Did the Church Fathers / early Christians care about historicity?

[Jagd]

It's quite clear that Paul saw Christ as a divine being of some kind, and even if he thought there was a historical person associated with that divine being, it was extremely unimportant when compared to the divine aspect. Am I mistaken in seeing this as true for the Church Fathers as well? The non-Christian sources often say that the Christians worship a man as a god, and the "man" part could just come from the Gospel character of Christ, not necessarily a historical person.

It appears that Christ was seen as a path to salvation or divinity (either through ritual or as example through the gospel narratives), and the historical personage was as unimportant as the historicity of Osiris for the Isiac initiates, or as inessential as the historicity of the Buddha for most ancient Buddhist practitioners (especially the Mahayana).

The Alexandrian early Christians seem to care much more about the incarnation of Christ as a divine being much more than him as a historical man. One of my friends just shared a quote from Clement, saying the Christ was neither male nor female lol.

[ABuddhist]

It appears that Christ was seen as a path to salvation or divinity (either through ritual or as example through the gospel narratives), and the historical personage was as unimportant as the historicity of Osiris for the Isiac initiates, or as inessential as the historicity of the Buddha for most ancient Buddhist practitioners (especially the Mahayana).

Although I have little learning (but many questions!) about many issues discussed upon this forum, I would like to point out to you some issues, especially about what I quote.

Firstly, I must say that conflating "Early Christians" and "Church Fathers" is a rather strange choice, given that the "Church Fathers" were literate, learned (for certain definitions of the term), and passionate enough about defining "True Christianity" that they wrote lengthy treatises and monographs. How much their views about Christianity actually matched those of average "Early Christians" is open to question, but I think that it was very little. This means, in turn, that their views about what was historical (and what mattered about what was historical) might not have reflected average early Christian beliefs.

Secondly, with regards to Isis and Osiris, Plutarch's writings about that myth reveal that there were, even among the learned, a variety of interpretations of what (if anything!) in the myth was historical. His words also strongly suggest that average worshippers of Isis held more literalistic/historicist understandings of her and her husband. The same, of course, may have been true for Christianity, as may explain the irregularities that Earl Doherty argued about during his discussion of second century Christian apologists' words.

Thirdly, the historicity of Gautama Buddha has traditionally been assumed by all practising Buddhists. Only in recent decades have a few radical Buddhists asserted that their faith in Buddhism co-exists with his being a mythical figure. Certain other Buddhas within Mahayana Buddhism, most notably Amitabha Buddha, have had their historicity challenged, but this was and is in the context of sectarian disputes. Modern devotees of Amitabha Buddha overwhelmingly insist, against Buddhist and non-Buddhist alike, that he is as real as we are, that Sukhavati is as real as Earth, and that his achievements are as real (but more significant) as our achievements.

[John T]

The gospel of Jesus, preached the immediate End of Days. The time-table he used was deeply rooted in the history/prophecy of the Jews. This time-table was precisely calculated by the Essene's. When the prediction of the End of Days did not happen as stated by Jesus, the Christian's had to reinterpret the meaning. The gospel of Jesus went from a time certain to: "But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."..Matthew 24:36

In light of that, Paul had to think of Jesus in a new way.

[mlinssen]

The gospel of Jesus, preached the immediate End of Days. The time-table he used was deeply rooted in the history/prophecy of the Jews. This time-table was precisely calculated by the Essene's. When the prediction of the End of Days did not happen as stated by Jesus, the Christian's had to reinterpret the meaning. The gospel of Jesus went from a time certain to: "But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."..Matthew 24:36

In light of that, Paul had to think of Jesus in a new way.

Jesus never wrote a gospel, John T

[GakuseiDon]

It's quite clear that Paul saw Christ as a divine being of some kind, and even if he thought there was a historical person associated with that divine being, it was extremely unimportant when compared to the divine aspect. Am I mistaken in seeing this as true for the Church Fathers as well?

I wouldn't use the word 'historical', but rather 'earthly'. Paul arguably regarded Christ as an earthly man at some point, who ascended to heaven after death. But Paul was less concerned with the philosophical roots of Christianity than the later Church Fathers.

When it comes to the Second and Third Century Church Fathers, the emphasis was on the philosophical roots of Christianity, and not just on the divinity of Christ.

For example, Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho, uses the Old Testament's prophets as the convincing reason why he accepted Chrisitanity:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... rypho.html

"'There existed, long before this time, certain men more ancient than all those who are esteemed philosophers... Their writings are still extant, and he who has read them is very much helped in his knowledge of the beginning and end of things, and of those matters which the philosopher ought to know, provided he has believed them...

"When he had spoken these and many other things, which there is no time for mentioning at present, he went away, bidding me attend to them; and I have not seen him since. But straightway a flame was kindled in my soul; and a love of the prophets, and of those men who are friends of Christ, possessed me; and whilst revolving his words in my mind, I found this philosophy alone to be safe and profitable. Thus, and for this reason, I am a philosopher."

For Tatian, in his "Address to the Greeks":
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... dress.html

We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales, when we announce that God was born in the form of a man. I call on you who reproach us to compare your mythical accounts with our narrations. Athene, as they say, took the form of Deiphobus for the sake of Hector, and the unshorn Phoebus for the sake of Admetus fed the trailing-footed oxen, and the spouse us came as an old woman to Semele. But, while you treat seriously such things, how can you deride us? Your Asclepios died, and he who ravished fifty virgins in one night at Thespiae lost his life by delivering himself to the devouring flame.

Prometheus, fastened to Caucasus, suffered punishment for his good deeds to men. According to you, Zeus is envious, and hides the dream from men, wishing their destruction. Wherefore, looking at your own memorials, vouchsafe us your approval, though it were only as dealing in legends similar to your own. We, however, do not deal in folly, but your legends are only idle tales.

If you speak of the origin of the gods, you also declare them to be mortal.

For what reason is Hera now never pregnant? Has she grown old? or is there no one to give you information? Believe me now, O Greeks, and do not resolve your myths and gods into allegory...

But now it seems proper for me to demonstrate that our philosophy is older than the systems of the Greeks...

Not only do the rich among us pursue our philosophy, but the poor enjoy instruction gratuitously; for the things which come from God surpass the requital of worldly gifts. Thus we admit all who desire to hear, even old women and striplings; and, in short, persons of every age are treated by us with respect, but every kind of licentiousness is kept at a distance. And in speaking we do not utter falsehood.

[John T]

Jesus never wrote a gospel, John T

I never implied Jesus wrote a book, i.e. gospel. Instead, he verbally preached the gospel, that is, the good news that the End of Days were imminent. Jesus was working with the time-table produced by the Essenes based on historical past events as interpreted/written by the Teacher of Righteousness.

[ABuddhist]

Jesus never wrote a gospel, John T

I never implied Jesus wrote a book, i.e. gospel. Instead, he verbally preached the gospel, that is, the good news that the End of Days were imminent. Jesus was working with the time-table produced by the Essenes based on historical past events as interpreted/written by the Teacher of Righteousness.

Maybe you should set out your theory in a new thread; here, your ideas seem off-topic.

[John T]

Jesus never wrote a gospel, John T

I never implied Jesus wrote a book, i.e. gospel. Instead, he verbally preached the gospel, that is, the good news that the End of Days were imminent. Jesus was working with the time-table produced by the Essenes based on historical past events as interpreted/written by the Teacher of Righteousness.

Maybe you should set out your theory in a new thread; here, your ideas seem off-topic.

I'm sorry, I thought the topic was about the early Christian view of the historicity of Jesus?
If not, what is it then?

[mlinssen]

The gospel of Jesus, preached the immediate End of Days. The time-table he used was deeply rooted in the history/prophecy of the Jews. This time-table was precisely calculated by the Essene's. When the prediction of the End of Days did not happen as stated by Jesus, the Christian's had to reinterpret the meaning. The gospel of Jesus went from a time certain to: "But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."..Matthew 24:36

In light of that, Paul had to think of Jesus in a new way.

Hi John. None of any of this has anything to do with the topic Did the Church Fathers / early Christians care about historicity? in the Opening Post:

It's quite clear that Paul saw Christ as a divine being of some kind, and even if he thought there was a historical person associated with that divine being, it was extremely unimportant when compared to the divine aspect. Am I mistaken in seeing this as true for the Church Fathers as well? The non-Christian sources often say that the Christians worship a man as a god, and the "man" part could just come from the Gospel character of Christ, not necessarily a historical person.

Your post contains the word Paul, and that's about it.
How is that

about the early Christian view of the historicity of Jesus?

- all of us believe that the authors of the various texts looked to believe that their readers world believe what they wrote - that is pretty obvious

[andrewcriddle]

The Alexandrian early Christians seem to care much more about the incarnation of Christ as a divine being much more than him as a historical man. One of my friends just shared a quote from Clement, saying the Christ was neither male nor female lol.

Good you give a source for this claim about Clement please ?
It seems more like a paraphrase than something Clement actually says.

Andrew Criddle