The only problem I have with our “Evangelical” christology is that it is founded on only one side of the coin, that is Alexandrian patristic interpretation of the gospels and their own writings. What about the Antiochene christology? Sadly, we don’t have much of their writings because their were condemned as heresy and destroyed by the Alexandrians. Although few documents survived, they do not offer a complete view of their christology. Also, what if Antiochene christology is more accurate christology?
For philosophical thinkers or theologians, Christology is the issue that is the dam that holds back the flood or the river that digs out the canyon. Believing thinkers need to know what is the Christology that can be supported from the New Testament and what is supported by Church councils. The vast majority of believers will never ask such questions but practice their faith based upon their spiritual encounter with the Christ of orthodox Christology.
Bart's summation and orb pondering about your motives and how your case is allegedly weak history is eye brow raising. His case seemed weak to me after his cherry picking - even an amateur like me knows about the Shema and the Johanine thunderbolt. I like the approach of listing all the ways YHWH is distinct from God in the Tanakh and how Jesus seems to have all these features in the early sources and his self references in Mark+Q. The only exception is I can find no where, even in John, does Jesus claim to be creator. Did I miss a self claim? Either way I was left with a few questions
1) If Peter's speeches at the start of Acts count as a peak into the tunnel period, is there a reason why Peter saying "You killed the author of life" isn't part of this data? Is there some linguistic criteria or is it just some cherry picking going on here?
2) I like Tilling's approach of looking at broad themes rather than atomizing verses. Jesus extroardinary requests for devotion (hate your family/own life) and positioning his relationship with people as key to judgement and inclusion in the kingdom make more sense if he is broadly making God-like claims about himself. Should this be also considered as part of the data?
Indeed. I think people like Ehrman are simply and purposefully wearing blinders if they claim to not see the obvious truth that the Gospels, and indeed the rest of the NT, relate. As you say, the broad picture is that of God in the flesh, not an angelic being. Angels, for the most part, deflect people from themselves to God. Jesus did the exact opposite, it was ALL about Him!
Ehrman is renowned for ignoring other scholarly work when writing about a particular subject, including scholars working at his own university. Yet some hang onto his every word.
Santa Claus, not Santa Clause.
The only problem I have with our “Evangelical” christology is that it is founded on only one side of the coin, that is Alexandrian patristic interpretation of the gospels and their own writings. What about the Antiochene christology? Sadly, we don’t have much of their writings because their were condemned as heresy and destroyed by the Alexandrians. Although few documents survived, they do not offer a complete view of their christology. Also, what if Antiochene christology is more accurate christology?
For philosophical thinkers or theologians, Christology is the issue that is the dam that holds back the flood or the river that digs out the canyon. Believing thinkers need to know what is the Christology that can be supported from the New Testament and what is supported by Church councils. The vast majority of believers will never ask such questions but practice their faith based upon their spiritual encounter with the Christ of orthodox Christology.
Bart's summation and orb pondering about your motives and how your case is allegedly weak history is eye brow raising. His case seemed weak to me after his cherry picking - even an amateur like me knows about the Shema and the Johanine thunderbolt. I like the approach of listing all the ways YHWH is distinct from God in the Tanakh and how Jesus seems to have all these features in the early sources and his self references in Mark+Q. The only exception is I can find no where, even in John, does Jesus claim to be creator. Did I miss a self claim? Either way I was left with a few questions
1) If Peter's speeches at the start of Acts count as a peak into the tunnel period, is there a reason why Peter saying "You killed the author of life" isn't part of this data? Is there some linguistic criteria or is it just some cherry picking going on here?
2) I like Tilling's approach of looking at broad themes rather than atomizing verses. Jesus extroardinary requests for devotion (hate your family/own life) and positioning his relationship with people as key to judgement and inclusion in the kingdom make more sense if he is broadly making God-like claims about himself. Should this be also considered as part of the data?
Indeed. I think people like Ehrman are simply and purposefully wearing blinders if they claim to not see the obvious truth that the Gospels, and indeed the rest of the NT, relate. As you say, the broad picture is that of God in the flesh, not an angelic being. Angels, for the most part, deflect people from themselves to God. Jesus did the exact opposite, it was ALL about Him!
Ehrman is renowned for ignoring other scholarly work when writing about a particular subject, including scholars working at his own university. Yet some hang onto his every word.
Peter