New Post: Our Book of Mormon overviews continue with a look at anachronisms, focusing on the King James Bible and the irreconcilable problems that arise from it along with steel, Christology, and what you'd expect to be in the BoM if it was an ancient text. ldsdiscussions.com/anachr…
πŸ‘︎ 66
πŸ“°︎ r/mormon
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/ldsdiscussion
πŸ“…︎ Feb 04
🚨︎ report
Many early christian thinkers had a subordinate Christology. How/why did this change?

It seems like before the 4th century, nearly all of the church fathers and thinkers that I run into including but not limited to Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Justin martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, etc. (Even a couple of early popes) all viewed the son as beneath the father rather than co-equal with the father. It seems to me that nearly every relevant thinker agreed upon this until suddenly in the 4th century this view becomes a heresy seemingly out of nowhere.

This narrative I'm seeing seems so unlikely that I'm wondering if there is some early school of thought that I'm just not running into in my reading or something. How did the doctrine of the members of the trinity being co-equal parts of the same person become the Orthodox view?

πŸ‘︎ 52
πŸ“°︎ r/AcademicBiblical
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/ZenmasterRob
πŸ“…︎ Jan 13
🚨︎ report
Christology

Just trying to clarify for myself.

Christ, the father, and the Holy Spirit are one unified as the God head. Christ is the son of God.
Christ existed prior to the human Jesus, due to being part of God. Jesus is the human incarnation of the Christ. Paul states that Jesus revealed that Christ was in him. Followers of Jesus acknowledge / confirm that Christ is in them. (We are the body of Christ)

Adam and Eve were united w/ God in the Garden. God said that they were good and called them his children. In do so he affirmed that they were Good, and whole,

......and that Christ was in them (Jesus’s quote saying that the kingdom of heaven is within you)

Upon eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of Good and evil they were disconnected from God, and cast out of the garden.

......and so became unaware that the living Christ was in them, waiting be rebirthed. (All of creation groans in anticipation).

Jesus as the human incarnation of the Christ came to make us aware that Christ dwells in us ( that you are gods, and that the the kingdom of heaven is with you). In our acknowledging Jesus as the first Son, and the Christ, we also accept / acknowledge our own β€œsonship” of Christ in us (we are his children)

Jesus additionally atones (reunites) humanity with God, due to Adam and Eve’s actions, by his willing scarifice of his human constructed self, ie will and ego, (in Gesthamae- β€œno my will, by thy will be done”) and his physical bodyself on the Cross at Golgotha.

Paul states clearly it is no long β€œI” ( our willful self constructed ego), but the Christ in me, but that it is a gradual process, (as I die Christ lives)

So conceptually Christ has resided in all of humanity all along, but due to the β€œfall” they became β€œdull” to the awareness that Christ residing within all of us, waiting to be birthed, and in acknowledging the Christ within us, we are reunited with God as onej in a non-separated state of conciousness. Our Sins, or rather, our loves ( family, national identity, sexual identiiies, political, racial, etc.) that we place above our first Love which is God (aka Christ) keeps us separated from letting Christ live through us.

πŸ‘︎ 3
πŸ“°︎ r/Anglicanism
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/Ouch1963
πŸ“…︎ Feb 14
🚨︎ report
(PDF) Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity | Paula Fredriksen and Matthew Novenson academia.edu/45323560/Mon…
πŸ‘︎ 6
πŸ“°︎ r/HistoricalJesus
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/OtherWisdom
πŸ“…︎ Mar 03
🚨︎ report
New Post: Our Book of Mormon overviews continue with a look at anachronisms, focusing on the King James Bible and the irreconcilable problems that arise from it along with steel, Christology, and what you'd expect to be in the BoM if it was an ancient text. ldsdiscussions.com/anachr…
πŸ‘︎ 17
πŸ“°︎ r/exmormon
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/ldsdiscussion
πŸ“…︎ Feb 04
🚨︎ report
Mark 14 suggesting a high Christology

In the below passage the High Priest shouts blasphemy after Jesus claims to be the Messiah and foresees the apocalyptic signs of the Son of Man. Now, the question is, why is the priest claiming blasphemy. I don't think it was particularly blasphemous to lay claim to being the Messiah but I could be wrong. Is it possible that Jesus/the Gospel writer is also implying that Jesus is claiming some level with divinity with his mentioning of the Son of Man?

This also brings up the question of whether or not Jesus really thought himself as the Son of Man or believed it was another being who he was preparing the way for. Ehrman and others seems to believe the latter, suggesting that the Gospel writers wrote Jesus as self designating as the Son of Man when in reality Jesus believed the Son of Man was a separate being.

"Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, β€œAre you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 61Β But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.(AY)

Again the high priest asked him, β€œAre you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”(AZ)

62Β β€œI am,” said Jesus.Β β€œAnd you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”(BA)

63Β The high priest tore his clothes.(BB)Β β€œWhy do we need any more witnesses?” he asked.Β 64Β β€œYou have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”"

πŸ‘︎ 7
πŸ“°︎ r/AcademicBiblical
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/blazbok
πŸ“…︎ Dec 31 2020
🚨︎ report
best estimates for order the gospels were written? specifically john? and christology in synoptic gospels?

Any resources would help

πŸ‘︎ 5
πŸ“°︎ r/AcademicBiblical
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ“…︎ Jan 01
🚨︎ report
Luke-Acts Shifting Christologies?

In some ways, Luke-Acts seems to espouse an adoptionist or exaltation christology. See Acts 13:32-33 and Acts 2:36. As Bart Ehrman points out in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, some of our earliest manuscripts of Luke contain several seemingly adoptionist verses. This leads to problems of internal coherence. After all, we learn in chapters 1 and 2 of Luke that Jesus was "a Savior, who is the Messiah, the Lord" from his birth (Luke 2:11) and that he grew up "filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon him" (Luke 2:40) even before his baptism or resurrection: where his adoption supposedly took place.

What do you make of this? Has the text been changed by scribes in an adoptionist or anti-adoptionist way? Both? Is there really no incoherence? Was the author just sloppy? I look forward to your comments.

πŸ‘︎ 3
πŸ“°︎ r/AcademicBiblical
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ“…︎ Oct 15 2020
🚨︎ report
What are some sources on Wisdom Christology in the Gospel of John?
πŸ‘︎ 8
πŸ“°︎ r/AcademicBiblical
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/katapetasma
πŸ“…︎ Dec 01 2020
🚨︎ report
Tripp Fuller's Open and Relational Christology by Thomas Oord thomasjayoord.com/index.p…
πŸ‘︎ 4
πŸ“°︎ r/cruciformity
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/mcarans
πŸ“…︎ Oct 29 2020
🚨︎ report
churchistrue podcast Book of Mormon content -- high Christology, KJV intertextuality churchistrue.com/blog/pod…
πŸ‘︎ 13
πŸ“°︎ r/mormon
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/churchistrue
πŸ“…︎ Jun 16 2020
🚨︎ report
Bird's " Jesus the eternal son: Answering Adoptionist Christology" (book review) digitalcommons.georgefox.…
πŸ‘︎ 7
πŸ“°︎ r/AcademicBiblical
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/jamesmith452116
πŸ“…︎ Sep 05 2020
🚨︎ report
Does Mark 5:19-20 hint at a high christology?

> And he did not permit him, but says to him, "Go to your house, to your own family, and report to them the things the Lord has done for you, and that he showed you mercy." And he departed and began to proclaim in Decapolis the things Jesus did for him, and everyone was amazed.

I apologize if this is a well known insight into the christology of Mark, but my Google search came up short. This seems to be an obvious substitution of Jesus for the Lord. Is there any commentary on these verses?

πŸ‘︎ 8
πŸ“°︎ r/AcademicBiblical
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/Gilgameshtanktop
πŸ“…︎ Aug 11 2020
🚨︎ report
What are some good books on historical Jesus and or Christology?
πŸ‘︎ 7
πŸ“°︎ r/AcademicBiblical
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/jocyUk
πŸ“…︎ Sep 12 2020
🚨︎ report
Some honest questions about Christology and both sacraments, and probably forgiveness of sin, Pt. 1

Howdy all! While I know we may all be suffering in many ways, I have found myself reading more during the quarantine and, as Lewis said, "being found doing something worth doing." (or something like that). Though I am Reformed, I believe that my views on many things have been shifting from the Biblical and Patristic sources I've been getting into, and have recently finished The Lutheran Doctrine of the Lord's Supper bu Henry J. Schmidt, published by "Just and Sinner." I feel overwhelmed. I have a million questions, but would just like to ask if you could explain some things to me so I can better understand. While I have many questions, to protect the length of the post and the integrity of the discussions, I'd like to just limit myself to one question per post, as many things may get answered here before just exploding several questions. So my first is this;

  1. To my understanding, the Lutheran doctrine of the Supper is not that the local, actual, literal, carnal, genetic, and physical body (I use so many adjectives so we're on the same page) of Christ exists inside or simultaneously with the elements (consubstantiation), nor that the elements transform into this local, literal, carnal, genetic, and physical body (transubstantiation), nor that the "presence" of Christ is symbolic (memorialist, which is to say, "not there at all"), nor that Christ's local, actual, literal, carnal, genetic, and physical body continues to reside in Heaven glorified at the Right Hand of the Father and his presence is mediated to us spiritually from in the bare elements by the power of the Holy Spirit (the Reformed view). INSTEAD, Lutherans believe that the "presence" in the elements is not carnal, genetic, and physical (as this resides in Heaven with the Father), but also spiritual. That is to say, if we were to test the atoms of the elements at the time of consecration, we wouldn't find Christ's DNA, and if we would, we would be guilty of cannibalism and carnal eating. HOWEVER, this spiritual presence is not only spiritual, but rather is in unity with the Second Person of the Trinity (being two natures in one person inseparable and not confused), such that it is totally appropriate to speak of his "real presence" in the meal. He is there not like a physical chunk from his side, but he is there truly because of the seriousness of the hypostatic union and Chalcedonian Christology. Thus, to differentiate the spiritual eating of Lutheranism from Reformed understan
... keep reading on reddit ➑

πŸ‘︎ 15
πŸ“°︎ r/LCMS
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/Chatechized
πŸ“…︎ Apr 26 2020
🚨︎ report
[Request] Demons, Spiritual Medicine: A Treatise on Demonology, Christology and Medicine; the Reality of the Demonic Threat Understood Through Anthroposophy written by. Are Simeon Thoresen
πŸ‘︎ 6
πŸ“°︎ r/alexandria
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/Robbiemeanswell
πŸ“…︎ Oct 14 2020
🚨︎ report
At what point does heretical Christology put you outside of salvation?

I know that's an awkward way of wording it. My question really stems from a conversation I've been having with a doctrinal perfectionist. This person believes that only those who understand the Doctrines of Grace (5 Points of Calvinism) are saved. I have demonstrated from scripture that the gospel is not dependent on perfect theology. However, this got me thinking. At what point does bad theology actually demonstrate someone isn't actually saved?

For instance, I would affirm that Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses are outside of the kingdom due to their Christology.

What about an Arian or a Modalist? There are genuine people who use the Bible to try and demonstrate their view of Christ's divinity as the correct view. Obviously, I consider it heresy. I am an orthodox trinitarian and I think the Bible makes way more sense in light of the doctrine of the Trinity. But are we to count those who deny the Trinity outside of not just orthodoxy but salvation as well? If I affirm the salvation of a Modalist then what is stopping me from including a Mormon in the kingdom?

I suppose we take it case by case?

πŸ‘︎ 42
πŸ“°︎ r/Reformed
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ“…︎ Mar 05 2020
🚨︎ report
Some honest questions about Christology and both sacraments, and probably forgiveness of sin, Pt.2 - Confusion of the Natures and a Bodily Ascension

Howdy all! I have found my first question to be met with excellent responses and very helpful dialogue all around. I appreciate your patience, thoughts, and wrestling through these things with me, especially as I know many of you probably have better things to do then just talk theology to someone you don't know!

My next questions gets more to the root of the matter in these issues, which is Christology that I'm still struggling to understand.

  1. As I can ascertain, the central conflict lies in the idea that the divine and human natures in Christ are separate yet united, and not confused, but for Lutherans, may communicate their natures in the one person. The *communicatio idiomaticum (*which of course all Christians must agree to in some way or another, else they are Nestorian or Apollinarian or Gnostic) and its different genus enable Christ's person to be able to perform miracles, be transfigured, and make his sacrifice acceptable (since, the death of someone who was just a man is of no benefit to our souls). My reading on this has been informed from sources here, here, here, and here. I don't want to type out all the weeds, but the sum of it seems to be that the disagreement lies in whether or not a physical body can be omnipresent, which Calvin rejected, and Luther argued. If I had to guess, I'd say that Calvin's issue was that the physical body of Christ is purely distinct from his natures - that is, the fully divine and fully human natures are within his body, whereas Luther would say that the body of Christ is better understood to be composed of his human nature, and thus, must be equally united with the divine nature, and further cannot be divorced from it.

So, my questions are, if the natures are united always and must in all places be united to preserve the essential unity of the Person of Christ,

a. How does this not practically and essentially lead to confusion of the natures?

b. I have read by Keith A. Mathison that Lutherans reject a bodily ascension into heaven, which I have never heard of, and believe he is either misinformed or I misunderstood, as that seems to be a massive issue. How do

... keep reading on reddit ➑

πŸ‘︎ 17
πŸ“°︎ r/LCMS
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/Chatechized
πŸ“…︎ Apr 27 2020
🚨︎ report
Markan Christology and the Messenger of YHWH

"When Jesus forgives the man in Mark 2, the rhetorical bad guys wonder, β€œwho can forgive sins but God only?” This is taken by some to be an accurate assertion of theological fact that means Jesus’ forgiveness of the man’s sins proves he is God, but a far more parsimonious reading has Jesus correct their misunderstanding by showing that he exercises that very power despite not being God. The objection that is usually lodged here is that there are no other examples anywhere of someone other than God having the prerogative to forgive sins.

While this objection is an argument from silence, it’s also wrong."

- Daniel O. McClellan, "Markan Christology and the Messenger of YHWH,"

https://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/2016/01/18/markan-christology-and-the-messenger-of-yhwh/

πŸ‘︎ 6
πŸ“°︎ r/AcademicBiblical
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/doofgeek401
πŸ“…︎ May 11 2020
🚨︎ report
When did "adoptionism"first emerge? Does the author of the Gospel of Mark have an adoptionist christology?
πŸ‘︎ 12
πŸ“°︎ r/AskBibleScholars
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/jamesmith452116
πŸ“…︎ Sep 05 2020
🚨︎ report
Is it true that a high Christology is a later development within early Christianity?

I was watching a video where Bart Ehrman claimed that the high Christology found in the gospel of John for example is not found in the earlier written texts of the NT. Ehrman claimed that for example in Mark, there is a low Christology, and there is little to nothing in Mark to suggest that Jesus is God.

Ehrman says that if Jesus really said things like "Before Abraham was, I am" and "I and the Father are one", then it's remarkable that we don't find those sorts of details in Mark or other earlier texts. Because presumably if you are the author of Mark, you are going to care a lot about telling people that Jesus claimed equality or identity with God.

So Ehrman seems to think that the idea that Jesus is God was not a belief that the earliest Christians had, and that it was a later development among early Christianity. Is Ehrman generally thought to be correct in his view?

Note: I may not be perfectly accurately summarizing Ehrman's view here, but that's the impression I got from the video I watched.

πŸ‘︎ 25
πŸ“°︎ r/AcademicBiblical
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/hilbertsloaf
πŸ“…︎ Jun 14 2020
🚨︎ report
If there was an "early high Christology" as some claim, why wasn't there any Jewish opposition to it?

If the first Christians had believed Jesus was fully divine, you would expect severe Jewish persecution of Christians for idolatry. But you don't see any of this in the historical record. You don't see any Jewish conflict over Paul's Christology in his letters, where we would expect to find it; Paul defends his beliefs against various Jewish accusations in Acts, but not this one. When Paul is persecuting the Christians, he does not say it was for idolatry, but because he "was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers" (Gal. 1:14).

You don't see any Jewish accusations that Christians were polytheists and idolaters in Acts, where we would have also expected to find it. We don't see it anywhere in the NT, a surprising omission, given that the punishment for idolatry was stoning.

The belief there was an early high Christology from the start of the Jesus movement doesn't appear to be supported by the evidence.

πŸ‘︎ 56
πŸ“°︎ r/AcademicBiblical
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/Cucked_Redditors
πŸ“…︎ Jan 21 2020
🚨︎ report
Interfaith dialogue on Christology between a Shia Ismaili Muslim (Dr. Khalil Andani) and a Biblical Unitarian (Sam) m.youtube.com/watch?v=sNK…
πŸ‘︎ 8
πŸ“°︎ r/ismailis
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/star_tert
πŸ“…︎ Aug 07 2020
🚨︎ report
"Loke, A. T. E. (n.d.). Assessing the Evidences for the Origin of Highest Christology in the Gospels. The Origin of Divine Christology, 153–193." sci-hub.tw/https:
πŸ‘︎ 6
πŸ“°︎ r/AcademicBiblical
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/doofgeek401
πŸ“…︎ Sep 05 2020
🚨︎ report
Is There a Shift In High Christology Happening Right Now?

I have heard a claim recently that in the academic world there is a Christology shift occurring right now. High Christology had been previously thought to be from later on in the 1st and 2nd centuries, but now I am hearing that high Christology could be present much much earlier. I have heard some suggest it might actually be flipped in that the earlier Christians believed in a higher Christology view. What are your thoughts from an academic view?

πŸ‘︎ 14
πŸ“°︎ r/AcademicBiblical
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/jatonthrowaway1
πŸ“…︎ Apr 04 2020
🚨︎ report
Could some people recommend any books about christology and the validity of different claims? I’m happy with any suggestions!
πŸ‘︎ 16
πŸ“°︎ r/AcademicBiblical
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/reubenjt
πŸ“…︎ Apr 04 2020
🚨︎ report
Is the Carmen Christi (Phil. 2:5-11) more consonant with an angelic, second Adam or "heavenly man" Christology?

I'm thinking the traditional interpretation may not be a necessary one because Paul does not see Christ as an incarnate Yahweh, which would not make sense in a Second Temple Jewish context (i.e. he never calls Jesus God nor does he see him as part of any "divine identity"). There seem to be a number of more credible alternatives, such as an angelic, second Adam or heavenly redeemer Christology. The first would be Ehrman's view, the second would be Dunn's and the third Bultmann's.

πŸ‘︎ 13
πŸ“°︎ r/AcademicBiblical
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/paphnutio
πŸ“…︎ Apr 07 2020
🚨︎ report
Interfaith dialogue on Christology between a Shia Ismaili Muslim (Dr. Khalil Andani) and a Biblical Unitarian (Sam) m.youtube.com/watch?v=sNK…
πŸ‘︎ 3
πŸ“°︎ r/NonTrinitarian
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/star_tert
πŸ“…︎ Aug 07 2020
🚨︎ report
An Emerging Consesus on Early High Divine Christology

The recent work of Larry hurtado and Richard Baukham on the shape and origins of early Christology has led to an emerging consensus. Few would now doubt that a 'high' Christology is present in the earliest text of the New Testament (Crispin Fletcher-Louis, 2015).

Philippians 2:9-11

"I have been trying to explain the unusually important statement about Christ in Paul’s β€œChrist Poem” in Phil. 2:6-10. It’s an extremely high Christology. Christ is a divine being before coming into the world; and at his exaltation he was made equal with God" (Bart Ehrman, Paul’s Incredibly High Christology, 2020).

One of the earliest NT texts that shows early High divine Christology is Philippians 2:9-11. In this text, Jesus is "Kyrios" means Jesus is YHWH because Paul did not use messianic psalm as his backdrop (Psalm 110:1) but rather, he used a monotheistic YHWH text (Isaiah 45:23). Also, Paul explicitly told us that God himself hyper-exalted Jesus by giving him the divine name ("the name above every name").

In the Old Testament, the divine name is exalted above everything.

"You have exalted your name...above everything" (Psalm 138:2 NRSV).

It signifies that no one is higher than God, that YHWH is "God over all".

Everyone will bow down to YHWH and everyone will confess to YHWH in Isaiah 45:23. In Philippians 2:9-11, it was Jesus (not God the Father) who will be acknowledged by everyone as YHWH. To accept that Jesus is YHWH does not produce di-theism or polytheism, because the one God himself placed Jesus into this divine status. Worshipping Jesus as a god (that is, as the Jewish god, YHWH) is obedience to the one God, the Father. Thus, worshipping Jesus falls within Jewish monotheism. Instead of development of polytheism, there is a development of a new practise of worshipping the one God: worshipping his Christ. The one God doesn't want to be the only person to be given devotion to, the one God also desired that his Christ should receive the same honours which he receives. When every creature acknowledge that Jesus is divine, the one who gets the credit (ie. receives glory) is the one God, the Father.

"and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:11 NRSV)

1 Corinthians 15:27-28

1 Corinthians 15:27-28 has a consistent high Christology in the likeness of that in Philippians 2:9-11. In 1 Corinthians 15:27-28, (i) everyone is subject to Jesus (ie. everyone has Jesus as their Lord), (ii

... keep reading on reddit ➑

πŸ‘︎ 26
πŸ“°︎ r/AcademicBiblical
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/adamchristology
πŸ“…︎ Apr 19 2020
🚨︎ report
What is the rhetorical purpose behind Paul's "Adam Christology"?

I'm wondering about the flow of Paul's argument between Romans 5:1-11 and Romans 5:12-21 because the transition seems rough. Why does Paul bring up Adam's story at this point in his argument, especially in relation to his prior claims concerning Jewish Law? Or, in other words, why do we find 5:12-21 in between 5:1-12 and 6:1-4?

Is the notion that Christ is a second or last Adam a uniquely Pauline concept in the New Testament?

πŸ‘︎ 5
πŸ“°︎ r/AcademicBiblical
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/katapetasma
πŸ“…︎ Apr 05 2020
🚨︎ report
On Christology

This is something I’ve been curious about and not exactly sure about the Church’s teaching. Was Christ fully spirit before the incarnation or does the incarnation apply retroactively? Was Christ only God and not man before His birth?

πŸ‘︎ 18
πŸ“°︎ r/AskAPriest
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ“…︎ Dec 07 2019
🚨︎ report
Western Anglicanism has, for the most part, accepted Same Sex Marriage, become OK with Abortion, and become progressive in many other areas. But has our Christology ever changed? Have we changed anything that is credal? I say NO. And this is why I hope we can all live together in one big tent.
πŸ‘︎ 50
πŸ“°︎ r/Anglicanism
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/Gillcavendish
πŸ“…︎ Nov 06 2019
🚨︎ report
Why does Ehrman claim that Paul strictly held to an incarnation Christology when Philippians 2 indicates he also held to an exaltation Christology?

From a blog post:

> The Synoptics simply accept a different Christological view from Paul’s. They hold to exaltation Christologies and Paul holds to an incarnation Christology. And that, in no small measure, is because Paul understood Christ to be an angel who became a human.

Christ Hymn:

> Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name.

πŸ‘︎ 10
πŸ“°︎ r/AcademicBiblical
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/nanbb_
πŸ“…︎ Feb 28 2020
🚨︎ report
What are the Christologies of the Synoptic Gospels? Is Jesus portrayed as God, equal to God the Father? Divine in some sense? /r/AskBibleScholars/comme…
πŸ‘︎ 2
πŸ“°︎ r/AcademicBiblical
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/jamesmith452116
πŸ“…︎ Mar 30 2020
🚨︎ report

Please note that this site uses cookies to personalise content and adverts, to provide social media features, and to analyse web traffic. Click here for more information.