Sentences with phrase «christology as»

However, I did single out one of the points of christology as the theme of this book, and here I fear Ogden misunderstood me.

Not exact matches

If the existential decision originally called for by the kerygma corresponds to the existential decision called for by Jesus, then it is apparent that the kerygma continues Jesus» message; and if the decision called for by Jesus as well as by the kerygma was at the basis of his own selfhood, then it is apparent that his person corresponds to its christology.

Hans Conzelmann has united these various lines of development into a unified view of Jesus» eschatology and his person, in which christology replaces chronology as the basic meaning of Jesus» message: the kingdom which Jesus proclaims is future, but the «interim» is of no positive significance to him.

For my own part, I can not imagine how di - polar theology could be genuinely Christian so long as it places christology and eschatology at the periphery of faith and understanding, nor can I see how it could ever gain real relevance or power so long as it continues to be unable either to address us or to speak in terms of the imagination.

Hence, even though I speak of this as one group, the Christologies that its members offer are quite diverse.

In this way, Hays challenges the old critical view (which has also been challenged in recent years by Larry Hurtado, Richard Bauckham, and others) that high Christologies are late developments, entering Christian history as secondary, Hellenistic theological innovations.

For the moment, though, it seems as though Hays's main concern is to convince readers (and fellow scholars) that the authors of the Gospels had high Christologies and, therefore, that belief in Jesus's divinity is authentic to the first century.

The question that is put to Christians today where our christology is concerned is whether we can return our thought and the ethical consequences of our thought concerning Jesus the Christ to the ontological matrix in which it was originally enfolded — namely, the relational ontology of the tradition of Jerusalem; and thus overcome this obdurate temptation, neither biblical nor contemporary, of regarding the one at the center of our confession as the bearer of «substances» that are as incomprehensible as they are incompatible.

The ethical consequences of such a christology are manifold; for it at once denies us, as a paradigm of wholeness, a Christ - figure morally impeccable in his unique and lonely perfection, and it gives us a model of moral integrity achieved through an ongoing struggle towards depth and truth in all of his relationships.

This is partly because I accept the view that even our natural theology is inevitably a Christian natural theology, in the sense suggested by John Cobb, and partly because some of the doctrines that should be placed under the more strictly Christian aspect, such as the problem of evil, are not as strictly limited to Christian theology as are some others, such as christology.

Scholars such as John B. Cobb and David R. Griffin have developed the Christological implications of Whiteheadian process - relational thought in a number of widely read works in recent years.1 «Evangelical» Christians, holding the Christian scriptures to be the uniquely inspired and authoritative charter documents of their faith, and finding in these scriptures a Christ whose divine humanity defies explanation in terms of any general metaphysical scheme, have had for the most part little interest in or even contact with these process - relational Christologies.2 That revelation presents to us this Christ is sufficient warrant for believing him; his being is, at any rate, incommensurate with ours.

But since I could not engage in a disinterested discussion about race as if I were analyzing Karl Barth's christology, I kept my views about racism in theology to myself and only discussed them with the small group of African - American students who had similar views.

It is not in the Christologies for Jesus» sake that we find anti-Judaism, as the other side of the coin.

Indeed, just like there are very different opinions about eschatology, soteriology, christology and more, there is also a large range of difference between the various Christians about what counts as a miracle and exactly what miracles are — not sure if there is a greek word for that «- ology».

In part we differ in that among all the points of christology, I am disinclined to insist upon one as the point.

In conclusion, then, while there may have been some early Christologies that interpreted the Easter experience as «exaltation» instead of «resurrection», this would not be a surprising response to «appearances» of Jesus after the crucifixion, and so does not address the nature or the probability of these appearances nor the question of whether the exaltation interpretation somehow evolved separately from the appearance traditions.

The Christologies of the various forms of the kerygmata known to us from the New Testament and Christian history are not necessarily coherent with one another, still less necessarily consistent with the teaching of the historical Jesus, and historical research may well raise problems for a form of the kerygma, as, for example, research into the eschatology of Jesus raised problems for the older liberalism.