jules?

With Easter coming up the BBC is doing a 'major series' the drama of the Passion, not quite Mel's epic and sadistic work but it will be a very human [and very European] Jesus.

What defined the orthodox gospels is the Passion and the very human suffering. No doves, no illusion, no 'hey it dosnt hurt cos I'm GOD' and no missing out on the PAIN.

The Jewish messiah started out as divine or semi divine and slowly became more human until he reached the ultimately human form of orthodoxy.

So why?

The Gnostic cosmic friend or spiritual guide was probably a bit too middle class and intellectual and orthodoxy was going for mass appeal but why human.

Thanks.

karlmarx

While he was still a cosmic friend, Jesus was up for interpretation. Witness the number of diverging "heresies" in the years leading up to Nicaea. At that time, christianity was all shades of grey.

Constantine chose the nastiest variety of christianity - the literalist variety - for a reason. A literal, historic, flesh-and-blood human would not be left open to interpretation: either Jesus died or he didn't, either he was resurrected, or he wasn't, either a particular bit of dogma was right, or it was wrong, etc, etc. It all became a black-or-white issue.

Constantine imposed this literalist version on everyone. This meant that Constantine, through his minion bishops, would have the power to decide pretty much everything related to christian dogma - and crush anything he disagreed with, which he promptly did.

Constantine was no dummy - he knew he couldn't control christianity if it was based on the idea of a cosmic friend. With an increasingly disintegrating empire, Constantine was desperate to use every means at his disposal to maintain unity. He could not afford religious pluralism.

Doug Shaver

Orthodoxy is a retrospective label. Nothing was orthodox (or everything was) until the doctrinal wars were over.

The human Jesus became orthodox because it had mass appeal. If the cosmic Christ had had mass appeal, then it would have become orthodox.

karlmarx

It's easy for the human Jesus to have mass appeal when he is enforced by the Catholic Church's dogma police and henchmen.

jules?

So what are you saying; human equals mass appeal and then the other question is who enforced the dogma?

With Mark probably being the first Gospel it seems likely that a human had been adopted quite early. Other Gnostic gospels appear to be later and Thomas could be taken either way. I just find 'human' a little out of keeping with my limited knowledge of Roman/Greek cults. Mithra, Apollo, Hermes etc all had human traits and were accesable but not completely humanised.

Still curious for why the cult plumped for human; man.

Huon

As Doug Shaver and karlmarx say with different words, the present orthodoxy is the result of struggles for power between many human groups. In fact, it is not very important in the ordinary day-to-day life to know whether JC was "homo-ousios" to God (same substance), or "homoi-ousios" (resembling substance), or the (physical) Son of God, or the (adopted) son of God, or something else. But it was of first importance to some patriarchs or bishops, or religious leaders, and they needed the support of the emperor.

karlmarx

Those with a vested interest in controlling what people thought: Constantine and his successors. The many guises of this enforcement include the destruction of Pagan temples, the suppression of "heresies", and later the Albigensian Crusade and the Inquisition.

Imagine exercising your right to dissent in that sort of environment.

The dogma police used threats of burning at the stake to convince people of the truth of their point of view. It's questionable how appealing a human Jesus would have been without their persuasive arguments.

And what makes you think that Mark (or whoever wrote Mark) intended this Gospel to be read literally? Or that his contemporaries read it as anything other than a moral fable? Doesn't it sound a little fantastic to you, like mythical literature? What makes Mark history, and, say, "The Golden Ass" or the tales in "Metamorphoses" mythical?

And rightly so. Most reasonable people would think so too. And what would be the logical conclusion of this train of thought?

Huon

This 'major series' will reflect the feelings of a XXIst century British Christian, and possibly the feelings of some post-Nicaea Christians. I doubt very much that this Jesus will be shown without anachronisms.