Talk:Christology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Did Jesus claim divinity[edit]

Is there any histroical reason to believe that Christ himself made any claim to divinity outside of the New Testament which is clearly theologial. What would have the historical Jesus think about himself? Mooters 1563 (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

No way to know that apart from The New Testament. But Dunn argues that the belief in the divinity of Jesus may have started with Jesus' own perception of his mission. See Dunn, Jesus Remembered. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

If you take the Gospel of Mark by itself (considering Mark 16:8 to be the last verse of the gospel, as the rest was added on at least several decades later by a different person) --which Matthew and Luke were both based on, and is therefore the most likely gospel to be the *most* accurate depiction of what Jesus actually said, and with the least amount of made up embellishments -- Jesus does NOT claim divinity, at any point, and the ending with the empty tomb and cryptic message is a cliche Greek/Roman hero legend ending Firejuggler86 (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

In Mark, he claims to be "the Son of Man" over a dozen times. This is seen as a reference of the book of Daniel, in which Daniel makes a prophecy about God. (Is this how you reply, I'm new to Wikipedia.)

Ehrman[edit]

Mass-revert[edit]

@Tahc: Ehrman is WP:RS; you reverted to a previous version, with the mistaken edit-summary Do not rewrite the whole article from just Ehrman's POV., removing info sourced with WP:RS, restoring an WP:UNDUE lead which does not adequately summarize the article. This is unconstructive. If you object to Ehrman, try to improve, add additional info, but do not revert all of it because you dislike one part. What you call "rewrit[ing] the whole article from just Ehrman's POV" is essentially:

  • a shortening of the lead, moving part of it into the body of the article, and shortening the definition. The WP:LEAD summarizes the article. The subsection from the lead on Christophany, Proponents of Christ's deity [...] preincarnate Logos had no corresponding section in the body of the article, and thus did not summarize the article, but formed an WP:UNDUE argument. Idem for Thomas Aquinas and Karl Rahner;
  • changing the "Terms and concepts" section into a "Definition" section, adding additional sources, moving part of the info into notes, and moving unsourced info ("Other relevant topics [...] the rising from the dead of all men" to the "See also" section, where such a list of links belongs;
  • adding essential info on "low Christianity" and high Christology," using multiple sources, and integrating within it info which was previously within the section on "Apostolic Age." As you may be aware, "low Christology" and "high Christology" is not a topic solely treated by Ehrman, but by a whole range of scholars, e.g. Hurtado and Loke, among others. To understand the 2nd-5th century discussions, one has to know about this main topic. Solely presenting the "high Christianity" won't work in this regard, and breaches WP:NPOV. Removing this info is especially disruptive;
  • added subheaders for "Paul" and "Gospels," re-ordering the info accordingly;
  • moving the info on interactions with the Greek world downwards; putting it at the start of the section is confusing and undue. The main topic is the various views on Christ which developed within early Christianity; this should come first;
  • adding subheaders for the "Ecumenical councils" section.

To repeat: what you call a "rewrite" is essentially a shortening of the lead, removing undue info; and adding essential info on "low Christology" and "high Christology," using WP:RS. That's not "rewrit[ing] the whole article," not is it "just Ehrman's POV." And mind you, again: Ehrman is WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Your efforts favor very recent ideas on Christology (Ehrman) in the lead, over long-term developments on Christology. Not everyone finds "low Christianity" v. "high Christology" to be essential information... or event useful information. tahc chat 20:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
If that's the case, then edit and improve it, with additonal sources. The lead is simply too long now; and Christophany, Thomas Acquinas, and Karl Rahner shouldn't be there. And the "Further reading" list is enough way too long. @Editor2020, Smeat75, Tgeorgescu, and PiCo: could you please give your opinions here? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Yup, I don't think that the terms were coined by Ehrman. See Raymond Edward Brown (1994). An Introduction to New Testament Christology. Paulist Press. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-8091-3516-5. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Regarding Not everyone finds "low Christianity" v. "high Christology" to be essential information... or event useful information.: without any sources to substantiate this statement, it has no use in improving this article. It's been in the article for a long time, as "Christology from above" and "Christology from below." What's more, these terms are even quoted in the Birds & Evans-reference in the lead:

It is possible to explore Jesus as a historical figure (i.e., Christology from below), or to examine theological claims made about Jesus (i.e., Christology from above).

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Without really looking deeply into the specific issue here of Christology, I would say generally that Bart D. Ehrman, author of eighteen books for the Oxford University Press, college textbooks, books for other university presses and numerous scholarly articles, is as gold-plated a WP:RS as it is possible to be. That what he has written is "very recent" is not a reason not to use him, in fact just the opposite, one of the best things about WP is that it is easily updated with the latest scholarly views, we don't need to use sources that may not reflect current scholarship.Smeat75 (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

Tahc's concern seems to be with Ehrman, and the following sentence from the lead (emphasis mine):

The earliest Christology was a "low Christology" or "adoptionist Christology," the belief "that God exalted Jesus to be his Son by raising him from the dead."[1] This "low Christology" was superseded by a "high Christology," the belief that "Christ was a preexistent divine being before he came into the world."[2]

This could be changed easily. Proposal:

Christology (from Greek Χριστός Khristós and -λογία, -logia), literally "the understanding of Christ,"[3] is the study of the nature and work work (his role as savior, Lord and future judge and king)[note 1] of the person of Jesus Christ:[4][5][6][7][web 1][note 2] his humanity and divinity, and the relation between these two aspects;[8] and the various roles and titles assigned to Jesus Christ.

The earliest Christian writings gave several titles to Jesus, such as Son of Man, Son of God, Messiah, and Kyrios, which were all derived from the Hebrew scriptures.[web 2] These terms centered around two themes, namely "Jesus as a preexistent figure who becomes human and then returns to God," and "Jesus as a creature elected and 'adopted' by God."[web 2] The chronology of the development of these earliest Christologies is a matter of debate within contemporary scholarship.[9][10][11][web 3] The evolutionary model, developed early 20th century and for a long time the dominant model, considers the "low Christology" or "adoptionist Christology" to be the earliest Christology, from which the "high Christology" of Christ's preexistence developed.[12][13] Yet, already before the writings of Paul there existed a "high Christology."[13] Since the 1970s, the "early high Christology club" has argued that this "high Christology" was actually the earliest Christology, bursting into existence almost at the start of Christianity.[13][note 3]

From the second to the eighth century, Christology was a major focus of debates in the early church, with prolonged discussions about the humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ. Every one of the first seven ecumenical councils addressed Christological issues. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 issued a formulation of the being of Christ – that of two natures, one human and one divine, "united with neither confusion nor division".[14] Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and many Protestant Churches continue to advocate this doctrine of the hypostatic union.[14]


References

  1. ^ Ehrman 2014, p. 120; 122.
  2. ^ Ehrman 2014, p. 122.
  3. ^ Ehrman 2014, p. 108.
  4. ^ Ehrman 2014, p. 171.
  5. ^ O'Collins 2009, p. 1-3.
  6. ^ Ramm 1993, p. 15.
  7. ^ Bird, Evans & Gathercole 2014, p. 134, n.5.
  8. ^ Ehrman 2014, p. ch.6-9.
  9. ^ Loke 2017.
  10. ^ Ehrman 2014.
  11. ^ Talbert 2011, p. 3-6.
  12. ^ Ehrman 2014, p. 120-122.
  13. ^ a b c Loke 2017, p. 5.
  14. ^ a b Davis 1990, p. 342.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

"recent ideas on Christology"[edit]

Regharding Your efforts favor very recent ideas on Christology (Ehrman) in the lead, over long-term developments on Christology, the idea that the earliest Christology was a "low Christology" is not a recent idea, but dates back to the early century and the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule, especially Wilhelm Boussets Kyrios Christos (1913); see Andrew Ter Ern Loke (2017), The Origin of Divine Christology, p.3-4). According to Loke, authors like Casey and Dunn have argued that "the highest form of Christology began after Paul") (Loke p.4) It is the "early high Christology" which is a recent idea, proposed by the "New Religionsgeschichtliche Schule, starting in the 1970s (Loke p.5).

Ironically, that info from Loke was already in the article, conveniently ignoring the preceding info. I'll quote it in full from this version:

Nevertheless, the view that it was apostle Paul who introduced the idea that Jesus was divine and thus distorted the actual Jesus has been rejected by some historians. Richard Bauckham argues that Paul was not so influential that he could have invented the central doctrine of Christianity. Before his active missionary work, there were already groups of Christians across the region. For example, a large group already existed in Rome even before Paul visited the place. The earliest centre of Christianity was the twelve apostles in Jerusalem. Paul himself consulted and sought guidance from the Christian leaders in Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1-2; Acts 9:26-28, 15:2). "What was common to the whole Christian movement derived from Jerusalem, not from Paul, and Paul himself derived the central message he preached from the Jerusalem apostles.[1] These scholars argue that if Jesus himself did not claim and show himself to be truly divine (i.e. on the Creator side of the Creator–creature divide), the earliest Christian leaders who were devout ancient monotheistic Jews would not have come to a widespread agreement that he was truly divine, but would have regarded Jesus as merely a teacher or a prophet instead.[2]


References

  1. ^ R. Bauckham, Jesus: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 110-111.
  2. ^ Loke, Andrew Ter Ern (2017). The Origin of Divine Christology. 169. Cambridge University Press. p. 5. ISBN 978-1-108-19142-5. [Per Christology] 'Explosion Theories' (one might also call this 'the Big-Bang theory of Christology'!). This proposes that highest Christology was the view of the primitive Palestinian Christian community. [...] As Bauckham (2008a, x) memorably puts it, 'The earliest Christology was already the highest Christology.' Many proponents of this group of theories have been labelled together as 'the New Religionsgeschichtliche Schule' (Hurtado 2003, 11), and they include such eminent scholars as Richard Bauckham, Larry Hurtado, N. T. Wright and the late Martin Hengel.

This part was problematic for two reasons:

  • It stated Nevertheless, the view that it was apostle Paul who introduced the idea that Jesus was divine and thus distorted the actual Jesus has been rejected by some historians. Whose view is that? No names, no sources. You cannot challenge a theory without describing the theory; that's simply pov-pushing. Here the info on "evolutionary Christology" is missing, while it is described by Loke (2017). That's WP:CHERRYPICKING.
  • The second part, "These scholars argue [...] a prophet instead." is not in Loke (2017) p.5.

I handled these problems in the first edit that I made to this article.

Altogether: the idea that Christology developed from a "low Christology" towards a "high Christology" is not a recent idea; and the article presented a one-sided view on this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

Some sources, as a reminder (to be expanded):

  • Andrew Ter Ern Loke (2017), The Origin of Divine Christology, p.3-6
  • Harold Netland (2001), Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith & Mission, p.175-176
  • Charles H. Talbert (2017), The Development of Christology During the First Hundred Years: And Other Essays on Early Christian Christology, BRILL, p.3-6
  • Michael F. Bird (2017), Jesus the Eternal Son: Answering Adoptionist Christology, Wim B. Eerdmans publishing
  • Kirk (2016), A man attested by God, Eerdman publishing
  • Gerald O'Collins, Daniel Kendall (1996), Focus on Jesus: Essays in Christology and Soteriology, Gracewing Publishing. Ch. 3: The incarnation under fire.
  • Michael Kok (2015), Critical Questions for the Early High Christology Club
  • Larry Hurtado (2005), Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Modern developments[edit]

See The debate over Christology in modern Christian thought. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Christology[edit]

Template:Christology has been nominated for merging with Template:Jesus. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bsherr: the entry seems to be missing? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. Sorry, crossed the dateline but didn't notice. --Bsherr (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Crucificion ?[edit]

'that Jesus was human who was "adopted" by God at his baptism, crucificion, or resurrection.'

What is this word? 'Crucificion'

And please, please, please stop using the word 'problematic' to mean 'troublesome', or 'difficult' or 'causing problems'. It is a horrible American misusage for which God will punish them. And you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:E578:A461:8C8C:2F8C (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group=web> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=web}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christology&oldid=973570391"