festivals.

For "festival," as one of the wise Greeks says well, "is nothing other than doing what is necessary." And the one who truly celebrates is the one who does what is necessary, always praying and continually offering sacrifices of praise to the divine.

Therefore, it seems to me that Paul wisely said: "You observe days and months and seasons and years; I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain."

Book 8, Section 22

But if someone brings up the observances we have, like the Lord's Day, the preparations, Passover, or Pentecost, it should be said that the perfect one, always in words, deeds, and thoughts, is the true Lord, the Word of God.

He is always present in our days and always leads the Lord's Days. But he also always prepares himself for truly living and avoids the pleasures of life, deceiving many and not feeding "the mindset of the flesh," but instead keeping his "body" under control and always preparing himself.

Moreover, the one who understands that "Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed," and that we should celebrate by partaking of the flesh of the Word, does not fail to keep Passover, which means "the crossing over," always crossing over in thought and in every word and action from the affairs of life to God, and hastening to his city.

In addition, the one who can speak with truth says: "We have risen with Christ," and also: "He raised us up and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ." This is always true during the days of Pentecost, especially when the apostles of Jesus went up to pray and "to seek" as they were worthy of "the rushing mighty wind" from heaven, which was meant to remove the evil in humanity and its consequences, and they were also worthy of receiving a share of the fiery tongue from God.

Book 8, Section 23

But many who seem to believe do not need much reminding, either because they do not want to or cannot keep all these days of visible examples, so that they do not fall short of perfection. I think that Paul, in part, named the "festival" as one that is arranged on certain days, hinting that it is not "in part of a festival," but in a whole and continuous festival that the always-living life according to the divine Word exists.

So, look again at what has been said about the festivals among us, compared with the public festivals of Celsus and those of the nations, to see if these festivals of the public are not far more solemn, where "the mindset of the flesh" celebrates in drunkenness and debauchery.

It would take a long time to explain why the festivals according to God's law teach to eat "bread of affliction" or "unleavened bread with bitter herbs," or why they say: "Humble your souls," or something similar to these. For it is not possible for the composite human, as long as "the flesh desires against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh," to celebrate all at once.

Either someone celebrating in the spirit harms the body, not being able to celebrate with the spirit because of "the mindset of the flesh," or one celebrating according to the flesh cannot also celebrate according to the spirit. But these points are enough for the current discussion about festivals.

Book 8, Section 24

Let us see what Celsus says, urging us to use idols and participate in public sacrifices. What he says is this: if the idols are nothing, what harm is there in sharing in the feast? But if there are some demons, then clearly these are also gods, to whom we should believe, serve according to the laws, and pray, so that they may be favorable.

It is useful to take the whole discussion about "idol sacrifices," mentioned by Paul in his earlier letter to the Corinthians, and clarify it. In that letter, he states that there is no "idol in the world," showing that using idols brings harm, proving to those who can hear that the one who partakes of the idol sacrifices does not harm his brothers for whom "Christ died."

Then, he goes on to say that those who partake of the sacrifices become "partners with demons," presenting that it is impossible to share in "the table of the Lord and the table of demons." However, since a full explanation is needed, we will limit ourselves to what has been briefly stated.

In examining these points, it becomes clear that even if the idols are nothing, it is still dangerous to share in the feast of the idols. Therefore, it has been said to us moderately that even if there are some demons to whom the sacrifices are offered, we should not partake of them, knowing the difference between "the Lord's table" and "the table of demons," and being aware of everything we do.

So that we may always partake of "the Lord's table," we must take care in every way, so that we never become partners in "the table of demons."

Book 8, Section 25

Since Celsus says that the demons are also of God, and for this reason we should believe in them, serve them according to the laws, and pray to them so that they may be favorable, we should teach those who want to know that the Word of God does not want to declare anything trivial as a possession of God, judging it unworthy of such a Lord.

Therefore, not all people are called "people of God," but only those worthy of God, like Moses and Elijah, and if anyone else is called "man of God," he is similar to those already mentioned. In the same way, not all angels are called "angels of God," but only the blessed ones, while those who have turned to evil are called angels of the devil, just as wicked people are called people of sin or children of plague or children of injustice.

Since there are both serious and wicked people, it follows that some are called "of God" and others "of the devil." Similarly, some angels are "of God" and others are of the evil one. However, demons are no longer divided; they are all shown to be wicked. For this reason, we will say that Celsus is wrong when he claims that if there are some demons, then they are also of God.

The one who wants to argue should either show that the distinction between people and angels is not sound or that a similar argument can be made about demons. If this is impossible, it is clear that the demons are not of God, for their ruler is not God, but, as the divine words say, "Beelzebub."

Book 8, Section 26

We should not believe in demons, even if Celsus encourages us to do so. Instead, we should die before being convinced by demons, and we should endure anything rather than be persuaded by God. Therefore, we should not serve demons either, for it is impossible for wicked people to serve properly.

But according to what laws does Celsus want us to serve the demons? If it is according to the laws in the cities, then he should show that they agree with divine laws. If he cannot do this (for the laws of many cities do not even say the same things), it is clear that there are no true laws or trivial laws that we should believe in. For "it is necessary to obey God rather than men."

So, let us reject Celsus's advice to pray to demons, and we should not even listen to him about how much we should pray. We should only pray to God, who is over all, and we should pray to the only-begotten and firstborn Word of God. We should honor him as the high priest, bringing our prayer before his God and our God, and the Father of all living things according to the Word of God.

Just as we would not want to have favor from people who wish us to live according to their wickedness, if they are not favorable to those who choose the opposite. For their favor makes us enemies of God. Surely, it is not good to have such people be favorable to us. In the same way, those who understand the nature, choice, and wickedness of demons would never want to have demons be favorable to them.

Book 8, Section 27

For even if the demons are not favorable to them, they could still suffer something at their hands. Those who are protected by the one who is favorable to them, through their piety towards God and his holy angels, are worthy of being guarded. This is so that they may not suffer anything from the demons.

The one who has God, who is over all, through his piety towards him, is favorable and has received the angel of the "great council," the Lord Jesus. Being content with God's favor through Christ Jesus, he would say confidently that he is not persuaded by any of the demons' camp: "The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the defender of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?" He would also say, "If an army should encamp against me, my heart shall not fear."

So, even if there are some demons, it is clear that they are also of God, and we should believe in them, serve them according to the laws, and pray to them so that they may be favorable.

Book 8, Section 28

Let us examine the following statement again, considering its meaning: if they are indeed keeping away from certain traditional priests, they should completely avoid eating any living creatures. This is what Pythagoras seems to think, honoring the soul and its organs.

But what they say is that they should not be associated with demons. I praise their wisdom because they slowly understand that they are always in the company of demons. They only take care of this when they see a sacrifice being made. But when they eat food, drink wine, taste delicacies, and breathe in air and water, they do not realize that they are receiving each of these things from certain demons, which are assigned to each part of their care.

I do not know how it seemed to them that they should avoid all living creatures' food, those whom they named according to some traditional custom of certain priests. And we do not say this as if the divine word is suggesting such things, but for the sake of a safer and purer life, it says, "It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or anything that causes your brother to stumble." And again, "Do not destroy the one for whom Christ died by your food." And again, "If my brother is offended by meat, I will never eat meat again, so that I do not cause my brother to stumble."

Book 8, Section 29

You should know that the Jews believe they understand the law of Moses and keep away from unclean foods, partaking only of what is considered clean. They also do not use animal blood for food, nor do they eat things that are strangled, and there is much discussion about this. Now is not the time to examine it.

The teaching of Jesus, wanting to call all people to pure worship of God, does not allow many who could benefit from the morals of Christianity to be hindered by the heavier laws about food. He declared that "it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth." For what goes into the mouth goes into the stomach and is expelled. But what comes out of the mouth are "evil thoughts," "murders," "adulteries," "fornications," "thefts," "false witness," and "blasphemies."

Paul also says that "food will not bring us closer to God; for if we eat, we are not better off, and if we do not eat, we are not worse off." Since there is some ambiguity in these matters, unless it is clarified, "it seemed good to the apostles of Jesus and to the elders gathered in Antioch to write a letter to those from the nations who believe, saying that they should avoid certain things." These are the things that are "necessary" to avoid: food offered to idols, things that are strangled, and blood.

Book 8, Section 30

Food offered to idols is sacrificed to demons, and a person of God should not become a partner at the "table of demons." Things that are strangled and blood that has not been drained are said to be food for demons. The word forbids us from being nourished by the food of demons. Perhaps we might be influenced by such spirits if we partake of strangled things.

From what has been said about the "strangled" foods, it is clear that there is a need to avoid blood. It is not unlikely that I have mentioned this in places of gracious thought, where many Christians find themselves in the writings of Sextus, which say, "The use of living things is indifferent, but the avoidance of blood is more reasonable."

So, we do not simply avoid certain traditional priests who sacrifice to the so-called gods, heroes, or demons for many reasons, some of which I have mentioned. But we also avoid all evil and everything that comes from evil, including all living creatures for food. We should avoid not only the food from living creatures but also anything that comes from evil, if we are to use food for good.

We should avoid eating out of gluttony or being led by pleasure without considering the health and healing of the body. However, we do not say that the soul is transferred into animals or that it is brought down to the level of irrational creatures, certainly not in the same way as Pythagoras. Even if we sometimes avoid animals, we will not use their flesh.

We honor only the rational soul and give its organs the respect they deserve according to the established burial practices. It is fitting that the dwelling place of the rational soul should not be treated disrespectfully, like that of irrational beings, especially when Christians believe that the honor of the body, where the rational soul resides, should be treated well and should strive to be received with honor after such a struggle.

As for "how the dead are raised and with what body do they come," I will address this briefly later. As the scripture demands, we have presented these things.

Book 8, Section 31

After this, Celsus presents what is commonly said by Christians and Jews, arguing about the avoidance of idol food and claiming that those who partake in the meal dedicated to the one true God should not associate with demons. To this, he refers to what has been stated.

As for us, regarding food and drink, we do not know of any other way to associate with demons than through what is called sacred food and drink, which many people consume, including wine offered in sacrifices to demons. Celsus believes that anyone who eats food or drinks wine or tastes delicacies is associating with demons, even if someone only drinks water. He adds that even breathing this air comes from certain demons, as they provide the air for living creatures.

Therefore, anyone who wants to respond to Celsus should show how certain beings, not divine angels of God but demons, who are all of low nature, are responsible for managing all these things mentioned. We say that we are not without the protection of unseen forces, which we might call guardians, not only of farmers and other caretakers of the earth but also of all waters and air, which nature governs.

Water is managed in springs and rivers, and the air is kept pure and vital for those who breathe it. However, we do not say that these unseen forces are demons. But if one must dare to say something, if these are indeed the works of demons, we would say that famines, diseases of grapes and fruits, droughts, and the corruption of the air that harm crops, as well as the death of animals and plagues among people, are all caused by demons.

These demons act under some divine authority, having been given power at certain times to carry out these actions, whether to lead people to repentance or to bring about the spread of evil. Thus, some remain pious in such times and do not become worse, while others, in contrast, steal the display of evil and are revealed by the events that occur.

In this way, they become visible to those who do not see their true nature.

Book 8, Section 32

The hymn writer testifies that by divine judgment, the most sorrowful things are caused by certain wicked angels. In the scripture, it says, "He sent upon them the fury of his wrath, anger, and trouble by the hands of evil angels." If anything else happens where demons are allowed, they always want to do these things but are not always able because they are hindered.

The one who is able should consider divine judgment as it relates to the many souls freed from the body, especially those who are on the path to death. For "the judgments of God are great" and, because of their magnitude, cannot be grasped by the mind still bound to a mortal body. Therefore, they are often "indescribable," and souls that are uneducated cannot perceive them.

Because of this, those who are more reckless, due to their ignorance about these matters and their inclination toward the divine, increase the impious doctrines against divine providence. Thus, we do not receive any of our daily needs from demons, especially those who have learned to use them properly, nor do those who partake of food, wine, delicacies, water, and air associate with demons. Instead, they are more likely to be served by divine angels assigned to such matters.

These angels are called upon at the home of the pious and attentive teacher, who says, "Whether you eat or drink or do anything, do it all for the glory of God." And again, in another place, it says, "Whether you eat or drink, do it all in the name of God." Therefore, when we eat and drink for the "glory of God" and breathe according to the word, we do not associate with any demons but with divine angels.

For "every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if received with thanksgiving; for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer." It would not be "good" or possible to be made holy if, as Celsus thinks, these things were assigned to demons.

Book 8, Section 33

From these things, it is clear that we have responded to what has been said before. Thus, it stands that we should not live in any way that avoids this, or we should give thanks to the demons for the things we receive in life, and offer first fruits and prayers to them as long as we live, as if we were to be their friends.

So, we must live, and according to the word of God, we live. As much as we can, we should live according to this way of life. We do this whether we eat or drink. "We do all for the glory of God." And we should not refuse to use what we have with thanksgiving to the Creator for his creations given to us.

In this regard, we are more provided for by God in life than what Celsus thinks, and we are not subject to demons but to the one true God through Jesus Christ, who brings us to him. According to God's laws, no demon has control over the things of the earth; rather, because of their own wrongdoing, they may have taken over certain places.

There, there is a lack of knowledge of God and of the life according to him, or there is much that is foreign to divinity. Perhaps, as deserving of punishment, they have been appointed by the one who governs all to rule over those who have submitted themselves to evil and not to God.

And because of such things, Celsus, being ignorant of God, gives thanks to demons for the gifts. But we, giving thanks to the Creator of all, eat the bread offered with thanksgiving and prayer, which becomes holy through the prayer, and we partake of it with a healthy disposition toward him.

Book 8, Section 34

But Celsus wants to offer first fruits to demons. We, however, say: "Let the earth sprout vegetation and grass. Let seeds be sown according to their kind and produce fruit-bearing trees, whose seed is in itself according to its kind upon the earth." To this, we give our first fruits.

To this, we also send up our prayers, "having a great high priest, who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God," and we hold fast to "the confession" as long as we live. Being friends of God and his only Son, revealed to us in Jesus.

If we desire many things that we want to receive as friends of God, we learn "that thousands upon thousands stand before him. And myriads of myriads serve him," who, seeing their relatives and friends imitating their piety toward God, join in the salvation of those who call upon God and pray sincerely, appearing to them and believing that they should listen and, as if from one agreement, be present for the good and salvation of those who pray to God, to whom they also pray.

For "all are ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation." Therefore, the wise of the Greeks may say that demons have taken hold of the human soul from its birth; but Jesus taught us not to despise "the little ones" in the church, saying that "their angels always see the face of my Father in heaven." And the prophet says that "the angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear him and delivers them."

So, we do not deny that there are many demons on earth, but we say that they exist and can act in the wicked, yet they cannot do anything against those who have put on "the armor of God" and have taken strength "to stand against the schemes of the devil," always considering their struggles, knowing "that our struggle is not against flesh and blood but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places."

Book 8, Section 35

Let us also consider another statement of Celsus, which goes like this: either the satrap or governor or general or commissioner of the king of the Persians or Romans, or even those who have smaller offices or duties or services, could greatly harm others if they neglect their responsibilities. But could the aerial and earthly satraps and servants harm anyone if they are insulted?

See how human satraps, those under the one true God, and governors and generals and commissioners, along with those in smaller offices and duties, bring great harm to those who insult them. Do they not see that no wise person would want to harm anyone, but rather, as much power as they have, they turn against those who insult them and improve them?

Unless, then, the satraps and governors and generals under the one true God are worse than Lycurgus, the lawgiver of the Spartans, and Zeno of Citium. For Lycurgus, having received power from the one who blinded him, not only did not defend himself but also did not stop encouraging him until he persuaded him to become a philosopher. Zeno, on the other hand, said to the one who said, "I would perish if I do not take revenge on you," "But I, if I do not keep you as a friend."

And I do not yet mention those who follow the teaching of Jesus and have heard the command to "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father in heaven, who makes his sun rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the just and the unjust."

And in the prophetic words, the righteous says this: "Lord my God, if I have done this, if there is injustice in my hands, if I have repaid evil to those who have repaid me with evil, then let my enemy pursue my soul and overtake it, and let him trample my life to the ground."

Book 8, Section 36

But the true satraps, governors, generals, and commissioners of God do not harm those who insult them, as Celsus thinks. If some demons harm people, those are the ones that Celsus imagined. They harm as wicked beings and have no authority or command from God, and they harm those who submit to them as if they were their masters.

Perhaps this is why those who unlawfully eat the prescribed foods in each place are harmed if they are under those demons. But if some are not under them and have not submitted themselves to the local demon, they are free from suffering at their hands, saying goodbye to such demons. Others, due to ignorance about other matters, have submitted themselves and can suffer from them, but not a true Christian. A true Christian has submitted only to God and his word; he may suffer something from the demons, as he is in the presence of greater demons.

And even if he suffers, since "the angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear him and delivers them," and his angel "always" sees "the face of" "the Father in heaven," he continually presents their prayers to the one true God, and he himself prays for those under his care.

So let Celsus not frighten us with threats of harm from demons if we neglect our duties. For demons cannot do anything to us if we are resting in the one who helps all those who are worthy. And he does not lessen his own angels to those who are pious toward him, so that the opposing angels or the one called "the ruler of this age" cannot act against those who are resting in God.

Book 8, Section 37

Then, forgetting that he speaks about Christians, who alone pray to God through Jesus, he irrationally connects these things to others. If someone calls them barbaric, they will have power; but if they call them Greek or Roman, they will no longer have power.

Let him show whom we call barbaric when we call upon him for help, and let Celsus not mistakenly say these things about us. For the rest of the Christians do not use names from the holy scriptures in their prayers. But the Greeks use Greek names, and the Romans use Roman names, and thus each person prays to God and praises him in their own dialect as best they can.

And the Lord of all, who hears those praying from every dialect, listens as if it were one voice, so that he may be named, hearing the sound according to the meanings expressed in the various dialects. For the God of all is not just one of the chosen dialects, whether barbaric or Greek, and he does not pay attention only to those speaking in other dialects.

Book 8, Section 38

Then after this, he claims that he has not heard from any Christian or anyone among the many lawless and uneducated people that Christians say: "Look, standing before the statue of Zeus or Apollo or whichever god, I blaspheme and strike it, and no one defends me." He does not see that it is commanded in divine law not to "speak ill of the gods," so that no one's mouth is encouraged to speak ill of anyone, saying, "Bless and do not curse," and teaching that "the slanderers will not inherit the kingdom of God."

Who among us is so foolish as to say such things and not see that nothing like this can lead to the removal of the belief in the so-called gods? For even those who are atheists everywhere and have rejected providence and have created a system of philosophers through wicked doctrines and impious teachings, neither suffer from what most people think is evil nor do those who embrace their teachings. Instead, they prosper and their bodies are healthy.

But if someone seeks harm among them, let him see that those who are truly harmed exist. For what greater harm is there than not understanding the order of the world created by the maker? And what worse suffering is there than having a blinded mind and not seeing the creator and father of all reason?

Book 8, Section 39

After putting forth such words and slandering Christians, he thinks he is making a defense for himself, but it is more like a joke than a real defense. In this, he says to us: "Do you not see, oh best one, that someone standing against your demon not only blasphemes but also proclaims it throughout all the land and sea, and takes you, the honored one, as if he were binding a statue and impaling it?" And the demon, or as you say, the son of God, does not defend him at all?

This defense has no place if we use such words as he has written about us. And yet, he does not even speak the truth, calling the son of God a demon. Therefore, according to us, those who say all demons are worthless do not consider the one who has turned so many to God a demon, but rather the word of God and the son of God. According to Celsus, having said nothing about worthless demons, I do not know how he forgets himself, for Jesus is called a demon.

Later, however, what is said about the impious will come after all the remedies that are not suitable, upon those who are caught in what one might call an incurable evil.

Book 8, Section 40

And we, whenever we speak about punishment and through the teaching about punishment, turn many away from their sins. But according to Celsus, a priest of Apollo or Zeus responds like this: "In the end, the mills of the gods grind slowly, and children will suffer for their parents' sins, and they will be born after them."

But see how much better is the saying, "Fathers will not die for their children, nor will sons die for their fathers; each will die for his own sin," and "the one who eats sour grapes will have his teeth set on edge," and "a son will not bear the injustice of a father, nor will a father bear the injustice of a son; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon him."

But if someone says that the saying about children suffering for their parents' sins means that "the sins of the fathers will be passed on to the children to the third and fourth generation," let him learn that in Ezekiel, such a saying is mentioned as a parable, blaming those who say, "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge." To this, it is added, "As I live, says the Lord, each will die for his own sin."

It is not the right time to explain what the saying about "to the third and fourth generation" means in relation to the passing on of sins in the parable.

Book 8, Section 41

Then, as he is slandering us, he says: "You mock the statues of these gods." If you had mocked Dionysus or Heracles while they were present, you might not have escaped unharmed. But those who act against your god, while they are present, suffer nothing and do not even feel it in this long life.

What new thing has happened to the one who believes that he was not just a man but the son of God? And the one who sent the son to be punished so harshly, as if to destroy both him and the angels, has not turned back even after so much time has passed. Who is such an unjust father? That one, it seems, wanted to be mocked for this reason.

But these ones, whom you blaspheme, could say that they also want to be and endure being blasphemed; for it is best to compare equals with equals. But these people strongly defend the one who blasphemes, either fleeing because of it and hiding, or being caught and destroyed.

And in addition to this, I would say that we are not slandered by anyone, believing that "slanderers will not inherit the kingdom of God," and reading "bless those who curse you" and "bless and do not curse." Knowing this, we also say, "being slandered, we bless."

And if slandering has some defensive meaning for the one who thinks he is wronged, the word of God does not allow us to do even this. How much more foolish is it to slander when there is much stupidity in doing so? It is equally foolish to be slandered like a stone or gold or silver, which are shaped into the forms of gods that are far removed from true divinity.

Thus, we do not mock the lifeless statues, but rather those who worship them. And even if there are some demons residing in certain statues, and one thinks that one of them is Dionysus and the other Heracles, we are not slandered by them; for such a thing is pointless and does not fit a calm, peaceful, and tranquil soul that has learned that no one should be slandered for evil, whether human or demon.

Book 8, Section 42

I do not know how Celsus, unwillingly, fell into the trap of saying that those whom he praised as demons or gods a short while ago are now shown to be the most worthless and punished more defensively than correcting them when someone slanders them. For he says: "If you had mocked Dionysus or Heracles while they were present, you might not have escaped unharmed."

But how can someone who is not present hear anything? Let him who wishes to be present come forward, and why sometimes he is present and sometimes not, and what is the reason for the demons' movement from place to place.

Next, he says that we refer to the body of Jesus being stretched and punished, and not to the divinity within him as God, and that when he was stretched and punished, he was thought to be God. But those who acted against your god while he was present suffered nothing and did not feel it at all.

Having said more about what humans have suffered above, we now refer the discussion back to this point so that we do not seem to be repeating ourselves. Since he says that these who punished Jesus did not suffer anything in such a long life, we will show him and all who want to learn that the city, where the Jewish people deemed it worthy for Jesus to be crucified, said: "Crucify him, crucify him."

For they had chosen to release the robber who was imprisoned for rebellion and murder, but handed Jesus over to be crucified out of envy. Not long after, the city was attacked and besieged for a long time, so that it became uninhabitable and desolate from its foundations.

He judged those living in that place unworthy of the common life of God. And being merciful to them, I would say strangely, and seeing them in pain, they were moving towards a greater change and were growing daily in the outpouring of evil, and he delivered them to those who were warring against them.

And these things happened because of the blood of Jesus that was poured out during their plot against him on their land, no longer able to bear those who dared to commit such a crime against Jesus.

Book 8, Section 43

So, something new has happened, from which Jesus has suffered for a long time, and that is, I mean, what happened in the city and everything concerning the nation and the whole generation of Christians, as if it were born all at once.

And it is also new that the foreigners, "the heirs of God's covenants," and those who are strangers to the promises, receive this truth through some divine power. But these things were not the work of a human sorcerer, but the works of God, who sent his angels for the sake of the word in Jesus, who was punished so harshly, as if to accuse those who wrongfully punished him, and he endured bravely and with all gentleness.

But his punishment did not destroy the angels of God; rather, if it must be named so, it brought them to knowledge, as Jesus himself taught, saying: "Unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit."

Therefore, the "grain of wheat," Jesus, died and brought forth "much fruit," and the Father always foresees the fruits that come from the death of the grain of wheat, which are born and will be born.

Thus, the Father of Jesus, "not sparing his own son, but delivering him up for us all," gave him as a lamb of his own, so that he might take away "the sin of the world," the lamb of God who dies for everyone. He did this willingly, not being forced, but willingly endured the insults brought against him by the abusers.

Then after this, Celsus, repeating the words about the slanderers of the statues, says: "These ones whom you blaspheme could say that they also want to be and endure being blasphemed; for it is best to compare equals with equals."

But these people strongly defend the one who blasphemes, either fleeing because of it and hiding, or being caught and destroyed. The demons think that Christians defend themselves not by blaspheming but by fleeing from the statues and from human bodies and souls.

For Celsus has not understood what is truly happening in this place; for it is true that the souls of those who condemn Christians are filled with worthless demons, and those who betray and those who favor Christians are waging war against them.

Book 8, Section 44

But since the souls of those who die for Christianity are freed from the body with piety and glory, they weaken the power of the demons and make their attacks against humans less effective. For this reason, I think that the demons, having learned from experience that they are defeated and held down by the martyrs of the truth, are afraid to come back to defend themselves.

And so, as long as they forget the pains they have suffered, it is likely that the world will have peace towards Christians. But when they gather their strength and are blinded by evil, they want to defend themselves again and persecute Christians; they will be defeated again. And then again, the souls of the pious, who are shedding their bodies for the sake of piety, will bring down the camp of the wicked.

I believe that the demons realize that those who are victorious and die for piety are bringing down their power, while those who are defeated by pain and deny their faith become subject to them. When they argue with those who are handed over to Christians, they are punished by their confession but find rest in their denial.

And there are signs of this to be seen even in the judges, who are being punished by those who endure the tortures, while they boast when a Christian is defeated. For they do not do these things out of a supposed kindness, clearly seeing that "the tongue" of those who are victorious has sworn, while "the mind" is "unwavering."

And yet, these people strongly defend the one who blasphemes, either fleeing because of it and hiding, or being caught and destroyed. And if a Christian flees, it is not out of cowardice. Rather, he keeps the command of the teacher and preserves himself pure, hoping for the salvation of others.

Book 8, Section 45

Let us also see how things stand from here on: what should we say about all that has been spoken from oracles, whether by prophets and prophetesses or by other seers, both men and women, who spoke with divine voices? What wonderful things have been heard from their hidden places? What has been revealed by priests and the offerings made to them, and what about other great signs?

The whole life is full of these things. How many cities have been restored from oracles and have been freed from diseases and famines? How many, having neglected these things or forgotten them, have suffered badly? How many have been sent into colonies and, after following the instructions given, have prospered?

How many powerful people and how many private citizens have been made better or worse by this? How many, suffering from childlessness, have escaped the wrath of demons by receiving what they asked for? How many have been healed from bodily injuries? And how many, having insulted the sacred things, were immediately caught, some being held fast by their madness, others confessing what they did, and others being bound by incurable diseases?

Already, from those hidden places, a heavy voice has brought down some. And I do not know how Celsus presents these things as clear and describes the marvelous things written by us. Whether they are Jewish or about Jesus and his disciples, he claims they are myths.

But why are our things true, while what Celsus says are mere mythical tales? These are things that even the philosophies of the Greeks, like those of Democritus, Epicurus, and Aristotle, would not have believed, unless they had been convinced by the clarity of our accounts, if they had been extended to Moses or to any of the prophets who created the marvelous.

Book 8, Section 46

The Pythia is said to have once given a prophecy even after being corrupted. But our prophets were not only admired for the clarity of their words by those around them, but also in later times. For from the prophecies of the prophets, cities were restored, people were healed, and famines ceased.

Indeed, the entire nation of the Jews came to Palestine from Egypt according to the oracles. After following the commands given by God, they prospered, but when they strayed, they suffered. What should we say about how many powerful people and private citizens, according to the histories of scripture, became better or worse by paying attention to the prophecies or neglecting them?

If we need to speak about childlessness, some fathers or mothers, feeling troubled, sent up prayers to the Creator of all. One should read about Abraham and Sarah, from whom Isaac was born when they were already old. He is the father of the whole Jewish nation and others besides them.

Also, read about Hezekiah, who not only received healing from disease according to the prophecies of Isaiah but also boldly said, "For from now on I will make children who will proclaim your righteousness." And in the fourth book of Kings, the woman who received Elisha, by the grace of God, became a mother according to the prayers of Elisha.

Moreover, many were healed from injuries by Jesus. And others, daring to insult the Jewish religion in Jerusalem, suffered the consequences as recorded in the Maccabees.

Book 8, Section 47

But the Greeks will say these are myths. Yet they are testified to as true by two nations. Why are the myths of the Greeks more valid than these? If someone tries to argue, so that it does not seem that they accept their own while disbelieving in others, they should say that the myths of the Greeks came from demons, while those of the Jews came either from God through the prophets or from angels, or from God through angels, and those of the Christians came from Jesus and his power in the apostles.

Let us examine everything together and see the outcome of the actions taken and the benefit or harm that resulted from them, or neither for those who have experienced what they consider to be good. If one looks at the ancient Jewish nation, they will see that before they insulted the divine, they were left behind because of their great wickedness.

In contrast, the Christians, especially at the beginning, were encouraged by great signs or persuasive words to leave their ancestral ways and choose foreign beliefs. For if we must also use reason about the early formation of the Christians, we will say that it is not likely that the apostles of Jesus, who were uneducated and ordinary men, would have boldly proclaimed Christianity to people without the power given to them and the grace in their words to reveal these things.

Nor is it likely that those who listened to them would have changed from their long-held customs without some significant power moving them to adopt such strange and foreign beliefs from their familiar doctrines.

Book 8, Section 48

But the Greeks will say that these are myths. Yet they are testified to as true by two nations. Why are the myths of the Greeks more valid than these? If someone tries to argue, so that it does not seem that they accept their own while disbelieving in others, they should say that the myths of the Greeks came from demons, while those of the Jews came either from God through the prophets or from angels, or from God through angels, and those of the Christians came from Jesus and his power in the apostles.

Let us examine everything together and see the outcome of the actions taken and the benefit or harm that resulted from them, or neither for those who have experienced what they consider to be good. If one looks at the ancient Jewish nation, they will see that before they insulted the divine, they were left behind because of their great wickedness.

In contrast, the Christians, especially at the beginning, were encouraged by great signs or persuasive words to leave their ancestral ways and choose foreign beliefs. For if we must also use reason about the early formation of the Christians, we will say that it is not likely that the apostles of Jesus, who were uneducated and ordinary men, would have boldly proclaimed Christianity to people without the power given to them and the grace in their words to reveal these things.

Nor is it likely that those who listened to them would have changed from their long-held customs without some significant power moving them to adopt such strange and foreign beliefs from their familiar doctrines.

Book 8, Section 49

Let us also look at the following things said by Celsus to us: how strange it is that you desire the body and hope that it will rise again, as if nothing is better or more valuable to us than this, and yet you throw it into punishments as if it is worthless. But for those who believe this and have their bodies in good condition, it is not worth discussing. For these are the ones who are also rude and unclean and without reason, sharing in the same state.

But those who hope to have their soul or mind (whether they want to call it spiritual or a holy and blessed rational spirit or a living soul or a child of a divine and incorporeal nature, heavenly and immortal, or whatever they call it) will have eternal life with God. I will speak to these people. They believe rightly that those who live well will be happy, while the unjust will suffer eternally. And no one, neither these nor any other people, will ever turn away from this belief.

As for the resurrection, Celsus often mocks it, but we find it reasonable based on our understanding. We will not repeatedly defend ourselves against one accusation that is often made. Celsus slanders us by saying that we consider nothing better or more valuable than the body in our belief. For we say that the soul, especially the rational one, is something more valuable than the body, even if it is said to be made "in the image of the creator." The soul exists without the body.

For God is not a body either. Let us not fall into the strange ideas of those who study the philosophies of Zeno and Chrysippus.

Book 8, Section 50

Since Celsus mocks us for desiring the body, let it be known that if desire is bad, then we desire nothing. But if it is neutral, we desire all that God promises to the righteous. Thus, we desire and hope for the resurrection of the righteous. Celsus thinks we make contradictory claims, hoping for the resurrection of the body as if it deserves honor from God, while at the same time throwing it into punishments as if it is worthless.

However, nothing is worthless when it suffers for piety and is chosen for virtue. But everything is worthless when it is wasted in pleasures with wickedness. Indeed, the divine word says: "What kind of seed is precious? The seed of a human. What kind of seed is worthless? The seed of a human."

Then, Celsus believes that those who hope for the resurrection of the body should not be discussed, as they are thoughtless and incapable of achieving what they hope for. He calls them rude and unclean, and without reason, as they share in the same state. But it is necessary to be compassionate and help those who are more uncivilized.

For the social nature of humans is not described as being like that of irrational animals, but the one who made us has made us social beings toward all people. Therefore, it is worth discussing with the uncivilized and how to lead them to be more refined and to make them, as much as possible, purer, so that they no longer act thoughtlessly or harm their souls.

Book 8, Section 51

After this, he accepts those who hope to have the soul (or the mind, or what they call spiritual or rational, holy and blessed spirit, or a living soul) and to be with God for eternity. He rightly connects this with the belief that those who live well will be happy, while the unjust will suffer eternally.

I am amazed by Celsus for all that he says, especially for how he connects these ideas. He claims that no one, neither these nor any other people, will ever turn away from this belief. He should see that Christians base their entire faith on God and the promises made through Christ about the righteous, and the teachings about the punishment of the unjust.

It is likely that a Christian who accepts Celsus's words will also reject his arguments and his doctrine, as he says. Neither Christians nor any other people will turn away. But I think Celsus has made a more compassionate argument than Chrysippus in his work on healing passions, wanting to treat the passions as urgent and troubling to the human soul, first with what seems healthy to him, and then with what does not please those who hold different beliefs.

He says, "Even if there are three kinds of good, we should treat the passions this way, without being overly concerned about the doctrine that troubles the soul under the influence of passion, lest the timely treatment be wasted." He also says, "Even if pleasure is seen as good, this does not help those who are controlled by passion, as every passion is contrary to the good and the end we seek."

Therefore, Celsus should accept the teachings about those who live well as leading to happiness and those who are unjust as suffering eternally, and he should follow this reasoning. If possible, he should build upon the argument he has presented and show that truly the unjust will suffer eternally and the righteous will be happy.

Book 8, Section 52

For we, having been convinced by many things and countless arguments about Christianity, want to make all people familiar with the teachings of Christians as much as we can. But when we find people prejudiced against Christians, believing that no one can be pious while teaching the divine word, we stand firm in our compassion. We aim to present teachings about eternal punishment for the wicked, even to those who do not want to become Christians.

In this way, we also want to create a strong argument about those who live well, seeing that many who are not part of the faith say similar things to us. For no one would find common ideas about good and bad, just and unjust, completely lost.

All people, observing the world and the order of the heavens within it, and the movements of the fixed stars, which are said to move contrary to the motion of the world, as well as the nature of the air and its usefulness to living beings, especially humans, should be careful not to do anything displeasing to the creator of all things and of their souls and minds.

They should be convinced that those who sin will be punished, while those who do good will be rewarded according to their deeds. All people should understand that the good will be freed from evils, while the wicked will be handed over to troubles and sufferings for their wrongdoings, their immoral acts, and their cowardice, as well as for all their foolishness.

Book 8, Section 53

Having said so much, let us look at another statement from Celsus, which goes like this: Since humans are connected to the body, whether for the sake of the management of all things or to pay the penalties for their sins, or because of some burdens of the soul, they are cleansed until they reach the appointed limits. For according to Empedocles, one must wander for countless hours away from the blessed, becoming all kinds of things over time as mortals. Therefore, it must be believed that some are entrusted to guardians of this prison.

Notice how he expresses doubt about how many people are involved and presents more teachings about the cause of our existence, showing some reverence, not daring to declare any of these things to be false. Was it not the case that, having judged this way, he neither agreed nor boldly rejected what was believed by the ancients?

And regarding the teachings of the Jews as revealed by their prophets and about Jesus, if he did not want to believe, he could at least doubt and consider that it was reasonable to think that those who served the God of all and for the sake of this honor faced many dangers and deaths, without being overlooked by God. But even they had some divine appearance, as the human beings who were proud of their artistic statues were led to think about the one true God.

He should have considered that the common father and creator, who sees and hears all, judges each person's choices, seeking those who wish to be pious, and according to their worth, grants them some reward for his protection, so that they may grow in the understanding they have received about him.

If Celsus and those who hate Moses and the prophets among the Jews, as well as Jesus and those who truly followed his teachings, had thought this way, they would not have so harshly criticized Moses, the prophets, Jesus, and his apostles. Nor would they have rejected the Jews among all the nations on earth, calling them worse than Egyptians, as if they were lower than irrational animals, either out of superstition or for any other reason that brought them to dishonor before the divine.

We have said these things not to encourage doubt about the teachings of Christianity, but to show that those who are criticized by the words of Christians are more deserving of respect, even if they doubt them, and should not speak so boldly about Jesus or his disciples, about which they do not know and speak without the so-called "comprehensible imagination" of the Stoics or any other standard of judgment, which each philosopher has constructed as they saw fit.

Book 8, Section 54

Then, since Celsus says: "Therefore, it must be believed that some are entrusted to guardians of this prison," we should say to him that a serious soul, freed from the bonds of evil, as Jeremiah called them, is bound by the "earth" because of what Jesus said, as the prophet Isaiah foretold long ago during his coming.

What did he say? "Let the prisoners go free and those in darkness be revealed." And this is Jesus. As Isaiah also said about him, "A light has risen for those sitting in the land and shadow of death," so we might say: "Let us break their bonds and throw off their yoke."

If Celsus could hear the depth of the Gospels and those who think similarly to him about us, he would not have advised us to obey those he called guardians of the prison. It is written in the Gospel that "there was a woman who was bent over and could not fully straighten up."

When Jesus saw her and understood the reason for her condition, he did not allow her to remain "bent over," but said: "This woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has bound for eighteen years, should she not be freed from this bond on the Sabbath day?"

How many others are now bound by Satan, unable to "straighten up," wanting us to look down? And no one can lift them up except for the word of the one who came in Jesus, who was previously inspired by God.

And Jesus came to free "all those who are oppressed by the devil." And speaking of that, he said after a certain depth of understanding: "Now the ruler of this world is judged."

Therefore, we are not mocked by these demons, but we challenge the actions of those who bring destruction upon the human race, pretending to be prophets and healers, wanting to separate the soul that has fallen into "the body of humiliation" from God.

Those who understand this cry out: "Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?" But we do not carelessly offer the body to be twisted and crushed; for it is not carelessly that the body is given to those who do not call the surrounding demons gods, plotting against them and those who honor them.

And it is indeed beloved by God to be crushed for virtue, to be twisted for piety, and to die for holiness, as we have been taught. "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints." And we say it is good not to love life.

But for the wicked, it is reasonable to endure what they suffer because of their robbery. Celsus compares us to them and does not feel ashamed to show such an intention, making himself a brother to those who are "counted among the lawless," thinking of Jesus in this way.

On these things, the scripture is fulfilled, saying: "He was counted among the lawless."

Book 8, Section 55

Next, Celsus says: "A person must choose between two options. If they refuse to care for what is appropriate, neither going to a man, nor taking a woman, nor raising children, nor doing anything else in life, then they should leave no seed behind. It would be as if such a race were completely wiped out from the earth.

But if they do take women and have children, and enjoy the fruits of life, and endure the evils that are imposed (for this nature causes all humans to try to avoid evils; for it is necessary to have evils, and there is no other place), then they should give honor to those who are entrusted with these things and live according to what is fitting.

Until they are freed from their bonds, they should not seem ungrateful to these. For it is unjust to share in what these have and not contribute anything to them. We also say regarding this that no reasonable escape seems to us except the one through piety and virtue alone.

When those who are thought to have authority over us suggest the other option, either to live according to what is laid down by Jesus or to die by obeying his words. But God has also allowed us to take a wife, as not all can achieve what is pure, that is, to be completely clean, and those who take wives should raise their children and not destroy the offspring given by providence.

And this does not fight against our not being persuaded by those who divide the land among demons; for armed with the armor of God, we stand as athletes of piety against the race of demons that plot against us."

Book 8, Section 56

And if Celsus, therefore, sends us away from life with his own words, thinking that such a race of ours will be completely wiped out from the earth, we will live according to the laws of the God who created us, wanting in no way to be enslaved by the laws of sin.

And if we wish, we will take wives and have children given to us in our marriages. If we need to, we will share in the things of life, enduring the evils that are imposed, as trials of the soul. For it is customary for divine words to name the events that happen among humans; in which the soul of a person, tested like gold in fire, is either proven or shown to be wonderful.

And thus, we are prepared for what Celsus says is evil, so that we can also say: "Test me, Lord, and try me; burn my kidneys and my heart." For no one is "crowned unless they compete lawfully" here and on earth with the body of "humiliation."

Moreover, we do not give the honors that are thought to be due to those whom Celsus says are entrusted with these things. For we worship "the Lord our God and serve him alone," praying to become imitators of Christ.

When the devil said to him, "All these things I will give you if you fall down and worship me," he replied: "You shall worship the Lord your God and serve him only." Therefore, we do not give the honors that Celsus says are due to those entrusted with these things, since "no one can serve two masters," and we cannot serve both "God and mammon" at the same time.

But even if someone dishonors the lawgiver by breaking the law, it seems clear to us that there are two laws that oppose each other: the law of God and the law of mammon. It is more appropriate for us to dishonor mammon by breaking the law of mammon, so that by keeping the law of God, we may honor God, rather than dishonoring God by breaking the law of God to honor mammon by keeping the law of mammon.

Book 8, Section 57

Celsus thinks that we should serve what is appropriate in life. Until people are freed from their bonds, when someone offers sacrifices to the gods that are considered proper in the city, he does not understand what is truly fitting, which is understood through precise piety.

But we say that we live according to the laws of the one who created us, honoring him and doing all things for the love of God. Again, Celsus does not want us to be ungrateful to the demons, thinking that we owe them thanks.

But we boldly declare that we do not owe anything to those who do not do good for us and even stand against us, when we do not sacrifice to them or serve them. However, we are ungrateful to God, from whom we are full of blessings, being his creations and judged by him on how to be and to hope for what is beyond life.

There is also a symbol of our gratitude to God, called "thanksgiving," which is bread. But the demons do not have, as we said above, the management of what is created for our needs; therefore, we do nothing wrong by sharing in the creations and not sacrificing to those who are not entitled to them.

And if we see not demons but angels assigned to the fruits of the earth and the generation of animals, we praise and bless them, as they are entrusted by God with what is useful for our kind. Yet we do not give them the honor owed to God, for God does not desire this, nor do those who are entrusted with such things.

And they accept us, guarding us to sacrifice or while we are sacrificing; for they do not need the offerings that come from the earth.

Book 8, Section 58

After this, Celsus says such things: that indeed, among these, there is authority given to the least. Someone might learn this from what the Egyptians say. They say that the body of a person is divided among thirty-six demons or gods, each assigned to a different part (and some say there are many more), each one overseeing a different aspect of that person.

And they know the names of the demons in their local language, such as Khnum, Khna, Kna, Sika, Biou, Erou, Erebiou, Ramanoor, and Reianoor, as well as other names in their own tongue. When they call upon them, they seek help for the afflictions of the parts of the body.

So what prevents these and others from being healthy if someone needs it, rather than being sick, and from being fortunate rather than unfortunate, and from escaping tortures and punishments? Celsus tries to lead our souls toward the demons, as if they have control over our bodies, and he wants us to believe what he says about the demons and to serve them, so that we may be healthier rather than sick, and more fortunate rather than unfortunate, and to be freed from any power of tortures.

Thus, he has judged the honor due to God, which is the greatest and undivided, as not sufficient, believing that God alone, who is worshiped and honored loudly, can provide the power to protect us from the demons' plots against the holy. For he has not seen how many people, in the name of Jesus, have been healed from diseases, demonic possession, and other troubles by those who truly believe.

Book 8, Section 59

It is likely that the one who embraces Celsus will laugh at our words that "in the name of Jesus, every knee shall bow, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." But after laughing, he will receive stronger evidence that this is true than about the names of Khnum, Khna, Kna, Sika, and the others from the Egyptian list, who are called upon and whose afflictions of the body are healed.

And see how he tries to turn us away from believing in the God of all through Jesus Christ, calling upon thirty-six barbarian demons for the healing of our bodies. These are the only ones the Egyptian magicians call upon, and I do not know how they promise us better things.

It is time for us, according to Celsus, to practice magic and sorcery rather than to be Christians, and to believe in an endless number of demons rather than in the one true, living, and clear God who rules over all, spreading the pure word of piety to all of humanity. I will not lie by adding that there are also other rational beings who seek correction, healing, and change from evil.

Book 8, Section 60

Celsus, indeed, seems to slip into magic, and having sensed some harm to those listening, he says this: it is important to guard against anyone being led astray by the healing associated with these things, so that they do not become attached to the lesser and turn away from the greater. For it is perhaps wise not to distrust learned men.

They say that most of the surrounding demons are connected to blood, filth, melodies, and other such things, and that nothing better can heal a person's body or predict their future than these. They know about mortal actions and can do these things.

So, with such a slip regarding the place, even the enemy testifies to the truth of God. How much better it is, without any deception, to trust in the one God through Jesus Christ, rather than to rely on these demons and be led away from the greater good.

Instead of being caught up in forgetfulness of the greater things, one should trust in the God who is over all, asking for all help and protection from holy angels and the righteous, so that we may be rescued from the surrounding demons and those bound by blood, filth, and other such things. According to Celsus, nothing can heal the body better than this.

I would say that it is not clear how these demons could ever heal the bodies. Rather, healing of the body, if one wants to live simply and commonly, should be sought through medicine; but if one desires better, it should be through piety towards the God who is over all and through prayers to Him.

Book 8, Section 61

And you too should consider for yourself, what kind of character the God who is over all will accept more: whether the one who can do what no one else can for the good of humanity, whether for the soul, the body, or external matters, or the one who is busy with the names, powers, actions, spells, local herbs, stones, and their symbols related to demons.

It is clear that the simple and unpretentious character will be more acceptable to the God who is over all and to all who belong to Him. But the one who seeks health of the body and physical well-being by dealing with the names of demons and searching for them is misguided.

How could God, who is good and holy, leave those who call upon demons with their spells, as something wicked, unholy, and demonic rather than human? They will be torn apart by the thoughts imposed on them by each demon or other evils.

It is likely that these demons, being lowly and, as Celsus admitted, bound by blood, filth, melodies, and other such things, will not keep faith with those who trust in them. For when others call upon them, they will be in need of more blood and filth, and those who are bought with such things will be enslaved, plotting against the one who healed them yesterday and sharing the blessings they received.

Book 8, Section 62

Celsus has said many things before this, even mentioning oracles and their prophecies as if they were from the gods. Now he has made a stronger claim, admitting that those demons who predict a person's future and deal with mortal actions are bound by blood, filth, melodies, and other such things, and that nothing better can come from them.

It is likely that when we stand before Celsus, discussing the oracles and the healings from the gods that people believe in, he thinks of us as irreverent for saying these works are from demons. They are concerned with the creation of human souls. But now, let him consider what has been said about us by Christians, seeing that even he, when writing against Christians, has now, as if defeated by the spirit of truth, written these things.

If Celsus says we should be devoted to these things as long as they are beneficial, he is mistaken, for it is not right to do this. We should not devote ourselves to demons bound by blood and filth, nor should we pollute the divine as it relates to us, leading us to wicked demons.

If Celsus understood the true meaning of what is beneficial and saw that true benefit is virtue and actions according to virtue, he would not have placed what is beneficial among such things, as he himself admitted, related to demons.

Therefore, we choose that if health comes to us through the healing of such demons, we would rather be sick and unhappy in life while being pure and pious towards the God who is over all, than to be healthy in body and more fortunate in life while being separated from God and suffering in our souls. We should approach only the salvation of humanity and anything rational, rather than seeking blood and filth.

Book 8, Section 63

I think Celsus, with those he mentioned about demons needing blood and filth, is coming back to a point of wickedness. He says that demons should be thought of as not needing anything and that they rejoice in those who act piously towards them. But if he believed this to be true, he would not have left out those things he previously mentioned.

Human nature is not completely abandoned by God and the unique truth. Therefore, Celsus spoke about the blood and filth that demons need. This is true, but he is again led by his own wickedness to falsehood, equating demons with people who act justly. Even if no one knows them, they do good to those who repay them with gratitude.

It seems to me that he mixes things up, sometimes saying that the ruling part of the soul is disturbed by demons, and at other times, he sees a little of the truth amid the irrationality imposed by them. He insists that we should never leave God, neither by day nor night, nor in any public or private matter, but that the soul should always be directed towards God.

I hear him saying that in everything we do and say, we should keep our focus on God. Then, as if he were battling against the influences of demons, he again claims that if this were the case, what would be so terrible about those in power being kind to us, including other rulers and kings among humans, as if they could do this without the strength of demons?

In the earlier parts, he lowered our souls towards demons, but now he wants us to seek favor with human rulers and kings, whose lives and histories are full. I do not think it necessary to lay out examples now.

Book 8, Section 64

Therefore, we should seek to please the one God who is over all and pray to Him with kindness, showing piety and all virtue. If anyone wants to please other gods along with the one who is over all, they should understand that just as the shadow moves with a moving body, in the same way, those who seek to please the one God will have all His friendly angels, souls, and spirits with them.

They will be aware of the worthiness of being favored by God, and not only will they themselves become kind to those who deserve it, but they will also help those who wish to serve and please the one God, joining in prayer and seeking favor together.

So, we dare to say that when people choose what is better and pray to God, countless holy powers join in their prayers, supporting our community and, so to speak, competing against the demons who oppose and challenge the salvation of those who have dedicated themselves to God and do not worry about the hatred of demons.

If those demons become fierce against a person, they should flee from their healing through blood and filth, and in every way, they should hurry to unite with the one God through Jesus, who has cast out countless demons, when He went about "healing" and turning "those oppressed by the devil."

Book 8, Section 65

We should indeed look down on the favor of humans and kings, not only if we are trying to please them through murders, sexual immorality, and the most brutal actions, but also if we do so with a voice of servitude and humility towards the God of all, while seeking the friendship of brave and noble men and taking endurance as the greatest virtue along with the others.

However, we do nothing against the law and word of God, nor do we provoke the anger of a king or ruler due to injustices, torture, or even death. For we have read, "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God; therefore, those who resist the authority resist the ordinance of God."

In the writings to the Romans, as much as we could, we examined these statements in detail; now we have taken them up in a simpler way according to common understanding, since Celsus says that those in power are not worthy without the strength of demons.

And since there was much discussion about the state of kings and rulers, and much inquiry was lacking due to the harsh and tyrannical rulers or those who have turned from ruling to indulgence and luxury, we have therefore chosen to examine the current issue.

However, we do not swear by the fortune of a king as we do not consider it a god. For some have said that fortune is merely a chance that seems to be the same in both appearance and outcome; we do not swear by what does not exist as a god or anything that has power to do something, so that we do not take the power of swearing into areas we should not.

Whether it is said that the demon of the Roman king is what people swear by when they swear by his fortune, we would rather die than swear by a wicked and untrustworthy demon, who often leads a person to sin or even more than that.

Book 8, Section 66

Then again, Celsus speaks similarly about those possessed by demons, saying that when they are called, they fall back down, like a drunken person, saying such things: if someone commands that one should worship a god or speak something shameful, one should not believe it at all, but rather endure all torments and bear all deaths before saying anything unholy about God, not even to mention it.

Then, out of ignorance of our teaching and from this, he says such things: if someone commands to praise the Sun or Athena with a beautiful hymn, it seems that this is a better way to honor the great God, even if you also praise these. For true piety becomes more complete through all things.

So we say that we do not hesitate to praise the Sun when it is commanded, for those who have learned not only praise those under authority but also their enemies. Therefore, we praise the Sun as a beautiful creation of God and keep the laws of God, hearing the command, "Praise the Lord, you sun and moon," and as much power as there is in praising the Father and Creator of all.

However, the Greeks have mythologized Athena alongside the Sun, either in hints or without suspicion, claiming that she was born from the head of Zeus, and that she was once pursued by Hephaestus, who wanted to destroy her virginity.

Having escaped him, she fell to the earth, and they say that she loved to nurture Erichthonius, whom Athena, daughter of Zeus, raised, and the fruitful earth gave birth to him. And we see that when one approaches Athena, daughter of Zeus, many myths and fables must be set aside, which one would not accept if they were fleeing myths and seeking the truth.

Book 8, Section 67

To show that Athena is thought to be wisdom, let someone present her essence and being, as it is understood in this way. If Athena is honored as an ancient person, and if mysteries and rites are given to those under her authority, then her name is sung by people as a god, it is even more inappropriate to praise and honor Athena as a god, especially since it is not right for us to worship even the great Sun, even if we praise it.

Celsus claims that we seem to honor the great God more if we also praise the Sun and Athena, but we know the opposite is true. For we sing hymns only to the God who is above all and to his only-begotten Word. We do indeed praise God and his only-begotten as well as "the sun and moon" and "the stars" and all the heavenly host.

For all these, being divine, join in a chorus with the righteous among humans to praise the God who is above all and his only-begotten. Therefore, we have said that one should not swear by the king among humans or by his so-called fortune. Thus, it is not necessary for us to defend ourselves again about whether someone among humans should command you to swear an oath, nor is this a terrible thing.

For to him is given what is on earth, and whatever you receive in life, you receive from him. But we say that not everything on earth is given to him, nor do we receive anything in life from him. For we receive justly and well from God and his providence, such as daily fruits and bread, which strengthen "the heart of man," and the pleasant vine and wine, which cheer "the heart of man."

But we also have the fruits of the olive from God's providence "to make his face shine with oil."

Book 8, Section 68

Next, Celsus says that one should not distrust an ancient man who has long ago stated this: "One king, to whom the son of Cronus gave a crooked scepter." He adds that if you break this decree, the king will defend himself justly. For if everyone did the same to you, nothing would stop the one from being left alone and deserted, and the things on earth would become the most lawless and wild among barbarians, and neither your religion nor the true wisdom would have any reputation left among people.

So let there be one ruler, one king, not the one to whom the son of Cronus gave a crooked scepter, but the one whom the one who establishes "kings and" appoints "the useful" at the right time on earth. And not the one who was cast into Tartarus, as the myths of the Greeks say, who, having expelled this one from power, establishes kings, nor would anyone allegorically interpret the things about the places, but the God who governs all knows what he does concerning the establishment of kings.

So we break the decree: to the one to whom the son of Cronus gave a crooked scepter, we do not want to be persuaded by God or the Father of God. We do not break the decree about providence and those things that either happen beforehand or follow from it.

But the king does not defend us justly, claiming that it was not the son of Cronus who gave him kingship, but the one who establishes "kings and" appoints them. And let all do the same, breaking the Homeric decree while keeping the divine one about the king and guarding the command to "honor the king."

And in such a case, neither will the king be left alone nor will he be deserted, nor will the things on earth become the most lawless and wild among barbarians. For if, as Celsus says, everyone did the same to me, then even the barbarians, coming to the word of God, would become the most lawful and gentle. And all religions would be destroyed, but only that of the Christians would prevail, which will always prevail, gathering more souls to the Word.

Book 8, Section 69

Then, not listening to himself, Celsus says the following: "If everyone did the same to you," he says, "you would not say this." He suggests that if the Romans, convinced by you, neglect their customs regarding gods and humans and instead call upon your Most High or whoever you wish, he would come down and fight for them, needing no other help.

For before, the same God promised those who pay attention to him these things and much greater, as you say, and you can see how he benefited both them and you. Of those, there are no rulers over all the earth, nor is there any piece of land or home left, but if one of you wanders and is still unnoticed, he seeks death.

But since he seeks based on a hypothesis, if the Romans, convinced by the Christian message, neglect the established gods and the earlier laws concerning humans, and honor the Most High, what would happen? Listen to what seems pleasing to us about these things.

We say that if "two agree" among us "on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by the Father in heaven," for God rejoices in the agreement of rational beings and turns away from disagreement. What should one think if not that now very few agree, but the whole Roman authority?

For they pray to him who previously spoke to the Hebrews being pursued by the Egyptians, saying, "The Lord will fight for you, and you will be silent," and with all agreement, they will be able to defeat many more enemies pursuing them than those whom Moses brought down to God while he was praying with them.

But what God promised to those who keep the law, if it has not happened, is not because God lied, but because the promises were made based on agreements regarding keeping the law and living according to the law. And if there is neither a piece of land nor a home left for the Jews who have received the promises based on agreements, the reason for all their wrongdoing is especially concerning Jesus.

Book 8, Section 70

But all the Romans, if convinced by Celsus, would pray and be saved from their enemies or would not fight against the authority. Protected by divine power, which promised to save five cities for the sake of fifty righteous people.

For the people of God are the salt of the earth, and they hold together the things on earth, as long as the salt does not lose its flavor. "For if the salt loses its flavor, it is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled by men." "He who has ears, let him hear," how this is said.

And we, when God allows those who tempt us to have power to persecute us, are persecuted; but when God does not want us to suffer this, we bring peace in a world that hates us and we take courage in saying, "Take heart, I have overcome the world."

And truly, he has overcome "the world," so far as the world can be overcome, having received from the Father the power to overcome "the world." We take courage in his victory. But if he wants us to struggle and fight for piety again, let the competitors come, to whom we will say, "I can do all things through him who strengthens me, Christ Jesus our Lord."

For even two sparrows sold for a penny, as the scripture names them, "not one falls to the ground without your Father in heaven." And to such an extent, divine providence has surrounded all things, that not even the hairs of our heads have escaped being counted by him.

Book 8, Section 71

Then again, as is customary for Celsus, he brings forth the following, saying things that none of us has written down. He says such things: "Indeed, it is not tolerable for you to say that if the current rulers are convinced by you, they will be captured."

He suggests that you will convince the rulers again, and if those are captured, you will convince others, until all those who are persuaded by you are captured, and a certain authority will have been wise and forewarned about what happens, before it itself is destroyed, will utterly perish.

But to speak about these things is not reasonable, for no one among us says that if the current rulers are captured after being convinced, we will persuade those who come after them, and if those are captured, we will persuade the next ones.

From where does he throw out that through succession, always the later ones will be persuaded by us and captured because we do not defend ourselves against the enemies, and a certain authority, wise and forewarned about what happens, will utterly destroy us?

But it seems he is connecting nonsense in these statements and has thrown this out from himself.

Book 8, Section 72

After these things, he speaks a certain prayer: "For if it is possible to agree on one law for the Greeks and non-Greeks living in Asia, Europe, and Libya, he thinks this is impossible and claims that the one who thinks this knows nothing.

If we must also say this, it will be said briefly, needing much examination and preparation, to show that it is not only possible but also true that all rational beings can agree on one law.

Those from the Stoa believe that when the stronger element prevails, everything will be transformed into fire. But we say that the nature of reason will one day prevail over all and transform every soul into its own perfection, when each person, using their free will, chooses what they want and becomes what they have chosen.

And we say that it is not likely, just as in the case of physical illnesses and wounds, that something stronger exists than all medical knowledge, so too is there something impossible to heal in souls from evil by the universal reason and God.

For among all the evils in the soul, reason is the strongest, and its healing is offered to each person according to God's will, and the end of all things is to remove evil. Whether or not it can ever be allowed to exist again is not for the present discussion to teach.

Many prophecies speak of the complete removal of evils and the correction of every soul in clear terms, but it suffices to present the words from Sophonias, which say: 'Prepare, arise; all their leaves are destroyed. Therefore, wait for me, says the Lord, on the day of my resurrection as a testimony; for my judgment is to gather the nations to receive kings, to pour out upon them all my wrath.

For in the fire of my zeal, all the earth will be consumed; for then I will change the language of the peoples to a pure language, so that all may call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one yoke. From the ends of the rivers of Ethiopia, they will offer sacrifices to me.

On that day, you will not be ashamed of all your practices, by which you have sinned against me; for then I will remove from you the shame of your pride, and you will no longer boast on my holy mountain. And I will leave in you a humble and lowly people, and the remnant of Israel will fear the name of the Lord, and they will not do wrong or speak deceitfully, nor will a deceitful tongue be found in their mouths; for they will graze and lie down, and no one will make them afraid.'

The one who is able to understand all this should consider the clarity of the prophecy and especially examine what it means for the whole earth to be transformed 'to a pure language for the peoples,' analogous to the events before the confusion.

And let them understand what it means 'to call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one yoke,' as to remove 'the shame of pride,' and that there will no longer be 'wrongdoing' or empty words or deceitful tongues.

I thought it reasonable to present these things without a precise account, given Celsus's claim that it is impossible for those living in Asia, Europe, and Libya, both Greeks and non-Greeks, to agree. And perhaps it is truly impossible for those still in bodies, but not impossible for those who have been freed from them."

Book 8, Section 73

Then next, Celsus urges us to help the king with all our strength and to support him in what is just, to fight for him and to join him in battle if he is in need, and to lead the army.

It should also be said that we help the rulers at the right time with divine aid, so to speak, taking up the "armor of God." And we do this, believing in the apostolic voice that says: "I urge you, first of all, to make requests, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings for all people, for kings and all those in authority."

And the more pious someone is, the more they will help the rulers compared to those who go out to battle and kill whoever they can among the enemies.

Then we might also say these things to those outside the faith who demand that we fight for the common good and kill people, that even those among you who are priests of certain statues and temple servants, whom you think are gods, keep their hands pure for the sacrifices, so that with clean hands and free from bloodshed, they may offer the customary sacrifices to the gods you name.

And surely, when war breaks out, you do not have the priests fighting. If this is reasonable, how much more should others who are fighting also fight as priests of God and servants, keeping their hands clean and striving through prayers to God for those who are justly fighting and for the just king, so that all oppositions and enemies of those who act justly may be brought down?

We, through our prayers, help to cast down all demons that stir up wars, mix oaths, and disturb peace, thus aiding the rulers more than those who seem to be fighting.

We sympathize with common matters, offering prayers with justice, along with practices and studies that teach us to despise pleasures and not be led by them. We fight even more for the king; and while we do not join him in battle, even if he is in need, we fight for him by establishing our own camp of piety through our prayers to the divine.

Book 8, Section 74

If Celsus wants us to lead the army for our homeland, let it be known that we do this not to be seen by people or to seek glory from them. For in secret, our leadership is through prayers, offered as from priests for those in our homeland.

Christians benefit their homelands more than other people do, educating citizens and teaching them to worship the true God, lifting up those who live well in the smallest cities to a divine and heavenly city.

To them, it could be said in a small city, "Be faithful," and they come to the great city, where "God stands in the assembly of gods, and in the midst, he judges the gods," and you are counted among them, if you do not die as a mere human or fall "as one of the rulers."

Book 8, Section 75

Celsus encourages us to also lead our homeland if it is necessary for the salvation of laws and piety. But we, knowing a different system of homeland built by the word of God in each city, urge those who are strong in word and healthy in life to lead the churches.

We do not accept the tyrants, but we are forced to accept those who, through much moderation, do not wish to take on the common care of the church of God hastily. And our good rulers are compelled by the great king, whom we believe to be the son of God, the Word of God.

And if the good rulers lead in the church of the God-given homeland (I mean the church), whether they are called or compelled, and they lead according to what God has commanded, they do not corrupt the established laws.

And Christians do not flee from the common duties of life; rather, they hold themselves to a more divine and necessary service of the church of God for the salvation of people, believing that it is both necessary and just, and caring for all.

For those within, so that they may live better every day, and for those who seem to be outside, so that they may become part of the sacred words and deeds of true piety, thus truly honoring God and educating many with all their strength according to the Word of God and the divine law.

In this way, they unite with the one God through the uniting Son of God, the Word, wisdom, truth, and justice, living all their lives according to God.

Book 8, Section 76

You have, then, in these matters, holy Ambrose, the end according to the power given to us by you. We have written everything we thought should be said in eight books, addressing the true words of Celsus.

And we are to judge which of these writings aligns more with the true God and the way of piety towards him, as well as the healthy teachings that encourage a good life of truth for people.

Know, however, that Celsus promises to create another work after this, in which he will teach how those who want to live according to him and are able to be persuaded should do so.

If he has not written the second work, it would be good for us to be satisfied with the eight books that have been written according to his words. But if he has begun and completed that one too, seek it out and send the writing.

So that we may also address that which the Father of truth may give us, and overturn the false beliefs found in it. If anything true is said there, we will testify to it without dispute, as it has been well stated.