Cover The Person Of Jesus Christ Religion Essay

With your indulgent, my talk on the assigned subject: “ But Who Do You State That I Am? ” will cover the individual of Jesus Christ from the apostle Paul ‘s prospective leading to the enlightenment, including Paul ‘s positions refering Christ ‘s individual ; the early Christological arguments of the Nicea and Chalcedon ‘s sing Christ ‘s individual ; the impact of the enlightenment on modern believing refering the individual of Jesus and my personally ideas in respects to both the Chalcedonian defination and the challenge of the Enlightenment. This leture will besides foreground the positions of Arianis, Alexandrian, Antiochean, Appolinarius, Nestorian, among others refering the individual of Jesus Christ. And will reason with the Quest for the Historic Jesus.A A A A A A A A A A A

Recorded in the Gospels are several inquiries asked by Jesus that may be seen as unsafe, hazardous, safe and even pointed to those around him sing Luke 18:8b ; Luke 6:46 and now Matthew 16:13b1 “ But who do you say that I am? ” All of which I suspect were engineered to face his hearers and maintain them true. Dangerous inquiries, all of them, because they relentlessly cut to the experiential nucleus of our relationship with the deity of God in the individual of Jesus Christ and our response to such revelation. Thomas Merton mentioned in his book “ Learning to Love ” that “ we should ne’er undervalue our ability to lead on ourselves ” . 2 When the inquiries of Jesus are taken earnestly it have the leaning to cut through our self-deceits go forthing us vulnerable to the transforming power of God. Futher more, when one consider these perforating inquiries with experiential earnestness he or she will detect for him or herself what the author to the Hebrews was acquiring at in 4:12, when he declared: “ Indeed, the word of God is populating and activeaˆ¦ it is able to judge the ideas and purposes of the bosom ” .

1Burton Mack, A Myth of Innocence, Philadelphia: Fortress ( 1988 ) pp. 211-214

2John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus, San Friscisco: HarperCollins ( 1991 ) pp. 421-422

3John Dominic Crossan, Jesus, A Revolutionary Biography, HarperOne Publishers ( 1994 ) pp. 310-312

4Ben Witherington, Jesus the Sage, Augsburg Fortress, Minneapolis ( 1994 ) pp. 147-149

5Marcus Borg, Meeting Jesus Again For the First Time, Harper SanFrancisco ( 1994 ) p.96

6Dale Allison, Jesus of Nazareth, Millenarian Prophet, Augsburg Press, Minneapolis ( 1998 ) pp. 118-121

7Gregory Riley, One Jesus, Many Jesuss, HarperCollins Publishers, Minneapolis, MN ( 1997 ) p. 119

Sometimes these inquiries are hazardous and possibly painful, when come uping the ideas and purposes of our Black Marias transporting out a self-inward invaluation in us. A But before inquiring such unsafe inquiry, “ aˆ¦But who do you say that I Am? ” Jesus foremost asked his followings what is possibly seen as the safe inquiry, “ Who do others state that I am? ” Such inquiry is considered safe because all that is required to reply such inquiry is cynicism or a small spot of wonder. One may inquire why these inquiries? Probably because there were a whole batch rumours or guess among those who followed and listened to Jesus, of which were possibly seen as “ off the grade ” .

A A A A A A A A A A A Some say he was a political revolutionist ; some say he was a capitalist ; some clearly a socialist, and some even say that he was a broad Democrat.A Others, following Feuerbach ‘s divinity in The Essence of Christianity, admiration if he was merely a made-up adult male or truly a adult male with a existent history, or possibly the merchandise of human hope, demand, and projection. Among the bookmans, some say he was a “ Peasant Judaic Philosopher ” 1,2 who offered “ free healing ” and “ unfastened eating, ” thereby distributing “ spiritual and economic equality ” .3 Others say that he was a “ prophetic sage offering chiefly counter-order wisdom, ” 4 or that he was a “ spirit individual and go-between of the sacred ” .5 Some do non see the cynic/sage/wisdom figure Jesus but do see a “ chiliastic prophesier ” Jesus with a unquestionably ascetic bent,6 while still others see Jesus in the line of the “ classical hero ” who patterns the epic life for his followers.7

Finally, for the prospective of N.T. Wright, he sees Jesus as a prophesier whose “ career ” was to proclaim the completion of Israel ‘s history, and convey to go through the return of God to Zion as male monarch of the long promised kingdom.8

A A A A A A A A A A A Jesus ‘ inquiry is a personal invitation to take earnestly the possibility that possibly we need to see him otherwise so as to halt taking safety in the replies of others and reply for ourselves. It is an invitation, as Robert Funk has suggested,9 to venture beyond the conventional Christ of popular civilization and let ourselves to be challange by the Jesus of Nazareth. Such invitation is one to stand as existentially naked before the One in whom our being takes on new significance. Reacting to Jesus ‘ inquiry Peter answered, “ You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God ” which was Peter ‘s self-defining minute of which he discovered himself through the grace of God in the presence of the One who disclosed God every bit good as revealed the Way of God, passing his life-time calculating out what that meant for who he was and how he lived.

The Doctrine of the Person of Christ

8 N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, Augsburg Fortress: Minneapolis, MN ( 1996 ) pp. 198-242

9Robert Funk, Honest to Jesus, HarperCollins Publisher New York, NY ( 1996 ) pp. 17-18

“ Christology ” is the country of divinity that frequently attemps to put Jesus along clip and infinity every bit good as deity and humanity, by inquiring the inquiry of how can an event that took topographic point at a specific topographic point and clip be relavant for all people and the present clip.

There was no uncertainty in the heads of any first century Christian or any of the four Gospels authors of how such an event can be relavant for all people and all clip. Besides, there was no uncertainty in the heads of all Gospels authors or any of the first century Christian witnesses to Jesus, that he was a human being. But they were compelled to pull the decision that he was much more than that. God became known, available and assessable to the humanrace through Jesus.

As portion of the discipleship of the head, Christians had to larn to “ believe approximately Jesus as we do about God ” . But how was this to be expressed? Harmonizing to McGrath ( p.273 ) , by the terminal of the fourth century, the church had one-sidedly agreed that the merely acceptable manner of depicting who Jesus is, by utilizing the “ two natures ” expression frequently referred to as the “ Chalcedonian difinition ‘ , which described Jesus as “ genuinely godly and truly human ” . Now how can we do sense of such a statement, that Jesus as genuinely godly and truly human? Possibly when analyze the individual of Jesus Christ, one may come up with a more interpretable reply.

Titles of Jesus

Taking into history that the New Testament is considered the primary beginning for Christology, McGrath ( p.277 ) named six of the chief Christological rubrics of Jesus found in the New Testament, reflecting on what he said, did and was done to him. With your tolerence, I would wish to emphasize on each of these six rubrics with the first being:

Messiah -is a rubric used for the Jesus figure expected in one signifier or another by each of these faith, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Such rubric ‘Messiah ‘ denotes any redeemer figure whereas messianic ( which is the adjectival ) is used in a broader sense to mention to beliefs or theories about an eschatological betterment of the province of humanity. Furthermore, this rubric in Jewish Messianic tradition and eschatology was refer to a anointed leader in more instances, a future King of Israel who supposely will govern a united folk of Israel and usher in what is known as the Messianic Age of planetary peace. However, in Judaism, the rubric Messiah is non considered to be God or a Son of God such rubric is merely found in Christianity. This leads us to the 2nd rubric:

Son of God – there is no transition in Bible that points Jesus to hold used this rubric himself, but such is used particularly by the apostle Paul and besides in the missive to the Hebrews. In Romans 1:4 Paul stated that Jesus had “ been declared Son of God ” on history of the Resurrection and in Romans 8:32 he useds the rubric “ Son of God ” in relation to both Jesus and trusters with a differentiation drawn between the sonship of trusters which arises through acceptance and that of Jesus which originates from him being “ God ‘s begotten boy ” . However, in the Gospel of John there are two rubrics: “ boy ” ( huios ) is militias merely for Jesus, while “ kids ” ( tekna ) is apply to trusters. The ground for such differentiation is that the relationship between Jesus and the Father is foundational than that which is between trusters and God, however, trusters are enabled to come in through religion into the same relationship with the Father merely as Jesus. For Paul, the rubric “ boies of God ” by acceptance is applied to both male and female trusters stressing that all trusters enjoy heritage right, one that were enjoyed under the cultural period merely by male. This brings us to the 3rd rubric:

Son of Man – the rubric that compliments “ Son of God ” which is an avowal of the humanity of Christ whereas, the latter rubric is a complementary avowal of his deity. In the Old Testament the rubric “ Son of Man ” is used in three chief contexts: I. To stress the contrast between the humbleness and infirmity of human nature ( Num. 23:19 ) ; two. To mention to a future eschatological figure as prophesized in Daniel 7:13-14 ) ; three. It is used as a signifier of reference to the prophesier Ezekiel ( McGrath p.278 ) . George Caird ( a New Testament bookman ) asserted that such rubric is attributed to Jesus to bespeak Jesus ‘ indispensable integrity with world, and besides his particular map as foreordained representative of the new Israel and carrier of God ‘s Judgement and land. ” The four rubric is:

Lord – Romans 10:9 confirmed such rubric that “ Jesus Christ is Lord ” . The rubric “ Lord ” ( Greek kyrios ) therefore came to be regarded as reseved for God. The of import Judaic historian Josephus records an of import incident in which Jews refused to take portion in the emperor-cult which was a cardinal portion of the civil faith of the Roman Empire. Therefore the usage of this rubric to mention to Jesus in the New Testament draws a high grade of individuality between Jesus and God. The 5th rubric is:

Savior – The phrase “ Jesus Saves ” is found throughout the New Testament in contrast of that in the Old Testament, which proclaims that there was merely one who could salvage, the Lord God of Israel. The Prophetss on a regular basis reminded Israel that she could non salvage herself, nor can she be saved by other states around her. It is the Lord, and the Lord entirely who will and can salvage her. Therefore, the New Testament usage of the rubric “ Savior ” to mention to Jesus harmonizing to ( McGrath pp.279-280 ) , is being credited with making something that, strickly speech production, merely God can make. In term of map, such rubric affirms that Jesus is able to convey the redemption that God promised to his people, something that he both proclaims and effects. Therefore, since Jesus was able to accomplish something that merely God could than our apprehension of his function as a “ Savior ” is a clear indicant of his entitlement to be spoken and thought of as both Godhead and homo, the “ two nature ” expression. The six rubric is:

God – to mention to anyone as “ God ” admist the rigorous monotheism of Israel would be considered profane which is a serious spiritual offense. However, Raymond Brown ( a New Testament bookman ) presents three clear cases in the New Testament of Jesus being called “ God ” . Those cases are: i. Jesus being refer to as the “ Word of God ” ( John 1:1 ) ; two. Addressed as “ My Lord and God ” ( John 20:28 ) ; iii. While Hebrews 1:8 addressed Jesus as “ God. ” Those poetries made statements refering the individuality of Jesus, whereas the following New Testament ‘s transitions speak of the significance of Jesus by placing him with specific undertakings that can merely be associated with God. For illustration: Matthew 1:21 Tells us that “ Jesus saves his people from their wickednesss ” ; Acts 4:12 Tells us that “ in his name entirely is Salvation ” ; Hebrews 2:10 Tells us that “ He is the Captain of Salvation ” ; Luke 2:11 Tells us that he is the “ Savior, who is Christ the Lord ” . Hence, Jesus is understood to work as God in these biblical avowals, by making something which God entirely can make.

An Arianism positions on the Person of Christ

Contrary to the above avowal of the individual of Jesus Christ is the Arian contention ( Inbody pp. 105-109 ) which

remains a landmark in the development of classical Christology demanding more treatment and account as compared to the treatment during the patristic period. The position of Arianism, Arius emphasizes the self-substance of God saying that God is the lone beginning of all created things and nil exist that does non deduce from God. Therefore, Arius urged that the Father is regarded as being in being before the Son which makes the Son a animal. However he is careful to asseverate that the Son is non similar every other animal, for there is a differentiation of rank between the Son and other animals including human existences. He farther argues that the Son is “ a perfect animal, yet non as one among other animal: a begotten being, yet non as one among other begotten existences ” such position raises inquiry refering the Father Son relationship. The Arian contention was centered upon two footings ( homoiousios and homoousios ) to

perchance depict the relation of the Father to the Son. The term “ homoiousios ” ( which mean ‘of like substance ‘ or ‘of like being ‘ ) was seen by many as stand foring a reasonable via media, leting the intimacy between Father and Son to be emphasized without necessitating any futher guess on the precise nature of their relation. However the rival term “ homoousios ” ( which mean ‘of the same substance ‘ or ‘of the same being ‘ ) , finally gained the upper manus. The Niceno-Constantinopolitan credo of 381 declared that Christ was of the same substance with the Father ; such avowal has become a benchmark of Christological within all mainstream Christian churches.

Alexandrian ‘s positions of the Person of Christ

As for the Alexandrian Christology ( McGrath pp. 286-287 ) , it raises the inquiry of the relation of the deity and humanity of Christ. It stresses that if human nature is to be deified, it must be united with the godly nature ; that is, God must go united with human nature in such a mode that will enable human to portion in the life of God. They futher argue that Jesus, being the Second Person of the Trinity assumed human nature, and by making so ensured its divinization, therefore God became human in order that humanity might go Godhead, puting accent upon the thought of the Logos presuming human nature. The thought of the Logo harmonizing to Alexandrian ‘s position of the individual of Christ was of peculiar importance when particularly linked with the impression of embodiment.

Antiochean ‘s position of the Person of Christ

But the Antiochean Christology ( McGrath pp. 287-289 ) differed on that of the Alexandrian with their concern being moral instead than soteriological. The basic way of much Antiochene thought on the individuality of Christ can be traced along the undermentioned lines: On history of human noncompliance, we live in a province of corruptness from which we are unable to free ourselves. And if salvation is to take topographic point, so it must be on the BASIC of new obeisance on the portion of humanity which will compel God to step in ; supporting the two nature of Christ. Here in their statement, Christ is at one and the same clip both God and a existent single homo being. Against the Alexandrian unfavorable judgment that this was to deny the integrity of Christ, the Antiochenes responded that they upheld that integrity and at the same clip acknowledge that the one Jesus possessed both a perfect homo and a perfect Godhead nature.

Appolinarius ‘ positions of the Person of Christ

The statement of the Alexandrians was stunned by many of the Appolinarius ‘s co-workers, ( McGrath p. 287 ) for their positions of Christ may hold had its attractive forces for some, while others were shocked by its soteriological deductions. Appolinarius had anxiousnesss about the progressively widespread belief that the Logos was contiminated by the failing of human nature ; that is, the purity of Christ will be compromised. In his position, if Christ was to possess a human head was non it the human head the beginning of wickedness and rebellion against God? He farther argues that merely if the human head were to be replaced by a strictly godly motivation and directing force could the purity of Christ be maintained. Therefore reasoning that in Christ a strictly human head was replaced by a Godhead head and psyche.

Communicatio Idiomatum

As for the Patristic authors, an issue of major concern to many was centered on the inquiry of the “ communicating of properties ” ( Placer pp. 185,200,372 ) which in Latin is communicatio Idiomatum. By the terminal of the 4th century, there were general credences of the undermentioned proposals in the Church, viz. : ‘Jesus is to the full human and to the full godly ‘ .

If such statement is considered true, so what was true of the humanity of Jesus must besides be true of his deity and frailty versa. In other words, if Jesus suffered on the cross so God suffered on the Cross.

But it goes without stating to most patristic authors that God could non endure. Yet Gregory of Nazianzus insisted that if Jesus is God so God must be considered to duffered ; otherwise the world of the embodiment of the Son of God was called in inquiry. However such contention foremost came to visible radiation by the Nestorians when the rubric ‘bearer of God ‘ ( theotokos ) mentioning to Mary had become widely accepted. Nestrorius was inded alarmed at its deduction which seems to deny the humanity of Christ. Nevertheless, harmonizing to ( McGrate p. 240 ) may be regarded as doing an wholly legitimate point.

Quest for the Historical Jesus

The Old Quest of the historical Jesus was a merchandise of the Enlightenment, but what was the Enlightenment? The Enlightenment was an early 18th century motion which tried to secularise every section of human life and idea. It was a rebellion non merely against the power of the church as an establishment but besides against faith as good. Actually, the Old Quest of the historical Jesus began with Hermann Samuel Reimarus World Health Organization major Hagiographas on this topic were circulated during his life-time among his familiarities as an anon. manuscript and fragments were published after his decease by G. Lessing. In his authorship, Reimarus drove a cuneus between Jesus and Christianity and left merely a portraiture of a deistic image of Jesus, a Jesus conforming to natural faith. 10

But the chief job had been posed by Lessing who was responsible for printing the fragments of Reimarus.11 Lessing asked how a contingent event of history could hold ageless significance which is a important inquiry, particularly for Christian! Yet it is true that some events have ageless significance. The cross of Jesus Christ is such an event. What a enormously important event that was. Our ageless redemption is dependent upon this cross of Jesus Christ “ who was delivered for our discourtesies, and was raised for our justification ” ( Rom. 4:25 ) .

Anyone who comes with Enlightenment presuppositions, that is, with humanistic presuppositions, is bound to inquire how any event manner back at that place in that vague land can hold ageless significance. Lessing ‘s inquiry is truly the inquiry of the Old Quest and his inquiry persists throughout the subsequent pursuits every bit good.

Summary and Conclusion

The Old Quest demonstrated the spirit of the Enlightenment and the beginnings of historical critical scientific discipline applied to theology. It is now apparent that their claim to be nonsubjective and without presupposition was itself a myth. It was the Old Quest which set the phase, created the jobs, and what has occurred later is a see-saw consequence from the Old Quest to the No Quest to the New Quest.

10 H. Klooster, The Adjective in “ Systematic Theology ” ( Grand Rapids: Calvin Theological Seminary, 1963 ) , pp. 26.

11Reimarus: Fragments, trs. R. S. Fraser. ( Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970 ) , pp. 279.

Finally, a reappraisal of this history of the Old Quest provides an of import lesson for us. There is an inevitable relationship between the Word and Christ, between Scripture and the Christ revealed in that Word. We see how the higher critical ( Enlightenment ) positions which undermine the authorization of Bible are reflected in the Old Quest of the historical Jesus. When one loses religion in the revelatory Word of God, the following measure is besides the loss of the important Jesus of the Word.

I believe that we can larn from the lessons of history and by the grace of God come to an even stronger strong belief of the strategic interrelatedness of history and the sermon of Christinity. Lessing did so post a really of import inquiry one that Christian must in all earnestness and religion reply in the affirmative for so, Jesus of Nazareth and the events refering him revealed in Scripture do hold ageless significance.

In shutting, Jesus asked the inquiry “ aˆ¦but Who do you say that I am? ” Naturally, we have to reply for ourselves, and our replies will unwrap as much about us as they do about him. My reply to such inquiry? You are the one in whom I am loved, and called to love. My life is about calculating out what that means for who I am and how I live.