Christological Sidebar

[Diogenes]

This is to continue Hyptia's derail in Deeper Waters.

If you wish to deal with the mystery of the Incarnation per se, I would suggest starting a thread. I brought up the two natures as a means to resolve the impassibility of God and the passibility of humanity.

Is there any mystery?

When I say "mystery" here, I'm meaning it in a specific, theological, sense. I'm assuming you're familiar with such a sense. If not, well, .

All of it?

A fair amount, yes.

As I'm actually aware of Christian theology, I personally follow Oriental Orthodoxy in the rejection of the Chalcedonian Definition.

Really? How interesting.

You'd find I'm full of surprises should I be inclined to reveal them.

I would also suspect you of not engaging in good faith on any theological topic.

In what regard am I "not engaging in good faith on any theological topic"? I merely drew attention to the issues within Christianity of attempting to reconcile the ineffable and immanent deity of Judaism [1 Kings chapter 19 verse 11] with Hellenistic beliefs in anthropomorphic deities..

Based on your behaviour in the Civics forum and the Deeper Waters forum, it's a strong suspicion. Non-Christian interest is rarely solely academic.

[rogue06]

popcorn2.gif

I suspect that you said that you're more inclined toward "Oriental Orthodoxy in the rejection of the Chalcedonian Definition" that someone was forced to do some furious Googling.

[Diogenes]

popcorn2.gif

I suspect that you said that you're more inclined toward "Oriental Orthodoxy in the rejection of the Chalcedonian Definition" that someone was forced to do some furious Googling.

I'm sure our resident biblical scholar would similarly know to what I was referring if I said the biblical canon is comprised of at least 80 books. For some reason I'm thinking 88, but that's most likely a confusion with Neo-Nazi terms. I know it's at least 80 in that particular canon.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

When I say "mystery" here, I'm meaning it in a specific, theological, sense.

To which specific theological sense are you alluding? Christian, Jewish, or Graeco-Roman?

[Sparko]

To which specific theological sense are you alluding? Christian, Jewish, or Graeco-Roman?

If you are discussing Christology you will need to adopt a Christian theological viewpoint. I would think that would be obvious.

[tabibito]

If you are discussing Christology you will need to adopt a Christian theological viewpoint. I would think that would be obvious.

The information is extracted from the context. By now, you should know where that will go.

[NorrinRadd]

*sigh*

Should we re-rehash the "kenosis" stuff here?

[tabibito]

*sigh*

Should we re-rehash the "kenosis" stuff here?

Is the kenosis discussion in an area where H_A can "contribute?"

[NorrinRadd]

Is the kenosis discussion in an area where H_A can "contribute?"

From the Theology 201 Guidelines: "This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists."

[Diogenes]

*sigh*

Should we re-rehash the "kenosis" stuff here?

Not necessarily. This was more to divert from Deeper Waters since some don't play well in polite society.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

If you are discussing Christology you will need to adopt a Christian theological viewpoint. I would think that would be obvious.

Are you really suggesting that Christianity developed in a vacuum? Can we ignore the fact of its Judaic antecedents and that it arose from, and developed within, the Graeco-Roman world?

We also have to distinguish between the human being we know as Jesus of Nazareth [a Galilean Jewish charismatic] and the later construct of Christ Jesus [Jesus Christ] propounded by Paul in his various theological speculations.

Until that distinction is recognised endless confusion will result.

[tabibito]

Are you really suggesting that Christianity developed in a vacuum? Can we ignore the fact of its Judaic antecedents and that it arose from, and developed within, the Graeco-Roman world?

We also have to distinguish between the human being we know as Jesus of Nazareth [a Galilean Jewish charismatic] and the later construct of Christ Jesus [Jesus Christ] propounded by Paul in his various theological speculations.

Until that distinction is recognised endless confusion will result.

The distinction is found in no more than the opinions of a scant few commentators.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The distinction is found in no more than the opinions of a scant few commentators.

In one inane sentence you dismiss a vast corpus of academic study and scholarly opinion, that includes the views of many practising Christians.

That does rather display the limits of your background reading as well as your somewhat myopic viewpoint.

[tabibito]

In one inane sentence you dismiss a vast corpus of academic study and scholarly opinion, that includes the views of many practising Christians.

That does rather display the limits of your background reading as well as your somewhat myopic viewpoint.

My comment was a response to your "until this is recognised" - where your opinions are by no means established facts.
This vast corpus you speak of is drawn predominantly from just one sector of the totality of Christian scholarship. Even then, it is no more than a majority consensus, and on many issues, not a particularly strong majority.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

My comment was a response to your "until this is recognised" - where your opinions are by no means established facts.

Considering the historical figure we all now recognise as Jesus of Nazareth there are few "established facts". Paul makes little reference to a human being and the canonical gospels were written decades after the man died.

There is a passing reference in Tacitus in the late first/early second century CE; one [generally accepted as authentic] laconic aside by Josephus, as well as another highly disputed comment by Josephus on the man. And again Josephus was writing at the end of the first century CE.

This vast corpus you speak of is drawn predominantly from just one sector of the totality of Christian scholarship Even then, it is no more than a majority consensus, and on many issues, not a particularly strong majority.

Have you ever dispassionately investigated the corpus of liberal NT scholarship as I know from past exchanges that you are somewhat prone to making sweeping unsupported pronouncements. However, this is not the thread on which to engage in a lengthy exchange on that vast discipline.