Did the Church Fathers / early Christians care about historicity?

[GakuseiDon]

Wouldn't the argument be "We are convinced that the god we believe in didn't come to earth in the form of a man"?

Alternatively, from the pagan side, the argument might be "The person you Christians believe is a god never came to earth". There is no evidence of any explicit text, extant or no longer extant, with either of those viewpoints in early Christianity. I'd love to know otherwise!

The church fathers attributed to the Simonians the belief that Simon Magus had perfomed ("in seeming") the principal deeds attributed to Jesus. That would imply that Simonians believed that Jesus didn't exist, but was only the name of a role played by Simon.

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/201 ... dnt-exist/

That's interesting, and thanks for the links. The pertinent passage seems to be the one you give from Cyrus of Jerusalem writing in 350 CE, writing that Simon saw himself as the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost:
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310106.htm

This man [Simon Magus], after he had been cast out by the Apostles, came to Rome, and gaining over one Helena a harlot, was the first that dared with blasphemous mouth to say that it was himself who appeared on Mount Sinai as the Father, and afterwards appeared among the Jews, not in real flesh but in seeming, as Christ Jesus, and afterwards as the Holy Spirit whom Christ promised to send as the Paraclete.

It seems like Simonians believed that if someone went back through time they would see a Christ walking around doing and saying some of the things in the Gospels, except in their case it would have been Simon in disguise. I'm thinking of any texts where my "time machine" test would fail.

In contrast, how would any ancient person even provide a foundation for the claim that Jesus didn't exist? The authors of the scriptures are self-evidently liars and crooks? Great, then argue that and conclude that the entire Christian enterprise is a racketeer-influenced corrupt organization. If you land that argument, do you really need to add your dissent from claims that he existed at all?

There are precedents in the literature questioning the existence of gods. I gave one from Tatian in my first post on this thread. Tatian wrote:

"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..."

So it is plausible someone might have seen the Gospels as fictional stories based on allegory, as some modern mythicists argue. Though as we agree, texts with accusations like that against Christ and Christianity would have been unlikely to survive long once Christianity took over.

[GakuseiDon]

Nestorius says that: "[Some] of them in fact say that the Incarnation of our Lord Christ took place in fiction and schema and in order that he might appear unto men and teach and give the grace of the Gospel unto all men."

I found that quote here:
https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/nest ... _part2.htm

The fuller quote is:

Nestorius. 1. [Some] of them in fact say that the Incarnation of our Lord Christ took place in fiction and schema and in order that he might appear unto men and teach and give the grace of the Gospel unto all men. And, as he appeared unto each one of the saints, so in the last times he appeared unto all men.

It's clear that Nestorius is using "fiction and schema" to refer to the phantasmal body, with "fiction" meaning "not real" and "schema" meaning "shape. This is in contrast to the fleshly nature of the incarnation. It is NOT the idea of non-existence. That is, if someone took a time machine and went back to that time, they could see and interact with a Christ. It's just that that Christ was illusion.

Examples on the previous page:

So they accused the Manichaeans of saying that the body of our Lord Christ was not truly a nature but a fiction and an illusion...

... admit either that he suffered not naturally any one of these things or only in illusion and in fiction...

They confess then that the body of our Lord is of his own flesh and therein they mock both at those who say that the flesh was in fiction and illusion

Compare those samples with the example in the fuller quote above. Do you agree with me on this? If you disagree, what do you think is meant by "fiction and schema"?

[ABuddhist]

The early Christians cared deeply about the historicity of Jesus, so much that many died defending his historicity.

With all due respect, though, they were not asserting his historicity against people believing the contrary, which your phrasing asserts.

Furthermore, your answer is overly narrow, since GDon was talking about the first people to deny historicity, rather than the first biblical scholars.

I'm sorry, I just assumed you already knew about the early non-Christian religious beliefs against the historical/fleshly Jesus. e.g. Gnosticisim and Marcionism. My bad, never mind.

I was and am aware of the movements within Christianity which denied that Jesus came in the flesh; they are called docetistic, and I consider myself to be a non-docetistic Buddhist opposing docetistic strains within Mahayana Buddhism.

But you are the one conflating Christian docetism with mythicism. Christian docetists, as far as we know (especially Marcionites), did not deny that a historical Jesus had done things upon the Earth corresponding broadly to the gospels' narrative, but they asserted that he had not been a fleshy human but some type of spirit when doing these things.

[ABuddhist]

What would that argument even look like? "We are convinced that the god we believe in didn't exist?" Really? Does anyone seriously believe that this is even a possibility?

It could have been something along the lines of "We are convinced that the god we believe in only effected salvation for us in a place outside this Earth." Researching the salvific claims about Amitabha Buddha (whose entire career is located away from and at times before Earth) allows one to understand this as a possibility.

[Leucius Charinus]

Nestorius says that: "[Some] of them in fact say that the Incarnation of our Lord Christ took place in fiction and schema and in order that he might appear unto men and teach and give the grace of the Gospel unto all men."

I found that quote here:
https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/nest ... _part2.htm

The fuller quote is:

Nestorius. 1. [Some] of them in fact say that the Incarnation of our Lord Christ took place in fiction and schema and in order that he might appear unto men and teach and give the grace of the Gospel unto all men. And, as he appeared unto each one of the saints, so in the last times he appeared unto all men.

It's clear that Nestorius is using "fiction and schema" to refer to the phantasmal body, with "fiction" meaning "not real" and "schema" meaning "shape. This is in contrast to the fleshly nature of the incarnation. It is NOT the idea of non-existence. That is, if someone took a time machine and went back to that time, they could see and interact with a Christ. It's just that that Christ was illusion.

Like a hologram?

Examples on the previous page:

So they accused the Manichaeans of saying that the body of our Lord Christ was not truly a nature but a fiction and an illusion...

... admit either that he suffered not naturally any one of these things or only in illusion and in fiction...

They confess then that the body of our Lord is of his own flesh and therein they mock both at those who say that the flesh was in fiction and illusion

Compare those samples with the example in the fuller quote above. Do you agree with me on this? If you disagree, what do you think is meant by "fiction and schema"?

The idea that Jesus was an illusion like a hologram doesn't make much sense to me. How was the illusion maintained? Who was behind the laser gear? And so on.

The basic characteristic of a fictional story is that it is not historical truth. "Stories that never happened can be infinitely more powerful than stories that did," If Jesus existed he was known to very few. As the centuries came and went people would only know the Jesus character which was to be found in the story book. The Jesus figure lives inside a codex. As an encrypted name. It was and is a book religion. So I'd be inclined to suggest that at least some people believed the Jesus story was a fictional account, and that Jesus was a fictional character. Schema IMO means something like a plan. Together a fictional plan. A fabrication. Which is the word Julian uses.

[neilgodfrey]

There is mention of the twelve apostles but they are never appealed to as sources of information (except indirectly according to what Eusebius writes about Papias) but only as sources of the teaching of church practices that Jesus revealed to them, if memory serves.

I would correct so, influenced by Stromholm:

"....but only as sources of the teaching of church practices that the RISEN Jesus revealed to them"

Yes, Justin says the same. All the teachings the apostles pass on arguably appears in Justin's account to have been delivered by Jesus after his resurrection.

[Secret Alias]

Isn't that at least in part because 'he formerly spoke in parables'? Not sure you could openly 'solve' the mysteries that Jesus set forth.

[Charles Wilson]

Minority Report (Again):

The problem is less their view of Historical Accuracy as much as how they bent the History that came before to the New Orthodoxy.

The Destruction of the Temple occurs on the 10th Ab in Josephus and Jewish Rabbis* (Survivors and more) tell us that as Jehoiarib was on Duty for the Destruction of the First Temple, so was Jehoiarib on Duty for the Destruction of the Second in 70.

From this you may compute the Mishmarot Groups on Duty for any week in that period.
Bilgah and Immer are on Duty for the Temple Atrocity at the 4 BCE Passover and death of Herod at the ascension of Archelaus.

John 1: 15 (RSV):

[15] (John bore witness to him, and cried, "This was he of whom I said, `He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me.'")

Of the Mishmarot Priesthood, the Group Bilgah is immediately before Group Immer. Bilgah has committed an offense against the Priesthood. Therefore, Immer ranks above Bilgah but comes after Bilgah.

[NOTE: If this provides a Link between the "Jesus"of the NT with the Mishmarot Priesthood in a Story rewrite, there should be other "Match-Ups" of like nature.
I strongly believe that this is the case.]

History? Or selective use of Historical Features known and used for effect?

*Rabbinical Judaism created after the Destruction of the Temple by the Survivors at Yavneh.
CW

[GakuseiDon]

The idea that Jesus was an illusion like a hologram doesn't make much sense to me. How was the illusion maintained? Who was behind the laser gear? And so on.

For goodness sake. Are you being serious? I don't mind a bit of fun, but c'mon man!

The basic characteristic of a fictional story is that it is not historical truth.

If the author had been writing about Jesus in terms of being part of a "fictional story", you might have a point. But, as I pointed out a few times, he was writing about a fictional body and associating it with illusion.

Schema IMO means something like a plan.

"Schema" is a Greek word meaning "shape" or "figure". https://biblehub.com/greek/4976.htm

Phl 2:8 And being found in appearance [schema] as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

[MrMacSon]

'he formerly spoke in parables'

He is eventually portrayed as speaking in parables.

Many of those parables are the same as or versions of the parables in the Gospel of Thomas.