Christology, Pauline or otherwise
I think it's about time I updated this. In theory, I'm going through my ill-considered essay of a few years ago, and reflecting critically upon it.-
The next section, after my criticism of intolerant tolerance was Christology. I'm too lazy to go through all the Pauline material looking for christological clues but I think I probably misrepresented it. The day before the essay was due, or maybe the day before that, we had a lecture with Jim about Pauline Christology where we found that Paul makes very few christological statement. This gave me an angle for the essay. Nevertheless, I think it's fair to say that there are many implicit statements in Paul that imply a high Christology, not that I could cite any right now.
-
Likewise, the explicit christological statements of John's gospel probably aren't historical but the Son of Man/Son of God sayings seem to have special significance. I'm happy to go along with the Bewick/O'Neill suggestion that Jesus uttered these as coded Christological statements, 'for those with ears to hear'. Until I find a more convincing explanation that is.
[Actually, Jesus never refers to himself as 'Son of God' in the synoptic gospels, only others refer to him this way, so it seems that the 'Son of Man' sayings may be coded statements]
-
I heard a discussion between N. T. Wright and James Dunn in which they both remarked that the speed with which the early Church came to see Jesus as divine is one of the most amazing facts of history. Not that this proves anything, both men are infinitely more learned than I, but so is John Hick, who would contradict them. S'pose I'll have to start researching and thinking for myself.
-
As for the philosophical difficulty of the two-natures formula, I'm ashamed to say, I don't get it. Not that I understand how Jesus could have two natures, I'm just not quite sure why it causes such problems. I think I simplistically imagine divine personality in human skin, which may not be two natures, strictly speaking. Maybe my conception of God is too anthropomorphic and that's why I don't see the problem.
-
Likewise, I find St. Patrick's explanation of the Trinity, as illustrated by the leaves of the shamrock quite nice. Maybe it's not a truly trinitarian explanation but it works for me. I might add that I'm attracted to the perichoretic (dancing around) dynamic model of the trinity - as I would have to having decided that God is not atemporal. But that doesn't have much to do with Christology.
posted by Rowland @ Tuesday, January 24, 2006
1 Comments:
Hmmm odd that, none of your links work for me. Maybe they will for someone else.
I guess there's more overlep between Christology and finance than I'd thought
Post a Comment
<< Home