jules?

A simple question for MJers; why did the early church manifest such a human Jesus?

aims, reasons, politics and would a platonic Jesus been more intelectually acceptable.

So why a man, man?

Clivedurdle

The Church never has had a human Jesus! This is an enlightenment invention.

It is fully god fully man all the way down!

Read a creed!

aa5874

You are mistaken.

Jesus of the NT was a God who pre-existed, before the world was created, as the Word of God. See John 1.

Jesus was regarded as the offsrping of the Holy Ghost. See Matthew 1 and Luke 1.

Jesus was transfigured, resurrected and ascended to heaven. See the NT and early Church writers.

And, based on Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius, it was regarded as heresy to claim Jesus was just a man.

Cerinthus and Carpocrates, in the 2nd century, claimed Jesus was an ordinary man, both men were regarded as evil and messengers of the devil. See Against Heresies by Irenaeus.

The authors of the NT and the Church have WITNESSES to prove Jesus is a God. They have MARY and PETER.

jules?

I am in agreement in that respect but the very basis of a historical man, born of woman, crucified by Pilate that was pushed by orthodoxy and Irenaeus presented the four gospels as the only gospels that clearly present an historical person.

I lean towards a MJ but I do wonder why a HJ was pushed into the forefront in the 2nd century.

Huon

I think that the opposition between a MJ and a HJ did not make much sense in the 2nd century, or before the end of the 18th century.

The Christians were and are mono-theists. In the 2nd century, the majority of the population was poly-theist, and they could have easily understood that Jesus was a second god, subordinate to the old one.

aa5874

Mythical figures being born of humans and gods appear to have been a pagan idea. Achilles is a prime example, born of a sea-goddess and a human'

Jesus appears to be a pagan idea masked by submerging him in Judaism.

jules?

Hmm, sounds plausable but it does not quite fit with the desire [it seems they bang on about this issue all the time but perhaps I am reading that into the texts] of the early church to make a HJesus or Romes hostility to this form of Judaism lite, free of revolution and sedition.

Solitary Man

Where do you see the desire of the church to make an HJ?

Toto

A standard interpretation is that the proto-orthodox needed to establish a line of authority from the founding figure down to their own church hierarchy. The Gnostics taught that authority came from their internal Christ or from revelation; the proto-orthodox wanted authority to come from the church, so they had to invent the apostolic succession, and may also have invented the founding figure himself.

Ultimately, the proto-orthodox version of authority won out over the Gnostics in building a mass organization.

This makes as much sense as anything.

Solitary Man

Except there's no good evidence for it, and it doesn't explain nearly as well as the standard theory the problems of the Ebionites or where Paul fits in. Even Doherty's misreading of Paul still doesn't fit a Gnostic scheme of things.