If Mythicism Was a Central Concern of the Earliest Christians Why Don't the Church Fathers Mention It?

[Secret Alias]

Surely the purpose of the Church Fathers heresiological efforts was to embarrass their rivals. What could have been more embarrassing than an acknowledgement that their opponents claimed Jesus never existed or that the gospel narrative was a fiction? Given that we never hear this, how is that explained?

[Giuseppe]

The Church Fathers attacked the Valentinian belief about the Cosmic Cross placed in heaven.


I had reported the precise quotes where it is even said that the 'superior Christ' SUFFERED on that cosmic cross.

I think that you are able to find alone these passages I mean.

Therefore, if you are intellectually honest, then you have to abandon by yourself this line of argument.

ADDENDA:

The animal and carnal Christ, however, does suffer after the fashion of the superior Christ, who, for the purpose of producing Achamoth, had been stretched upon the cross, that is, Horos, in a substantial though not a cognizable form. In this manner do they reduce all things to mere images — Christians themselves being indeed nothing but imaginary beings!

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0314.htm

But, in truth, the passion of Christ was neither similar to the passion of the Æon, nor did it take place in similar circumstances [i.e. in OUTER SPACE].

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103220.htm

[Secret Alias]

But if - let's say - we were debating the question of whether the heresies were homosexuals and all we had is the reports of the Church Fathers saying they liked to listen to Judy Garland, as an analogy, it would be hard to prove the thesis. You can't make the case - FROM THAT EVIDENCE - that it was widely acknowledged that the heresies were homosexual. Maybe they just liked Somewhere Over the Rainbow.

You're assuming that because the heresies believed in things we deem incredible and 'obviously' ahistorical that the heresies embraced the idea that Jesus didn't exist and the gospel was a myth. I don't think this follows. I think you are projecting modern 'sensibility' and 'common sense' on to antiquity.

I think it is harder to believe that there were all these heresies openly embracing mythicism and that understanding didn't make the hostile reports about the heresies written by the Church Fathers. In short, IF there were groups who flatly said 'there never was a Jesus, the gospel never happened' THEN we can be certain Irenaeus would tell us that because it would be easy to claim these groups 'blasphemed Christ' UNLESS - and this is even far more unlikely - Irenaeus and other Church Fathers who were reporting on the heresies agreed that Jesus didn't exist and the gospel was a myth.

[Giuseppe]

I think it is harder to believe that there were all these heresies openly embracing mythicism

I have not to prove that ALL the heresies were going to embrace mythicism. It is sufficient, to make my case, that at least only a heresy (Valentinians, in this case) placed STILL an avatar of Christ in outer space.

Bob Price said it better:

Marcionites joined the game once they saw others playing it, but this would have been a retrenching move, like Lutherans who could not bring themselves to go the whole way with Martin Luther and relegate James and Jude to a quasi-canonical limbo.

('Is This Not the Carpenter?', p. 114, my bold)

In short, IF there were groups who flatly said 'there never was a Jesus, the gospel never happened' THEN we can be certain Irenaeus would tell us that

Remember that Ignatius insisted particularly on the Christ's passion sub Pontio Pilato. Too much interest at stake, when they deal with Pilate.

Irenaeus and other Church Fathers who were reporting on the heresies agreed that Jesus didn't exist and the gospel was a myth.

that is a concrete possibility. I remember a particular quote:
there is no better witness of the spirit of ages than the interpolator: what was missing, he introduced.

[Secret Alias]

But again:

1. the Church Fathers were only writing to harm the movements who did not embrace the doctrines the Church considered as 'orthodox'
2. the Church Fathers accuse the heretics directly of denying Jesus was Christ, Jesus was the messiah predicted by the prophets and a host of other things
3. but they never explicitly come out and say the heretics were mythicists

Given that the purpose of the Church Fathers were out to damage these communities, why stop short of condemning them of denying the existence of Jesus and the actuality of the gospel narrative? Seems hard to explain and I don't expect you to provide that explanation given your past history.

[Giuseppe]

I insist: if you are serious, then you have to deal with the quotes above from Irenaeus.

[Secret Alias]

But it's not enough. You'd expect that IF the heresies shared your beliefs THEN Irenaeus would exploit that fact as a point of condemnation.

[Ben C. Smith]

But if - let's say - we were debating the question of whether the heresies were homosexuals and all we had is the reports of the Church Fathers saying they liked to listen to Judy Garland, as an analogy, it would be hard to prove the thesis. You can't make the case - FROM THAT EVIDENCE - that it was widely acknowledged that the heresies were homosexual. Maybe they just liked Somewhere Over the Rainbow.

You're assuming that because the heresies believed in things we deem incredible and 'obviously' ahistorical that the heresies embraced the idea that Jesus didn't exist and the gospel was a myth. I don't think this follows. I think you are projecting modern 'sensibility' and 'common sense' on to antiquity.

I think it is harder to believe that there were all these heresies openly embracing mythicism and that understanding didn't make the hostile reports about the heresies written by the Church Fathers. In short, IF there were groups who flatly said 'there never was a Jesus, the gospel never happened' THEN we can be certain Irenaeus would tell us that because it would be easy to claim these groups 'blasphemed Christ' UNLESS - and this is even far more unlikely - Irenaeus and other Church Fathers who were reporting on the heresies agreed that Jesus didn't exist and the gospel was a myth.

First, good (?) to see you back to form with the unnecessarily sexual analogies. I look forward to more soccer related comparisons, as well.

Second, my thoughts from a while ago (I still stand by most of these points):

[Irish1975]

Surely the purpose of the Church Fathers heresiological efforts was to embarrass their rivals. What could have been more embarrassing than an acknowledgement that their opponents claimed Jesus never existed or that the gospel narrative was a fiction? Given that we never hear this, how is that explained?

Are any gnostic figures, or any Christians before Irenaeus, reported to have made historical claims, positive or negative, of any kind? Wasn’t everything a claim of divine revelation, of one sort or another?

[Giuseppe]

But it's not enough. You'd expect that IF the heresies shared your beliefs THEN Irenaeus would exploit that fact as a point of condemnation.

Exercise for you: try to count ALL the occurrences of the celestial Stauros called Horos in all the Church Fathers.