Edit filter log

'[[Special:Contributions/14.139.185.114|14.139.185.114]] ([[User talk:14.139.185.114|talk]]) 15:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)fuck you christian bastards {{short description|Study of Jesus Christ in Christian theology}} {{Use dmy dates|date=July 2013}} [[File:La Résurrection du Christ 1560 Véronèse.jpg|thumb|right|238px|Paolo Veronese, ''The Resurrection of Jesus Christ'' (ca. 1560).]] {{Christianity|state=collapsed|expanded=theology}} {{Christology}} In [[Christianity]], '''Christology''' (from [[Ancient Greek|Greek]] Χριστός ''Khristós'' and {{lang|grc|[[wiktionary:-λογία|-λογία]]}}, ''[[wiktionary:-logia|-logia]]''), translated literally from Greek as "the study of Christ", is a branch of [[theology]] that concerns [[Jesus]]. Different denominations have different opinions on questions like whether Jesus was human, divine, or both, and as a [[messiah]] what his role would be in the freeing of the [[Jewish people]] from foreign rulers or in the prophecied [[Kingdom of God (Christianity)|Kingdom of God]], and in the [[Salvation in Christianity|salvation]] from what would otherwise be the consequences of [[sin]].{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=171}}{{sfn|O'Collins|2009|p=1-3}}{{sfn|Ramm|1993|p=15}}{{sfn|Bird|Evans|Gathercole|2014|p=134, n.5}}{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=ch.6-9}} The earliest Christian writings gave several titles to Jesus, such as [[Son of Man]], [[Son of God]], [[Messiah]], and [[Kyrios]], which were all derived from the Hebrew scriptures.<ref group=web name="EB_Christology"/> These terms centered around two opposing themes, namely "Jesus as a [[Pre-existence of Christ|preexistent figure]] who [[Incarnation (Christianity)|becomes human]] and then [[Session of Christ|returns to God]]", versus [[adoptionism]] - that Jesus was human who was "adopted" by God at his baptism, crucificion, or resurrection.<ref group=web name="EB_Christology"/> From the second to the fifth centuries, the relation of what Christians there considered to be the human and divine nature of Christ was a major focus of debates in the [[Early centers of Christianity|early church]] and at the [[first seven ecumenical councils]]. The [[Council of Chalcedon]] in 451 issued a formulation of the [[hypostatic union]] of the two natures of Christ, one human and one divine, "united with neither confusion nor division".{{sfn|Davis|1990|p=342}} Most of the major branches of Western Christianity and [[Eastern Orthodoxy]] subscribe to this formulation,{{sfn|Davis|1990|p=342}} while many branches of [[Oriental Orthodox Churches]] reject it,{{sfn|Armentrout|Boak Slocum|2005|p=81}}{{sfn|Espín|Nickoloff|2007|p=217}}{{sfn|Beversluis|2000|p=21–22}} subscribing to [[miaphysitism]]. ==Definition and approaches== Christology (from [[Ancient Greek|Greek]] Χριστός ''Khristós'' and {{lang|grc|[[wiktionary:-λογία|-λογία]]}}, ''[[wiktionary:-logia|-logia]]''), literally "the understanding of Christ,"{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=108}} is the study of the nature (person) and work (role in salvation)<!-- **START OF NOTE** -->{{refn|group=note|name="work"|The work of Jesus Christ:<br>Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen: "soteriology, the doctrine of salvation"{{sfn|Kärkkäinen|2016}}<br>* biblicaltraining.org:<br>:* "The Past Work of Christ, The Atoning Savior"<ref group=web>[https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/work-jesus-christ-summary/systematic-theology-ii/bruce-ware ''The Work of Jesus Christ: Summary'']</ref><br>:* "Present work of Christ: work as mediator and Lord"<ref group=web name="Work.present.future">[https://www.biblicaltraining.org/work-jesus-christ-summary/systematic-theology ''Lecture 8: The Work of Jesus Christ: Summary'']</ref><br>:* "Future work of Christ: work as coming judge and reigning king"<ref group=web name="Work.present.future"/>}}<!-- **END OF NOTE** --> of [[Jesus in Christianity|Jesus Christ]].{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=171}}{{sfn|Bird|Evans|Gathercole|2014|p=134, n.5}}{{sfn|O'Collins|2009|p=1-3}}{{request quotation|date=March 2019}}{{sfn|Ramm|1993|p=15}}<ref group=web name="EB_Christology">Matt Stefon, Hans J. Hillerbrand, [https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christology ''Christology''], Encyclopedia Britannica</ref><ref group=web name="CathEncycl_Christology">Catholic encyclopedia, [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14597a.htm ''Christology'']</ref><!-- **START OF NOTE** -->{{refn|group=note|name="Definitions"|Definitions:<br>* Bart Ehrman: "the understanding of Christ";{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=108}} "the nature of Christ—the question of Christology"{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=171}}<br>* Bird, Evans & Gathercole (2014): "New Testament scholars often speak about “Christology,” which is the study of the career, person, nature, and identity of Jesus Christ."{{sfn|Bird|Evans|Gathercole|2014|p=134, n.5}}<br>Raymond Brown (1994): "[C]hristology discusses any evaluation of Jesus in respect to who he was and the role he played in the divine plan."{{sfn|Brown|1994|p=3}}<br>* Bernard L. Ramm (1993): "Christology is the reflective and systematic study of the person and work of Jesus Christ."{{sfn|Ramm|1993|p=15}}<br>* Matt Stefon, Hans J. Hillerbrand (Encyclopedia Britannica): "Christology, Christian reflection, teaching, and doctrine concerning Jesus of Nazareth. Christology is the part of theology that is concerned with the nature and work of Jesus, including such matters as the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and his human and divine natures and their relationship."<ref group=web name="EB_Christology"/><br>Catholic Encyclopedia: "Christology is that part of theology which deals with Our Lord Jesus Christ. In its full extent it comprises the doctrines concerning both the person of Christ and His works."<ref group=web name="CathEncycl_Christology"/>}}<!-- **END OF NOTE** --> It studies Jesus Christ's humanity and divinity, and the relation between these two aspects;{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=ch.6-9}} and the role he plays in [[Salvation in Christianity|salvation]]. "[[Ontology|Ontological]] Christology" analyzes the nature or being<ref group=web name="thinkapologetics.christology">thinkapologetics.com, http://thinkapologetics.blogspot.com/2009/05/jesus-functional-or-ontological.html?m=1 ''Jesus- A Functional or Ontological Christology?'']</ref> of Jesus Christ. "Functional Christology" analyzes the works of Jesus Christ, while "[[Christian soteriology|soteriological]] Christology" analyzes the "[[Christian soteriology|salvific]]" standpoints of Christology.<ref>''Christology from within and ahead'' by Mark L. Y. Chan 2001 {{ISBN|90-04-11844-6}} pp. 59–62 [https://books.google.com/books?id=9NQJ74t0aE4C&pg=PA59&dq=ontological+christology&hl=en&ei=n6rfTOTAJM2Kswbao6X8Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=ontological%20christology&f=false]</ref> Several approaches can be distinguished within Christology.{{refn|group=note|Bird, Evans & Gathercole (2014): "There are, of course, many different ways of doing Christology. Some scholars study Christology by focusing on the major titles applied to Jesus in the New Testament, such as “Son of Man,” “Son of God,” “Messiah,” “Lord,” “Prince,” “Word,” and the like. Others take a more functional approach and look at how Jesus acts or is said to act in the New Testament as the basis for configuring beliefs about him. It is possible to explore Jesus as a historical figure (i.e., Christology from below), or to examine theological claims made about Jesus (i.e., Christology from above). Many scholars prefer a socio-religious method by comparing beliefs about Jesus with beliefs in other religions to identify shared sources and similar ideas. Theologians often take a more philosophical approach and look at Jesus’ “ontology” or “being” and debate how best to describe his divine and human natures."{{sfn|Bird|Evans|Gathercole|2014|p=134, n.5}}}} The term "Christology from above"{{sfn|O'Collins|2009|p=16-17}} or "high Christology"{{sfn|Brown|1994|p=4}} refers to approaches that include aspects of divinity, such as Lord and Son of God, and the idea of the [[pre-existence of Christ]] as the ''[[Logos (Christianity)|Logos]]'' (the Word),{{sfn|O'Collins|2009|p=16-17}}{{sfn|Brown|1994|p=4}}{{sfn|Pannenberg|1968|p=33}} as expressed in the [[wikisource:Bible (American Standard)/John#1|prologue to the Gospel of John]].{{refn|group=note|{{bibleref|John|1:1–14|ESV}}}} These approaches interpret the works of Christ in terms of his divinity. According to Pannenberg, Christology from above "was far more common in the ancient Church, beginning with [[Ignatius of Antioch]] and the second century Apologists."{{sfn|Pannenberg|1968|p=33}} The term "Christology from below"{{sfn|O'Collins|2009|p=16}} or "low Christology"{{sfn|Brown|1994|p=4}} refers to approaches that begin with the human aspects and the ministry of Jesus (including the miracles, parables, etc.) and move towards his divinity and the mystery of incarnation.{{sfn|O'Collins|2009|p=16-17}}{{sfn|Brown|1994|p=4}} ===Person of Christ=== [[File:Christ Pantocrator niche Holy Trinity Meteora.jpg|thumb|[[Christ Pantocrator]], Holy Trinity's monastery, [[Meteora]], Greece]] {{See also|Prosopon|Hypostatic union|Trinity}} A basic Christological teaching is that the person of [[Christ|Jesus Christ]] is both human and divine. The human and divine natures of Jesus Christ apparently (''[[Prosopon|prosopic]]'') form a duality, as they coexist within one person (''[[hypostatic union|hypostasis]]'').<ref name=Erickson >''Introducing Christian Doctrine'' by Millard J. Erickson, L. Arnold Hustad 2001 ISBN p. 234</ref> There are no direct discussions in the [[New Testament]] regarding the [[Hypostatic union|dual nature]] of the Person of Christ as both divine and human,<ref name=Erickson /> and since the early days of Christianity, theologians have debated various approaches to the understanding of these natures, at times resulting in ecumenical councils, and schisms.<ref name=Erickson /> Some historical christological doctrines gained broad support. We show them here with simplified summaries; see the linked articles for details. * [[Monophysitism]] (monophysite controversy, 3rd-8th c.) After the union of the divine and the human in the historical incarnation, Jesus Christ had only a single nature * [[Miaphysitism]] ([[Oriental Orthodox]] churches) In the person of Jesus Christ, divine nature and human nature are united in a compound nature ("physis") * [[Dyophysitism]] ([[Chalcedonian Creed]]) Christ maintained two natures, one divine and one human, before and after the Incarnation * [[Monarchianism]] ([[Adoptionism]] (2nd c. onwards) and [[Modalism]]) God as one, in contrast to the doctrine of the [[Trinity]] Influential Christologies which were broadly condemned as heretical{{refn|group=note|Heretical Christologies:<br>* Docetism is the doctrine that the phenomenon of Jesus, his historical and bodily existence, and above all the human form of Jesus, was mere semblance without any true reality. Broadly it is taken as the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his human form was an illusion. Docetic teachings were attacked by [[St. Ignatius of Antioch]] and were eventually abandoned by [[Proto-orthodox Christianity|proto-orthodox Christians]].{{sfn|Ehrman|1993}}{{sfn|McGrath|2007|p=282}}<br>* Arianism viewed Jesus as primarily an ordinary mortal was considered at first [[heretical]] in 325, then exonerated in 335 and eventually re-condemned as heretical at the [[First Council of Constantinople]] of 381.{{sfn|Ehrman|1993}}{{sfn|McGrath|2007|p=282}}<br>* Nestorianism opposed the concept of hypostatic union, and emphasizes a radical distinction between two natures (human and divine) of Jesus Christ. It was condemned by the [[Council of Ephesus]] (431), and Monophysitism by the [[Council of Chalcedon]] (451).}} are: * [[Docetism]] (3rd-4th c.) claimed the human form of Jesus was mere semblance without any true reality * [[Arianism]] (4th c.) viewed Jesus as primarily an ordinary mortal, albeit in contact with or infused by the Divine * [[Nestorianism]] (5th c.) considered the two natures (human and divine) of Jesus Christ almost entirely distinct Various church [[#Controversies_and_ecumenical_councils_(2nd-8th_century)|councils]], mainly in the 4th and 5th centuries, resolved most of these controversies, making the doctrine of the [[Trinity]] orthodox in nearly all branches of Christianity. Among them, only the Dyophysite doctrine was recognized as true and not heretical, belonging to the Christian [[orthodoxy]] and [[deposit of faith]]. ===Salvation=== {{Main|Salvation in Christianity|Atonement in Christianity}} In [[Christian theology]], [[atonement]] is the method by which human beings can be reconciled to [[God in Christianity|God]] through [[Christ]]'s sacrificial suffering and [[Crucifixion of Jesus|death]].<ref>"Atonement." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005</ref> Atonement is the [[Forgiveness#Christianity|forgiving]] or pardoning of [[Christian views of sin|sin]] in general and [[original sin]] in particular through the suffering, death and [[resurrection of Jesus]],<ref group=web name="CED">Collins English Dictionary, Complete & Unabridged 11th Edition, [http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/atonement ''atonement''], retrieved October 03, 2012: "2. (often capital) ''Christian theol''<br>a. the reconciliation of man with God through the life, sufferings, and sacrificial death of Christ<br>b. the sufferings and death of Christ"</ref> enabling the [[Reconciliation (theology)|reconciliation]] between God and [[Genesis creation narrative|his creation]]. Due to the influence of [[Gustaf Aulen|Gustaf Aulèn]]'s (1879-1978) ''Christus Victor'' (1931), the various theories or paradigma's of atonement are often grouped as "classical paradigm," "objective paradigm," and the "subjective paradigm":{{sfn|Weaver|2001|p=2}}{{sfn|Beilby|Eddy|2009|p=11-20}}<ref name=Aulen>[[Gustaf Aulen]], Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement, E.T. London: SPCK; New York: Macmillan,1931</ref><ref>[[Vincent Taylor (theologian)|Vincent Taylor]], ''The Cross of Christ'' (London: Macmillan & Co, 1956), p. 71-2</ref> * Classical paradigm:{{refn|group=note|The "ransom theory" and the "Christ Victor" theory are different, but are generally considered together as Patristic or "classical" theories, to use [[Gustaf Aulén]]'s nomenclature. These were the traditional understandings of the early [[Church Fathers]].}} ** [[Ransom theory of atonement]], which teaches that the [[Crucifixion of Jesus|death]] of [[Christ]] was a [[ransom]] [[Sacrifice#Christianity|sacrifice]], usually said to have been paid to [[Satan]] or to death itself, in some views paid to [[God the Father]], in satisfaction for the bondage and debt on the souls of humanity as a result of [[Original sin|inherited sin]]. Gustaf Aulén reinterpreted the ransom theory,{{sfn|Pugh|2015|p=8}} calling it the [[Christus Victor]] doctrine, arguing that Christ's death was not a payment to the Devil, but defeated the powers of [[evil]], which had held humankind in their dominion.;<ref>Leon Morris, 'Theories of the Atonement' in ''Elwell Evangelical Dictionary''.</ref>{{refn|group=note|According to Pugh, "Ever since [Aulén's] time, we call these patristic ideas the ''Christus Victor'' way of seeing the cross."{{sfn|Pugh|2015|p=1}}}} ** [[Recapitulation theory of atonement|Recapitulation theory]],{{sfn|Pugh|2015|p=1, 26}} which says that Christ succeeded where [[Adam]] [[fall of man|failed]]. [[Divinization (Christian)|Theosis]] ("divinization") is a "corollary" of the recapitulation.{{sfn|Pugh|2015|p=31}} * Objective paradigm: ** [[Satisfaction theory of atonement]],{{refn|group=note|Called by Aulén the "scholastic" view}} developed by [[Anselm of Canterbury]] (1033/4–1109), which teaches that [[Jesus Christ]] suffered [[Crucifixion of Jesus|crucifixion]] as a [[Substitutionary atonement|substitute]] for human [[sin]], satisfying God's just wrath against humankind's transgression due to Christ's infinite merit.<ref>{{citation|last=Tuomala|first=Jeffrey|year=1993|title=Christ's Atonement as the Model for Civil Justice|journal=American Journal of Jurisprudence|volume=38|pages=221–255|doi=10.1093/ajj/38.1.221|url=https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lusol_fac_pubs/19}}</ref> ** [[Penal substitution]], also called "forensic theory" and "vicarious punishment," which was a development by the Reformers of Anselm's satisfaction theory.{{sfn|Taylor|1956|p=71-72}}{{sfn|Packer|1973}}{{refn|group=note|name="Penal substitution"|Penal substitution:<br>* Vincent Taylor (1956): "...the ''four main types'', which have persisted throughout the centuries. The oldest theory is the ''Ransom Theory'' [...] It held sway for a thousand years [...] The ''Forensic Theory'' is that of the Reformers and their successors."{{sfn|Taylor|1956|p=71-72}}<br>* Packer (1973): "...&nbsp;Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon and their reforming contemporaries were the pioneers in stating it [i.e. the penal substitutionary theory] [...] What the Reformers did was to redefine ''satisfactio'' (satisfaction), the main mediaeval category for thought about the cross. ''Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo?'', which largely determined the mediaeval development, saw Christ’s ''satisfactio'' for our sins as the offering of compensation or damages for dishonour done, but the Reformers saw it as the undergoing of vicarious punishment (poena) to meet the claims on us of God’s holy law and wrath (i.e. his punitive justice)."{{sfn|Packer|1973}}}}{{refn|group=note|name="Baker.2006"|Mark D. Baker, objecting against the pebal substitution theory, states that "substitution is a broad term that one can use with reference to a variety of metaphors."{{sfn|Baker|2006|p=25}}}} Instead of considering sin as an affront to God's honour, it sees sin as the breaking of God's moral law. Penal substitution sees sinful man as being subject to God's wrath, with the essence of Jesus' saving work being his substitution in the sinner's place, bearing the curse in the place of man. ** [[Governmental theory of atonement|Moral government theory]], "which views God as both the loving creator and moral Governor of the universe."{{sfn|Beilby|Eddy|2009|p=17}} * Subjective paradigm: **[[Moral influence theory of atonement]],{{refn|group=note|Which Aulén called the "subjective" or "humanistic" view. Propagated, as a critique of the satisfaction view, by [[Peter Abelard]]}} developed, or most notably propagated, by [[Abelard]] (1079-1142),{{sfn|Weaver|2001|p=18}}{{sfn|Beilby|Eddy|2009|p=18}} who argued that "Jesus died as the demonstration of God's love," a demonstration which can change the hearts and minds of the sinners, turning back to God.{{sfn|Weaver|2018|p=18}}{{sfn|Beilby|Eddy|2009|p=19}} ** [[Moral example theory]], developed by [[Faustus Socinus]] (1539-1604) in his work ''De Jesu Christo servatore'' (1578), who rejected the idea of "vicarious satisfaction."{{refn|group=note|Christ suffering for, or punished for, the sinners.}} According to Socinus, Jesus' death offers us a perfect example of self-sacrificial dedication to God."{{sfn|Beilby|Eddy|2009|p=19}} Other theories are the "embracement theory" and the "shared atonement" theory.<ref>Jeremiah, David. 2009. ''Living With Confidence in a Chaotic World,'' pp. 96 & 124. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc.</ref><ref>Massengale, Jamey. 2013.''Renegade Gospel, The Jesus Manifold''. Amazon, Kindle</ref> ==Early Christologies (1st century)== {{see also|Christ (title)|l1=|Resurrection#Christianity|l2=Resurrection|Session of Christ|l3=Exaltation of Christ|Pre-existence of Christ|l4=Pre-existence of Christ|Incarnation (Christianity)|l5=Incarnation of Christ}} ===Early notions of Christ=== The earliest Christological reflections were shaped by both the Jewish background of the earliest Christians, and by the Greek world of the eastern Mediterranean in which they operated.{{sfn|McGrath|2006|p=137–41}}<ref group=web name="EB_Christology"/><!-- **START OF NOTE** -->{{refn|group=note|[[Early Christians]] found themselves confronted with a set of new concepts and ideas relating to the life, death, and [[resurrection of Jesus]], as well the notions of [[Salvation in Christianity|salvation]] and [[Redeemer (Christianity)|redemption]], and had to use a new set of terms, images, and ideas in order to deal with them.{{sfn|McGrath|2006|p=137–41}} The existing terms and structures which were available to them were often insufficient to express these religious concepts, and taken together, these new forms of discourse led to the beginnings of Christology as an attempt to understand, explain, and discuss their understanding of the nature of Christ.{{sfn|McGrath|2006|p=137–41}}<br><br>Early Jewish Christians had to explain their concepts to a Hellenistic audience which had been influenced by Greek philosophy, presenting arguments that at times resonated with, and at times confronted, the beliefs of that audience. This is exemplified by the [[Apostle Paul]]'s [[Areopagus sermon]] that appears in Acts 17:16–34, where Paul is portrayed as attempting to convey the underlying concepts about Christ to a Greek audience. The sermon illustrates some key elements of future Christological discourses that were first brought forward by Paul.{{sfn|McGrath|2006|p=137–41}}<ref>''Creation and redemption: a study in Pauline theology'' by John G. Gibbs 1971 Brill Publishers pp. 151–53</ref><ref name=Watson >''Mercer Commentary on the New Testament'' by Watson E. Mills 2003 {{ISBN|0-86554-864-1}} pp. 1109–10</ref>}}<!-- **END OF NOTE** --> The earliest Christian writings give several titles to Jesus, such as [[Son of Man]], [[Son of God]], [[Messiah]], and [[Kyrios]], which were all derived from the Hebrew scriptures.<ref group=web name="EB_Christology"/>{{sfn|Brown|1994|p=4}} According to Matt Stefon and Hans J. Hillerbrand, {{quote|Until the middle of the 2nd century, such terms emphasized two themes: that of Jesus as a preexistent figure who becomes human and then returns to God and that of Jesus as a creature elected and “adopted” by God. The first theme makes use of concepts drawn from Classical antiquity, whereas the second relies on concepts characteristic of ancient Jewish thought. The second theme subsequently became the basis of “adoptionist Christology” (see [[adoptionism]]), which viewed Jesus’ baptism as a crucial event in his adoption by God.<ref group=web name="EB_Christology"/>}} Historically in the [[Alexandrian school]] of thought (fashioned on the [[Gospel of John]]), Jesus Christ is the [[Logos (Christianity)|eternal ''Logos'']] who already possesses unity with the Father before the act of [[Incarnation]].<ref name=Waldrop >''Karl Barth's christology'' by Charles T. Waldrop 1985 {{ISBN|90-279-3109-7}} pp. 19–23</ref> In contrast, the [[Antiochian school]] viewed Christ as a single, unified human person apart from his relationship to the divine.<ref name=Waldrop />{{refn|group=note|The views of these schools can be summarized as follows:<ref name=Bromo50>''Historical Theology: An Introduction'' by Geoffrey W. Bromiley 2000 {{ISBN|0567223574}} pages 50-51</ref> ''Alexandria'': Logos assumes a general human nature; ''Antioch'': Logos assumes a specific human being.}} ====Pre-existence==== The notion of pre-existence is deeply rooted in Jewish thought, and can be found in apocalyptic thought and among the rabbis of Paul's time,{{sfn|Grillmeier|Bowden|1975|p=15}} but Paul was most influenced by Jewish-Hellenistic wisdom literature, where "'Wisdom' is extolled as something existing before the world and already working in creation.{{sfn|Grillmeier|Bowden|1975|p=15}} According to Witherington, Paul "subscribed to the christological notion that Christ existed prior to taking on human flesh [,] founding the story of Christ [...] on the story of divine Wisdom."{{sfn|Witherington|2009|p=106}}{{refn|group=note|Witherington: "[Christ’s Divinity] We have already seen that Paul, in appropriating the language of the christological hymns, subscribed to the christological notion that Christ existed prior to taking on human flesh. Paul spoke of Jesus both as the wisdom of God, his agent in creation (1 Cor 1:24, 30; 8:6; Col 1:15–17; see Bruce, 195), and as the one who accompanied Israel as the “rock” in the wilderness (1 Cor 10:4). In view of the role Christ plays in 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul is ''not'' founding the story of Christ on the archetypal story of Israel, but rather on the story of divine Wisdom, which helped Israel in the wilderness."{{sfn|Witherington|2009|p=106}}}} ====Kyrios==== The title [[Kyrios]] for Jesus is central to the development of [[New Testament]] Christology.<ref name="MiniJohnson"/> In the [[Septuagint]] it translates the [[Tetragrammaton]], the holy and unpronounceable Name of God. As such, it closely links Jesus with God - in the same way a verse such as [[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 28:19, "The Name (singular) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost". ''Kyrios'' is also conjectured to be the Greek translation of [[Aramaic]] ''Mari'', which in everyday Aramaic usage was a very respectful form of polite address, which means more than just "Teacher" and was somewhat similar to [[Rabbi]]. While the term ''Mari'' expressed the relationship between Jesus and his disciples during his life, the Greek ''Kyrios'' came to represent his lordship over the world.<ref name="Cullmann2">''The Christology of the New Testament'' by Oscar Cullmann 1959 {{ISBN|0-664-24351-7}} p. 202 [https://books.google.com/books?id=79Zovlpi8uQC&pg=PA202&dq=mari+aramaic+jesus&hl=en&ei=DUDeTMDXGoT2sgbW5tmEDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=mari%20aramaic%20jesus&f=false]</ref> The [[Early Christianity|early Christians]] placed ''Kyrios'' at the center of their understanding, and from that center attempted to understand the other issues related to the Christian mysteries.<ref name="MiniJohnson">''Christology: Biblical And Historical'' by Mini S. Johnson, 2005 {{ISBN|81-8324-007-0}} pp. 229–35 [https://books.google.com/books?id=Aa3yRbs0tisC&pg=PA231&dq=Kyrios+christology&hl=en&ei=hTbeTIlPzfiyBoT30fUL&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Kyrios%20christology&f=false]</ref> The question of the deity of Christ in the New Testament is inherently related to the ''Kyrios'' title of Jesus used in the early Christian writings and its implications for the absolute lordship of Jesus. In early Christian belief, the concept of ''Kyrios'' included the [[pre-existence of Christ]], for they believed if Christ is one with God, he must have been united with God from the very beginning.<ref name=MiniJohnson /><ref name="Cullmann">''The Christology of the New Testament'' by Oscar Cullmann 1959 {{ISBN|0-664-24351-7}} pp. 234–37 [https://books.google.com/books?id=79Zovlpi8uQC&pg=PA234&dq=Kyrios&hl=en&ei=WtjdTIyAHcfzsgb_qbCTDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Kyrios&f=false]</ref> ===Development of "low Christology" and "high Christology"=== {{Main|Exaltation of Jesus}} Two fundamentally different Christologies developed in the early Church, namely a "low" or [[Adoptionism|adoptionist]] Christology, and a "high" or "incarnation Christology."{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=125}} The chronology of the development of these early Christologies is a matter of debate within contemporary scholarship.{{sfn|Loke|2017}}{{sfn|Ehrman|2014}}{{sfn|Talbert|2011|p=3-6}}<ref group=web name="Hurtado.2017"/> The "low Christology" or "adoptionist Christology" is the belief "that God exalted Jesus to be his Son by raising him from the dead,"{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=120; 122}} thereby raising him to "divine status."<ref group=web name=BE_2013.02.14>{{cite web|last1=Ehrman|first1=Bart D.|authorlink1=Bart D. Ehrman|title=Incarnation Christology, Angels, and Paul |url=https://ehrmanblog.org/incarnation-christology-angels-and-paul-for-members/|website=The Bart Ehrman Blog|accessdate=May 2, 2018|date=February 14, 2013}}</ref> According to the "evolutionary model"{{sfn|Netland|2001|p=175}} c.q. "evolutionary theories,"{{sfn|Loke|2017|p=3}} the Christological understanding of Christ developed over time,{{sfn|Mack|1995}}{{sfn|Ehrman|2003}}<ref name="Ehrman_HJBG_CG">Bart Ehrman, ''How Jesus became God'', Course Guide</ref> as witnessed in the Gospels,{{sfn|Ehrman|2014}} with the earliest Christians believing that Jesus was a human who was exalted, c.q. [[Adoptionism|adopted]] as God's Son,{{sfn|Loke|2017|p=3-4}}{{sfn|Talbert|2011|p=3}} when he was resurrected.<ref name="Ehrman_HJBG_CG"/><ref>Geza Vermez (2008), ''The Resurrection'', p.138-139</ref> Later beliefs shifted the exaltation to his baptism, birth, and subsequently to the idea of his pre-existence, as witnessed in the Gospel of John.<ref name="Ehrman_HJBG_CG"/> This "evolutionary model" was proposed by proponents of the ''Religionsgeschichtliche Schule'', especially [[Wilhelm Bousset]]s influential ''Kyrios Christos'' (1913).{{sfn|Loke|2017|p=3-4}} This evolutionary model was very influential, and the "low Christology" has long been regarded as the oldest Christology.{{sfn|Bird|2017|p=ix, xi}}{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=132}}<ref group=web name=BE_2013.02.14/>{{refn|group=note|Ehrman:<br>* "The earliest Christians held exaltation Christologies in which the human being Jesus was made the Son of God—for example, at his resurrection or at his baptism—as we examined in the previous chapter."{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=132}}<br>* Here I’ll say something about the oldest Christology, as I understand it. This was what I earlier called a “low” Christology. I may end up in the book describing it as a “Christology from below” or possibly an “exaltation” Christology. Or maybe I’ll call it all three things [...] Along with lots of other scholars, I think this was indeed the earliest Christology.<ref group=web>[Bart Ehrman (6 feb 2013), [https://ehrmanblog.org/the-earliest-christology-for-members/ ''The Earliest Christology'']</ref>}} The other early Christology is "high Christology," which is "the view that Jesus was a pre-existent divine being who became a human, did the Father’s will on earth, and then was taken back up into heaven whence he had originally come,"<ref group=web name=BE_2013.02.14/>{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=122}} and from where he [[Christophany|appeared on earth]].{{refn|group=note|name="Christophany"}} According to Bousset, this "high Christology" developed at the time of Paul's writing, under the influence of Gentile Christians, who brought their pagan Hellenistic traditions to the early Christian communities, introducing divine honours to Jesus.{{sfn|Loke|2017|p=4}} According to Casey and Dunn, this "high Christology" developed after the time of Paul, at the end of the first century CE when the Gospel according to John was written.{{sfn|Loke|2017|p=4-5}} Since the 1970s, these late datings for the development of a "high Christology" have been contested,{{sfn|Loke|2017|p=5}} and a majority of scholars argue that this "High Christology" existed already before the writings of Paul.{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=125}}<!-- **START OF NOTE** -->{{refn|group=note|Richard Bauckham argues that Paul was not so influential that he could have invented the central doctrine of Christianity. Before his active missionary work, there were already groups of Christians across the region. For example, a large group already existed in Rome even before Paul visited the place. The earliest centre of Christianity was the twelve apostles in Jerusalem. Paul himself consulted and sought guidance from the Christian leaders in Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1-2; Acts 9:26-28, 15:2). "What was common to the whole Christian movement derived from Jerusalem, not from Paul, and Paul himself derived the central message he preached from the Jerusalem apostles."{{sfn|Bauckham|2011|p=110-111}}}}<!-- **END OF NOTE** --> According to the "New ''Religionsgeschichtliche Schule'',"{{sfn|Loke|2017|p=5}}<ref group=web>Larry Hurtado (July 10, 2015 ), [https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2015/07/10/early-high-christology-a-paradigm-shift-new-perspective/ ''"Early High Christology": A "Paradigm Shift"? "New Perspective"?'']</ref> c.q. "Early High Christology Club,"<ref group=web name="Bouma.2014"/> which includes [[Martin Hengel]], [[Larry Hurtado]], [[N. T. Wright]], and [[Richard Bauckham]],{{sfn|Loke|2017|p=5}}<ref group=web name="Bouma.2014"/> this "incarnation Christology" or "high Christology" did not evolve over a longer time, but was a "big bang" of ideas which were already present at the start of Christianity, and took further shape in the first few decades of the church, as witnessed in the writings of Paul.{{sfn|Loke|2017|p=5}}<ref group=web name="Bouma.2014">{{cite web|last=Bouma|first=Jeremy|title=The Early High Christology Club and Bart Ehrman — An Excerpt from "How God Became Jesus"|url=https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/how-god-became-jesus-bart-ehrman-high-christology-excerpt/|website=Zondervan Academic Blog|publisher=[[HarperCollins]] Christian Publishing|accessdate=May 2, 2018|date=March 27, 2014}}</ref><ref group=web name=BE_2013.02.14/><!-- **START OF NOTE** -->{{refn|group=note|name="Loke2017"|Loke (2017): "The last group of theories can be called 'Explosion Theories' (one might also call this 'the Big-Bang theory of Christology'!). This proposes that highest Christology ''was'' the view of the primitive Palestinian Christian community. The recognition of Jesus as truly divine was not a significant development from the views of the primitive Palestine community; rather, it 'exploded' right at the beginning of Christianity. The proponents of the Explosion view would say that the highest Christology of the later New Testament writings (e.g. Gospel of John) and the creedal formulations of the early church fathers, with their explicit affirmations of the pre-existence and ontological divinity of Christ, are not so much a development in essence but a development in understanding and explication of what was already there at the beginning of the Christian movement. As Bauckham (2008a, x) memorably puts it, 'The earliest Christology was already the highest Christology.' Many proponents of this group of theories have been labelled together as 'the New ''Religionsgeschichtliche Schule'' ' (Hurtado 2003, 11), and they include such eminent scholars as [[Richard Bauckham]], [[Larry Hurtado]], [[N. T. Wright]] and the late [[Martin Hengel]]."{{sfn|Loke|2017|p=5}}}}<!-- **END OF NOTE** --> Some 'Early High Christology' proponents scholars argue that this "High Christology" may go back to Jesus himself.{{sfn|Loke|2017|p=6}}<ref group=web name="Hurtado.2017">Larry Hurtado, [https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017/10/09/the-origin-of-divine-christology/ ''The Origin of “Divine Christology”?'']</ref> There is a controversy regarding whether Jesus himself claimed to be divine. In ''[[Honest to God]]'', then-[[Bishop of Woolwich]] [[John A. T. Robinson]], questioned the idea.<ref>Robinson, John A. T., ''Honest to God'', 1963, page 72.</ref> [[John Hick]], writing in 1993, mentioned changes in New Testament studies, citing "broad agreement" that scholars do not today support the view that Jesus claimed to be God, quoting as examples [[Michael Ramsey]] (1980), [[C. F. D. Moule]] (1977), [[James Dunn (theologian)|James Dunn]] (1980), Brian Hebblethwaite (1985) and David Brown (1985).<ref>Hick, John, ''The Metaphor of God Incarnate'', [https://books.google.com/books?id=f-QMmFx8hwcC&pg=PA27 page 27]. "A further point of broad agreement among New Testament scholars ... is that the historical Jesus did not make the claim to deity that later Christian thought was to make for him: he did not understand himself to be God, or God the Son, incarnate. ... such evidence as there is has led the historians of the period to conclude, with an impressive degree of unanimity, that Jesus did not claim to be God incarnate."</ref> [[Larry Hurtado]], who argues that the followers of Jesus within a very short period developed an exceedingly high level of devotional reverence to Jesus,<ref>{{Cite book | last=Hurtado | first=Larry W. | title=How on earth did Jesus become a god?: historical questions about earliest devotion to Jesus |url = https://books.google.com/?id=Xi5xIxgnNgcC&pg=PA4| year=2005 | publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company | location=Grand Rapids, Mich. | isbn=0-8028-2861-2 | pages=4–6}}</ref> at the same time rejects the view that Jesus made a claim to messiahship or divinity to his disciples during his life as "naive and ahistorical".<ref name="lord_jesus_christ_a01"/>{{failed verification|date=April 2020}} According to [[Gerd Lüdemann]], the broad consensus among modern New Testament scholars is that the proclamation of the divinity of Jesus was a development within the earliest Christian communities.<ref name=gerd>[[Gerd Lüdemann]], "[http://wwwuser.gwdg.de/~gluedem/download/pope_review.pdf An Embarrassing Misrepresentation]", ''[[Free Inquiry]]'', October / November 2007. "the broad consensus of modern New Testament scholars that the proclamation of Jesus's exalted nature was in large measure the creation of the earliest Christian communities."</ref> [[N. T. Wright]] points out that arguments over the claims of Jesus regarding divinity have been passed over by more recent scholarship, which sees a more complex understanding of the idea of God in first century Judaism.<ref name=Wright1999>{{Cite book| last = Wright | first = N. T.| year = 1999| title = The challenge of Jesus : rediscovering who Jesus was and is| page = 98| url = https://books.google.com/?id=hice2guxStoC&pg=PA98| isbn = 0-8308-2200-3| publisher = InterVarsity Press| location = Downers Grove, Ill.}}</ref> But, Andrew Loke argues that if Jesus did not claim and show himself to be truly divine and rise from the dead, the earliest Christian leaders who were devout ancient monotheistic Jews would have regarded Jesus as merely a teacher or a prophet, but not as truly divine, which they did.<ref>Andrew Ter Ern Loke, ''The Origin of Divine Christology'' (Cambridge University Press, 2017), pp.100-135</ref> ===New Testamentical writings=== The study of the various Christologies of the [[Apostolic Age]] is based on early Christian documents.{{sfn|Gerald|2009|p=1-3}} ====Paul==== [[File:V&A - Raphael, St Paul Preaching in Athens (1515).jpg|thumb|240px|[[Saint Paul]] delivering the ''[[Areopagus sermon]]'' in [[Athens]], by [[Raphael]], 1515]] The oldest Christian sources are the writings of [[Paul the Apostle|Paul]].{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=113}} The central Christology of Paul conveys the notion of Christ's pre-existence{{sfn|Grillmeier|Bowden|1975|p=15}}{{sfn|Witherington|2009|p=106}} and the identification of Christ as ''[[Kyrios (Biblical term)|Kyrios]]''.{{sfn|Grillmeier|Bowden|1975|p=15–19}} Both notions already existed before him in the early Christian communities, and Paul deepened them and used them for preaching in the Hellenistic communities.{{sfn|Grillmeier|Bowden|1975|p=15}} The [[Pauline epistles]] use ''Kyrios'' to identify Jesus almost 230 times, and express the theme that the true mark of a Christian is the confession of Jesus as the true Lord.{{sfn|O'Collins|2009|p=142}} Paul viewed the superiority of the Christian revelation over all other divine manifestations as a consequence of the fact that Christ is the [[Son of God]].<ref group=web name="CathEncycl_Christology" /> The Pauline epistles also advanced the "[[cosmic Christ]]ology"{{refn|group=note|The concept of "Cosmic Christology", first elaborated by [[Saint Paul]], focuses on how the arrival of Jesus as the [[Son of God]] forever changed the nature of the [[cosmos]].{{sfn|Grillmeier|Bowden|1975|p=15–19}}<ref name="Jesus page 282">''The Witness of Jesus, Paul and John: An Exploration in Biblical Theology'' by Larry R. Helyer 2008 {{ISBN|0-8308-2888-5}} p. 282</ref>}} later developed in the fourth gospel,<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Enslin|first1=Morton S.|title=John and Jesus|journal=[[Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft|ZNW]]|date=1975|volume=66|issue=1–2|pages=1–18|doi=10.1515/zntw.1975.66.1-2.1|issn=1613-009X|quote=[Per the Gospel of John] No longer is John [the Baptizer] an independent preacher. He is but a voice, or, to change the figure, a finger pointing to Jesus. The baptism story is not told, although it is referred to (John 1:32f). But the baptism of Jesus is deprived of any significance for Jesus&nbsp;– not surprising since the latter has just been introduced as the preexistent Christ, who had been the effective agent responsible for the world’s creation. (Enslin, p. 4)}}</ref> elaborating the cosmic implications of Jesus' existence as the Son of God, as in {{bibleverse|2 Corinthians|5:17|KJV}}: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come." Also, in {{bibleverse|Colossians|1:15|KJV}}: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."{{sfn|Grillmeier|Bowden|1975|p=15–19}}<ref name="Jesus page 282"/> ====The Gospels==== [[File:The Four Evangelists.jpg|thumb|240px|left|The [[Four Evangelists]], by [[Pieter Soutman]], 17th century]] The synoptic Gospels date from after the writings of Paul. They provide episodes from the life of Jesus and some of his works, but the authors of the New Testament show little interest in an absolute chronology of Jesus or in synchronizing the episodes of his life,<ref name=Rahner731 >''Encyclopedia of theology: a concise Sacramentum mundi'' by [[Karl Rahner]] 2004 {{ISBN|0-86012-006-6}} p. 731</ref> and as in [[wikisource:Bible (American Standard)/John#21:25|John 21:25]], the Gospels do not claim to be an exhaustive list of his works.{{sfn|Gerald|2009|p=1-3}} Christologies that can be gleaned from the three [[Synoptic Gospels]] generally emphasize the humanity of Jesus, his sayings, his [[Parables of Jesus|parables]], and his [[Miracles of Jesus|miracles]]. The [[Gospel of John]] provides a different perspective that focuses on his divinity.<ref group=web name="CathEncycl_Christology" /> The first 14 verses of the Gospel of John are devoted to the divinity of Jesus as the ''[[Logos (Christianity)|Logos]]'', usually translated as "Word", along with his pre-existence, and they emphasize the cosmic significance of Christ, e.g. {{bibleverse|John|1:3|KJV}}: "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." In the context of these verses, the Word made flesh is identical with the Word who was in the beginning with God, being exegetically equated with Jesus.<ref group=web name="CathEncycl_Christology" /> ==Controversies and ecumenical councils (2nd-8th century)== {{Main|First seven ecumenical councils}} ===Post-Apostolic controversies===<!-- [[Christological controversies]] redirects here --> Following the [[Apostolic Age]], from the second century onwards, a number of controversies developed about how the human and divine are related within the person of Jesus.{{sfn|Fahlbusch|1999|p=463}}{{sfn|Rausch|2003|p=149}} As of the second century, a number of different and opposing approaches developed among various groups. In contrast to prevailing [[monoprosopic]] views on the Person of Christ, alternative [[dyoprosopic]] notions were also promoted by some theologians, but such views were rejected by the [[ecumenical councils]]. For example, [[Arianism]] did not endorse divinity, [[Ebionism]] argued Jesus was an ordinary mortal, while [[Gnosticism]] held [[docetism|docetic]] views which argued Christ was a spiritual being who only appeared to have a physical body.{{sfn|Ehrman|1993}}{{sfn|McGrath|2007|p=282}} The resulting tensions led to [[schism (religion)|schism]]s within the church in the second and third centuries, and [[ecumenical councils]] were convened in the fourth and fifth centuries to deal with the issues. Although some of the debates may seem to various modern students to be over a theological iota, they took place in controversial political circumstances, reflecting the relations of temporal powers and divine authority, and certainly resulted in schisms, among others that separated the [[Church of the East]] from the Church of the Roman Empire.<ref>Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, Vol. XIV p. 207, translated edition by H.R. Percival. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ephesus.html</ref><ref>The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, trans H. R. Percival, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, ed. P. Schaff and H. Wace, (repr. Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1955), XIV, pp. 192–42</ref> ===First Council of Nicaea (325) and First Council of Constantinople (381)=== In 325, the [[First Council of Nicaea]] defined the persons of the [[Godhead (Christianity)|Godhead]] and their relationship with one another, decisions which were ratified at the [[First Council of Constantinople]] in 381. The language used was that the one God exists in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit); in particular, it was affirmed that the Son was ''[[homoousios]]'' (of the same being) as the Father. The [[Nicene Creed]] declared the full divinity and full humanity of Jesus.<ref>Jonathan Kirsch, ''God Against the Gods: The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism'' (2004)</ref><ref>Charles Freeman, ''The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason'' (2002)</ref><ref>Edward Gibbons, ''The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'' (1776–88), 21</ref> After the [[First Council of Nicaea]] in 325 the Logos and the second Person of the [[Holy Trinity|Trinity]] were being used interchangeably.<ref>''A concise dictionary of theology'' by [[Gerald O'Collins]] 2004 {{ISBN|0-567-08354-3}} pages 144-145</ref> ===First Council of Ephesus (431)=== In 431, the [[First Council of Ephesus]] was initially called to address the views of [[Nestorius]] on [[Mariology]], but the problems soon extended to Christology, and schisms followed. The 431 council was called because in defense of his loyal priest Anastasius, Nestorius had denied the ''[[Theotokos]]'' title for [[Virgin Mary|Mary]] and later contradicted [[Proclus]] during a sermon in [[Constantinople]]. Pope [[Celestine I]] (who was already upset with Nestorius due to other matters) wrote about this to [[Cyril of Alexandria]], who orchestrated the council. During the council, Nestorius defended his position by arguing there must be two persons of Christ, one human, the other divine, and Mary had given birth only to a human, hence could not be called the ''Theotokos'', i.e. "the one who gives birth to God". The debate about the single or dual nature of Christ ensued in Ephesus.<ref>''The creed: the apostolic faith in contemporary theology'' by Berard L. Marthaler 2007 {{ISBN|0-89622-537-2}} p. 114 [https://books.google.com/books?id=TY3-aZIo9HEC&pg=PA114&dq=council+ephesus+nestorius+theotokos&hl=en&ei=L5fhTP7zAcn3sgaIsPTxCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=council%20ephesus%20nestorius%20theotokos&f=false]</ref><ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=uDZaZJkkWgQC&pg=PA18&dq=council+ephesus+nestorius+theotokos&hl=en&ei=L5fhTP7zAcn3sgaIsPTxCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFUQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=council%20ephesus%20nestorius%20theotokos&f=false ''Mary and the Saints'' by James P. Campbell 2005 0829417257 pp. 17–20]</ref><ref>''Essential theological terms'' by Justo L. González 2005 {{ISBN|0-664-22810-0}} p. 120 [https://books.google.com/books?id=DU6RNDrfd-0C&pg=PA120&dq=council+ephesus+nestorius+theotokos&hl=en&ei=ZZfhTKzIIdCSswaWztz5Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=council%20ephesus%20nestorius%20theotokos&f=false]</ref><ref>''Doctrine and practice in the early church'' by Stuart George Hall 1992 {{ISBN|0-8028-0629-5}} pp. 211–18 [https://books.google.com/books?id=TLyjrU3LPlUC&pg=PP7&dq=council+ephesus+nestorius+theotokos&hl=en&ei=ZZfhTKzIIdCSswaWztz5Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFMQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=council%20ephesus%20nestorius%20theotokos&f=false]</ref> The First Council of Ephesus debated [[miaphysitism]] (two natures united as one after the [[hypostatic union]]) versus [[dyophysitism]] (coexisting natures after the hypostatic union) versus [[monophysitism]] (only one nature) versus [[Nestorianism]] (two hypostases). From the Christological viewpoint, the council adopted ''Mia Physis (But being made one κατὰ φύσιν)'' - Council of Ephesus, Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius, i.e. One Nature of the Word of God Incarnate (μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη mía phýsis toû theoû lógou sesarkōménē). In 451, the Council of Chalcedon affirmed [[dyophysitism]]. The [[Oriental Orthodox]] rejected this and subsequent councils and continued to consider themselves as ''miaphysite'' according to the faith put forth at the Councils of [[First Council of Nicaea|Nicaea]] and [[Council of Ephesus|Ephesus]].<ref>''Systematic Theology'' by Lewis Sperry Chafer 1993 {{ISBN|0-8254-2340-6}} pp. 382–84 [https://books.google.com/books?id=ZFCoSSKTffcC&pg=PA382&dq=Hypostatic+union&hl=en&ei=AVPgTMvlGImU4Abtqvj6Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Hypostatic%20union&f=false]</ref><ref name="parry">''The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity'' by Ken Parry 2009 {{ISBN|1-4443-3361-5}} p. 88 [https://books.google.com/books?id=fWp9JA3aBvcC&pg=PA88&dq=Miaphysitism&hl=en&ei=sVDgTKqDKpDOswbundTyCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Miaphysitism&f=false]</ref> The council also confirmed the ''Theotokos'' title and excommunicated Nestorius.<ref name="KBaker">''Fundamentals of Catholicism: God, Trinity, Creation, Christ, Mary'' by Kenneth Baker 1983 {{ISBN|0-89870-019-1}} pp. 228–31 [https://books.google.com/books?id=yBW8l1opH-oC&pg=PA228&dq=Hypostatic+union&hl=en&ei=AVPgTMvlGImU4Abtqvj6Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Hypostatic%20union&f=false]</ref><ref name=Ephesus >''Mary, Mother of God'' by Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson 2004 {{ISBN|0802822665}} p. 84</ref> ===Council of Chalcedon (451)=== [[Image:Christological spectrum-o2p.svg|thumb|right|Christological spectrum during the 5th–7th centuries showing the views of the Church of the East (light blue), the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches (light purple), and the [[Miaphysite Churches]] (pink).]] The 451 [[Council of Chalcedon]] was highly influential, and marked a key turning point in the Christological debates.{{sfn|Price|Gaddis|2006|p=1–5}} It is the last council which many [[Anglican]]s and most [[Protestants]] consider ecumenical.{{sfn|Armentrout|Boak Slocum|2005|p=81}} The Council of Chalcedon fully promulgated the Western [[Dyophysitism|dyophysite]] understanding put forth by [[Pope Leo I]] of Rome of the ''[[hypostatic union]]'', the proposition that Christ has one human nature ''<nowiki>[</nowiki>[[physis]]<nowiki>]</nowiki>'' and one divine nature ''[physis]'', each distinct and complete, and united with neither confusion nor division.{{sfn|Fahlbusch|1999|p=463}}{{sfn|Rausch|2003|p=149}} Most of the major branches of Western Christianity ([[Roman Catholicism]], [[Anglicanism]], [[Lutheranism]], and [[Calvinism|Reformed]]) and [[Eastern Orthodoxy]] subscribe to the Chalcedonian Christological formulation, while many branches of [[Oriental Orthodox Churches]] ([[Syriac Orthodox Church|Syrian Orthodoxy]], [[Assyrian Church of the East|Assyrian Church]], [[Coptic Orthodoxy]], [[Ethiopian Orthodox]]y, and [[Armenian Apostolic Church|Armenian Apostolicism]]) reject it.{{sfn|Armentrout|Boak Slocum|2005|p=81}}{{sfn|Espín|Nickoloff|2007|p=217}}{{sfn|Beversluis|2000|p=21–22}} Although the [[Chalcedonian Creed]] did not put an end to all Christological debate, it did clarify the terms used and became a point of reference for many future Christologies.{{sfn|Armentrout|Boak Slocum|2005|p=81}}{{sfn|Espín|Nickoloff|2007|p=217}}{{sfn|Beversluis|2000|p=21–22}} But it also broke apart the church of the [[Eastern Roman Empire]] in the fifth century,{{sfn|Price|Gaddis|2006|p=1–5}} and unquestionably established the primacy of Rome in the East over those who accepted the Council of Chalcedon. This was reaffirmed in 519, when the Eastern Chalcedonians accepted the [[Pope Hormisdas|Formula of Hormisdas]], anathematizing all of their own Eastern Chalcedonian hierarchy, who died out of communion with Rome from 482–519. ===Fifth-seventh Ecumenical Council (553, 681, 787)=== The [[Second Council of Constantinople]] in 553 interpreted the decrees of Chalcedon, and further explained the relationship of the two natures of Jesus. It also condemned the alleged teachings of [[Origen]] on the pre-existence of the soul, and other topics.<ref group=web>{{cite web|url=http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8068|title=The Fifth Ecumenical Council – Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America|publisher=|accessdate=5 March 2015}}</ref> The [[Third Council of Constantinople]] in 681 declared that Christ has two wills of his two natures, human and divine, contrary to the teachings of the [[Monothelites]],<ref group=web>{{cite web|url=http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8069|title=The Sixth Ecumenical Council – Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America|publisher=|accessdate=5 March 2015}}</ref> with the divine will having precedence, leading and guiding the human will.<ref>The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology by Alan Richardson and John Bowden (Jan 1, 1983) {{ISBN|0664227481}} page 169</ref> The [[Second Council of Nicaea]] was called under the Empress Regent [[Irene of Athens]] in 787, known as the second of Nicaea. It supports the [[veneration]] of [[icon]]s while forbidding their worship. It is often referred to as "The Triumph of Orthodoxy".<ref group=web>{{cite web|url=http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8071|title=The Seventh Ecumenical Council – Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America|publisher=|accessdate=5 March 2015}}</ref> ==9th-11th century== {{expand section|date=February 2019}} ==Eastern Christianity== {{Main|East–West Schism|Eastern Orthodox Church}} {{expand section|date=March 2019}} ==Western mediaeval Christology== The term "monastic Christology" has been used to describe spiritual approaches developed by [[Anselm of Canterbury]], [[Peter Abelard]] and [[Bernard of Clairvaux]]. The [[Franciscan]] piety of the 12th and 13th centuries led to "popular Christology". Systematic approaches by theologians, such as [[Thomas Aquinas]], are called "scholastic Christology".<ref name="mini7">''Christology: Biblical And Historical'' by Mini S. Johnson, 2005 {{ISBN|81-8324-007-0}} pp. 74–76 [https://books.google.com/books?id=Aa3yRbs0tisC&pg=PA74&dq=christology+franciscan&hl=en&ei=px3jTNHFJc3BswaKu7XnCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCQQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=christology%20franciscan&f=false]</ref> In the [[Christianity in the 13th century|13th century]], Saint [[Thomas Aquinas]] provided the first systematic Christology that consistently resolved a number of the existing issues.<ref name="GilsonC">{{Citation|last= Gilson|first= Etienne|title= The Christian Philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas|year= 1994|publisher= University of Notre Dame Press|location= Notre Dame, IN|isbn= 978-0-268-00801-7|page= 502}}</ref> In his Christology from above, Aquinas also championed the [[Perfection of Christ|principle of perfection of Christ]]'s human attributes.<ref name="mini76">''Christology: Biblical And Historical'' by Mini S. Johnson, 2005 {{ISBN|81-8324-007-0}} pp. 76–79 [https://books.google.com/books?id=Aa3yRbs0tisC&pg=PA75&dq=Christology+aquinas&hl=en&ei=EZDgTPP6K8HEswach6z4Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Christology%20aquinas&f=false]</ref>{{sfn|O'Collins|2009|p=208–12}}<ref name="Geest">''Aquinas as authority'' by Paul van Geest, Harm J. M. J. Goris pp. 25–35 [https://books.google.com/books?id=Svfrp2LSlkEC&pg=PA27&dq=Christology+aquinas&hl=en&ei=EZDgTPP6K8HEswach6z4Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Christology%20aquinas&f=false]</ref> The [[Middle Ages]] also witnessed the emergence of the "tender image of Jesus" as a friend and a living source of love and comfort, rather than just the ''Kyrios'' image.<ref name=Astley >''Christology: Key Readings in Christian Thought'' by Jeff Astley, David Brown, Ann Loades 2009 {{ISBN|0-664-23269-8}} p. 106</ref> ==Reformation== [[John Calvin]] maintained there was no human element in the Person of Christ which could be separated from the Person of [[Logos (Christianity)|The Word]].<ref>''Calvin's Christology'' by Stephen Edmondson 2004 {{ISBN|0-521-54154-9}} p. 217</ref> Calvin also emphasized the importance of the "Work of Christ" in any attempt at understanding the Person of Christ and cautioned against ignoring the Works of Jesus during his ministry.<ref>''Calvin's First Catechism'' by I. John Hesselink 1997 {{ISBN|0-664-22725-2}} p. 217</ref> ==Modern developments== {{See also|Historical Jesus|Quest for the Historical Jesus}} ===Liberal Protestant theology=== The 19th century saw the rise of [[Liberal Protestant]] theology, which questioned the dogmatic foundations of Christianity, and approached the Bible with critical-historical tools.<ref group=web name="EB.Christology.mCt">Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jesus/The-debate-over-Christology-in-modern-Christian-thought ''he debate over Christology in modern Christian thought'']</ref> The divinity of Jesus was problematized, and replaced with an emphasis on the ethical aspects of his teachings.{{sfn|Dunn|2003|p=ch.4}}{{refn|group=note|Gerald O'Collins and Daniel Kendall have called this Liberal Protestant theology "neo-[[Arianism]]."{{sfn|O'Collins|Kendall|1996|p=30-31}}}} ===Roman Catholicism=== [[Catholic]] [[theologian]] [[Karl Rahner]] sees the purpose of modern Christology as to formulate the Christian belief that "God became man and that God-made-man is the individual Jesus Christ" in a manner that this statement can be understood consistently, without the confusions of past debates and mythologies.{{sfn|Rahner|2004|p=755–67}}{{refn|group=note|Grillmeier: "The most urgent task of a contemporary Christology is to formulate the Church's dogma&nbsp;– 'God became man and that God-made-man is the individual Jesus Christ'&nbsp;– in such a way that the true meaning of these statements can be understood, and all trace of a mythology impossible to accept nowadays is excluded."{{sfn|Grillmeier|1975|p=755}}}} Rahner pointed out the coincidence between the Person of Christ and the Word of God, referring to [[wikisource:Bible (American Standard)/Mark#8:38|Mark 8:38]] and [[wikisource:Bible (American Standard)/Luke#9:26|Luke 9:26]] which state whoever is ashamed of the words of Jesus is ashamed of the Lord himself.<ref>''Encyclopedia of theology: a concise Sacramentum mundi'' by Karl Rahner 2004 {{ISBN|0-86012-006-6}} p. 1822</ref> [[Hans Urs von Balthasar|Hans von Balthasar]] argued the union of the human and divine natures of Christ was achieved not by the "absorption" of human attributes, but by their "assumption". Thus, in his view, the divine nature of Christ was not affected by the human attributes and remained forever divine.<ref>''The eschatology of Hans Urs von Balthasar'' by Nicholas J. Healy 2005 {{ISBN|0-19-927836-9}} pp. 22–23</ref> ==Topics== ===Nativity and the Holy Name=== {{see also|Nativity of Jesus|Holy Name of Jesus}} The [[Nativity of Jesus]] impacted the Christological issues about his Person from the earliest days of Christianity. Luke's Christology centers on the dialectics of the dual natures of the earthly and heavenly manifestations of existence of the Christ, while Matthew's Christology focuses on the mission of Jesus and his role as the savior.<ref>''Theology of the New Testament'' by Georg Strecker 2000 {{ISBN|0-664-22336-2}} pp. 401–03</ref><ref>''Matthew'' by [[Grant R. Osborne]] 2010 {{ISBN|0-310-32370-3}} lxxix</ref> The [[Christian soteriology|salvific]] emphasis of [[wikisource:Bible (American Standard)/Matthew#1:21|Matthew 1:21]] later impacted the theological issues and the devotions to [[Holy Name of Jesus]].<ref>''Matthew 1-13'' by Manlio Simonetti 2001 {{ISBN|0-8308-1486-8}} p. 17</ref><ref>Matthew 1-2/ Luke 1-2'' by Louise Perrotta 2004 {{ISBN|0-8294-1541-6}} p. 19</ref><ref>''All the Doctrines of the Bible'' by Herbert Lockyer 1988 {{ISBN|0-310-28051-6}} p. 159</ref> [[wikisource:Bible (American Standard)/Matthew#1:23|Matthew 1:23]] provides a key to the "Emmanuel Christology" of Matthew. Beginning with 1:23, Matthew shows a clear interest in identifying Jesus as "God with us" and in later developing the Emmanuel characterization of Jesus at key points throughout the rest of his Gospel.<ref name=Kupp >''Matthew's Emmanuel'' by David D. Kupp 1997 {{ISBN|0-521-57007-7}} pp. 220–24</ref> The name Emmanuel does not appear elsewhere in the New Testament, but Matthew builds on it in [[wikisource:Bible (American Standard)/Matthew#28:20|Matthew 28:20]] ("I am with you always, even unto the end of the world") to indicate Jesus will be with the faithful to the end of the age.<ref name=Kupp /><ref name=Kingsbury17 >''Who do you say that I am?: essays on Christology'' by Jack Dean Kingsbury, Mark Allan Powell, David R. Bauer 1999 {{ISBN|0-664-25752-6}} p. 17</ref> According to [[Ulrich Luz]], the Emmanuel motif brackets the entire Gospel of Matthew between 1:23 and 28:20, appearing explicitly and implicitly in several other passages.<ref>''The theology of the Gospel of Matthew'' by Ulrich Luz 1995 {{ISBN|0-521-43576-5}} p. 31</ref> ===Crucifixion and resurrection=== {{Main|Crucifixion of Jesus|Resurrection of Jesus}} The accounts of the crucifixion and subsequent [[resurrection of Jesus]] provides a rich background for Christological analysis, from the canonical Gospels to the [[Pauline Epistles]].<ref>''Who do you say that I am? Essays on Christology'' by Jack Dean Kingsbury, Mark Allan Powell, David R. Bauer 1999 {{ISBN|0-664-25752-6}} p. 106</ref> A central element in the Christology presented in the [[Acts of the Apostles]] is the affirmation of the belief that the death of Jesus by crucifixion happened "with the foreknowledge of God, according to a definite plan".<ref name=Matera67 >''New Testament christology'' by Frank J. Matera 1999 {{ISBN|0-664-25694-5}} p. 67</ref> In this view, as in [[wikisource:Bible (American Standard)/Acts#2:23|Acts 2:23]], the cross is not viewed as a scandal, for the crucifixion of Jesus "at the hands of the lawless" is viewed as the fulfilment of the plan of God.<ref name=Matera67 /><ref>''The speeches in Acts: their content, context, and concerns'' by Marion L. Soards 1994 {{ISBN|0-664-25221-4}} p. 34</ref> Paul's Christology has a specific focus on the death and resurrection of Jesus. For Paul, the crucifixion of Jesus is directly related to his resurrection and the term "the cross of Christ" used in Galatians 6:12 may be viewed as his abbreviation of the message of the gospels.<ref name=Schwarz132 >''Christology'' by Hans Schwarz 1998 {{ISBN|0-8028-4463-4}} pp 132–34</ref> For Paul, the crucifixion of Jesus was not an isolated event in history, but a cosmic event with significant [[eschatological]] consequences, as in Cor 2:8.<ref name=Schwarz132 /> In the Pauline view, Jesus, obedient to the point of death (Phil 2:8), died "at the right time" (Rom 4:25) based on the plan of God.<ref name=Schwarz132 /> For Paul, the "power of the cross" is not separable from the resurrection of Jesus.<ref name=Schwarz132 /> ===Threefold office=== {{Main|threefold office}} The [[threefold office]] (Latin ''munus triplex'') of [[Jesus]] [[Christ]] is a [[Christianity|Christian]] doctrine based upon the teachings of the Old Testament. It was described by [[Eusebius]] and more fully developed by [[John Calvin]]. It states that Jesus [[Christ]] performed three functions (or "offices") in his earthly ministry&nbsp;– those of [[prophet]] ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018:14-22;&version=31; Deuteronomy 18:14–22]), [[priest]] ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20110:1-4;&version=31; Psalm 110:1-4]), and [[kingly office of Christ|king]] ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%202;&version=31; Psalm 2]). In the Old Testament, the appointment of someone to any of these three positions could be indicated by anointing him or her by pouring oil over the head. Thus, the term messiah, meaning "anointed one", is associated with the concept of the threefold office. While the office of king is that most frequently associated with the Messiah, the role of Jesus as priest is also prominent in the New Testament, being most fully explained in chapters 7 to 10 of the [[Book of Hebrews]]. ===Mariology=== {{main|Mariology|Roman Catholic Mariology}} Some Christians, notably [[Roman Catholics]], view Mariology as a key component of Christology.<ref group=web>"Mariology Is Christology", in [[Vittorio Messori]], ''The Mary Hypothesis'', Rome: 2005. [http://www.zenit.org/article-14658?l=english] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080805194304/http://www.zenit.org/article-14658?l=english |date=5 August 2008 }}</ref> In this view, not only is Mariology a logical and necessary consequence of Christology, but without it, Christology is incomplete, since the figure of Mary contributes to a fuller understanding of who Christ is and what he did.<ref>Paul Haffner, 2004 ''The mystery of Mary'' Gracewing Press {{ISBN|0-85244-650-0}} p. 17</ref> Protestants have criticized Mariology because many of its assertions lack any biblical foundation.<ref>Walter A. Elwell, ''Evangelical Dictionary of Theology'', Second Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 736.</ref> Strong Protestant reaction against Roman Catholic Marian devotion and teaching has been a significant issue for [[Ecumenism|ecumenical]] dialogue.<ref>Erwin Fahlbusch et al., “Mariology,” The Encyclopedia of Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill, 1999–2003), 409.</ref> [[Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger]] (later [[Pope Benedict XVI]]) expressed this sentiment about Roman Catholic Mariology when in two separate occasions he stated, "The appearance of a truly Marian awareness serves as the touchstone indicating whether or not the Christological substance is fully present"<ref>[[Communio]], 1996, Volume 23, p. 175</ref> and "It is necessary to go back to Mary, if we want to return to the truth about Jesus Christ."<ref>Raymond Burke, 2008 ''Mariology: A Guide for Priests, Deacons, seminarians, and Consecrated Persons'' {{ISBN|1-57918-355-7}} p. xxi</ref> == See also == * [[Annunciation]] * [[Ascension of Jesus]] * [[Catholic spirituality]] * [[Christian messianic prophecies]] * [[Christian views of Jesus]] * [[Crucifixion of Jesus]] * [[Doubting Thomas]] * [[Eucharist]] * [[Eutychianism]] * [[Five Holy Wounds]] * [[Genealogy of Jesus]] * [[Great Church]] * [[Great Tribulation]] * [[Harrowing of Hell]] * [[Kingship and Kingdom of God]] * [[Last Judgement]] * [[Last Supper]] * [[Life of Jesus in the New Testament]] * [[Miracles of Jesus]] * [[Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament]] * [[Religious perspectives on Jesus]] * [[Passion of Jesus]] * [[Patriology]] * [[Pentecost]] * [[Pneumatology]] * [[Rapture]] * [[Scholastic Lutheran Christology]] * [[Second Coming of Christ]] * [[Transfiguration of Jesus]] * [[Universal resurrection]] ==Notes== {{reflist|group=note|2|refs= <!-- "Christophany"--> {{refn|group=note|name="Christophany"|Proponents of Christ's deity argue the [[Old Testament]] has many cases of [[Christophany]]: "The pre-existence of Christ is further substantiated by the many recorded Christophanies in the Bible."<ref>''Theology for Today'' by [[Elmer Towns|Elmer L. Towns]] 2008 {{ISBN|0-15-516138-5}} p. 173</ref> "Christophany" is often{{quantify|date=May 2016}} considered a more accurate term than the term "[[theophany]]" due to the belief that all the visible manifestations of God are in fact the preincarnate Christ. Many argue that the appearances of "[[Angel of the Lord|the Angel of the Lord]]" in the Old Testament were the preincarnate Christ. "Many understand the angel of the Lord as a true theophany. From the time of [[Justin Martyr|Justin]] on, the figure has been regarded as the preincarnate [[Logos (Christianity)|Logos]]."<ref>"[[Angel of the Lord]]" by T. E. McComiskey in ''The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology'' 2001 {{ISBN|0-8010-2075-1}} p. 62</ref>}} }} ==References== {{reflist|35em}} ==Sources== ;Printed sources {{refbegin}} <!-- A --> * {{Citation | last1 =Armentrout | first1 =Donald S. | last2 =Boak Slocum | first2 = Robert | year =2005 | title =An Episcopal dictionary of the church | isbn =978-0-89869-211-2}} <!-- B --> * {{Citation | last =Bauckham | first =R. | year =2011 | title =Jesus: A Very Short Introduction | publisher =Oxford University Press}} * {{Citation | last1 =Beilby | first1 =James K. | last2 =Eddy | first2 =Paul R. | year =2009 | title =The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views | publisher =InterVarsity Press}} * {{Citation | last =Beversluis | first =Joel Diederik | year =2000 | title =Sourcebook of the world's religions | isbn =978-1-57731-121-8 | url =https://archive.org/details/sourcebookofworl00beve }} * {{Citation | last1 =Bird | first1 =Michael F. | last2 =Evans | first2 =Craig A. | last3 =Gathercole | first3 =Simon | year =2014 | title =How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus' Divine Nature&nbsp;– A Response to Bart Ehrman | chapter =Endnotes&nbsp;– Chapter 1 | publisher =Zondervan | isbn =978-0-310-51961-4 | chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JGy2AgAAQBAJ&pg=PT134}} * {{Citation | last =Bird | first =Michael F. | year =2017 | title =Jesus the Eternal Son: Answering Adoptionist Christology | publisher =Wim. B. Eerdmans Publishing}} * {{Citation | last =Brown | first =Raymond Edward | year =2004 | title =An Introduction to New Testament Christology | publisher =Paulist Press}} <!-- C --> *Chilton, Bruce. “The Son of Man: Who Was He?” ''Bible Review.'' August 1996, 35+. * {{Citation | last =O'Collins | first =Gerald | year =2009 | authorlink =Gerald O'Collins | title =Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus | isbn =978-0-19-955787-5}} *[[Oscar Cullmann|Cullmann, Oscar]]. ''The Christology of the New Testament''. trans. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1980. {{ISBN|0-664-24351-7}} <!-- D --> * {{Citation | last =Davis | first =Leo Donald | year =1990 | title =The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787): Their History and Theology (Theology and Life Series 21) | publisher =Michael Glazier/Liturgical Press | location =Collegeville, MN | isbn =978-0-8146-5616-7 | url-access =registration | url =https://archive.org/details/firstsevenec_davi_1990_000_6702418 }} * {{Citation | last =Dunn | first =James D. G.| authorlink =James Dunn (theologian) | year =2003 | title =Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making | publisher =Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing | isbn =978-0-8028-3931-2}} <!-- E --> * {{Citation | last =Ehrman | first =Bart D. | year =1993 | title =The Orthodox corruption of scripture: the effect of early Christological controversies on the text of the New Testament | publisher =Oxford University Press | location =New York | isbn =978-0-19-510279-6 | url = https://books.google.com/?id=NHIBM3p83UcC&pg=PA181}} * {{Citation | last =Ehrman | first =Bart D. | year =2003| authorlink=Bart D. Ehrman | title =Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew | publisher=Oxford University Press | isbn =978-0-19-972712-4|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vDzRCwAAQBAJ}} * {{Citation | last =Ehrman | first =Bart | year =2014 | title =How Jesus became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee | publisher =Harper Collins}} * {{Citation | last1 =Espín | first1 =Orlando O. | last2 =Nickoloff | first2 =James B. | year =2007 | title =An introductory dictionary of theology and religious studies | isbn =978-0-8146-5856-7}} <!-- F --> * {{Citation | last =Fahlbusch | first =Erwin | year =1999| title =The encyclopedia of Christianity | publisher = Brill}} *Fuller, Reginald H. ''[[Reginald H. Fuller#The Foundations of New Testament Christology|The Foundations of New Testament Christology]]''. New York: Scribners, 1965. {{ISBN|0-684-15532-X}} <!-- G --> * Greene, Colin J.D. ''Christology in Cultural Perspective: Marking Out the Horizons''. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2004. {{ISBN|0-8028-2792-6}} * {{Citation | last =Grillmeier | first =Alois | year =1975 | author-link =Aloys Grillmeier | chapter =Jesus Christ: III. Christology | editor1-last =Rahner | editor1-first =Karl | editor1-link =Karl Rahner | title =Encyclopedia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi | edition =reprint | publisher =A&C Black | isbn =9780860120063 | url =https://books.google.com/books?id=WtnR-6_PlJAC | access-date = 2016-05-09}} * {{Citation | last1 =Grillmeier | first1 =Aloys | last2 =Bowden | first2 =John | year =1975 | title =Christ in Christian Tradition: From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon | isbn =978-0-664-22301-4 | url =https://books.google.com/?id=LH-cBwmmY2cC&pg=PA15&dq=Pauline+Christology#v=onepage&q=Pauline%20Christology&f=false}} <!-- H --> * Hodgson, Peter C. ''Winds of the Spirit: A Constructive Christian Theology''. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994. <!-- K --> *Kingsbury, Jack Dean. ''The Christology of Mark's Gospel.'' Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989. <!-- L --> *Letham, Robert. ''The Work of Christ. Contours of Christian Theology''. Downer Grove: IVP, 1993, {{ISBN|0-8308-1532-5}} * {{Citation | last =Loke | first =Andrew Ter Ern | year =2017 | title =The Origin of Divine Christology | volume =169 | publisher =Cambridge University Press | isbn =978-1-108-19142-5 | url =https://books.google.com/books?id=Et0qDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA5}} <!-- M --> * {{Citation | last =Mack | first =Burton L. | year =1995 | authorlink =Burton L. Mack | title =Who wrote the New Testament? The making of the Christian myth | publisher =HarperSan Francisco | isbn =978-0-06-065517-4 | url =https://books.google.com/books?id=dZ8NAQAAMAAJ}} * {{Citation | last =McGrath | first =Alister E. | year =2006 | title =Christianity: an introduction | isbn =978-1-4051-0901-7}} *[[Donald Macleod (theologian)|MacLeod, Donald]]. ''The Person Of Christ: Contours of Christian Theology''. Downer Grove: IVP. 1998, {{ISBN|0-8308-1537-6}} * {{Citation | last =McGrath | first = Alister E.| year =2007| title =Christian theology: an introduction | publisher =Blackwell | location =Malden, Mass.| isbn =978-1-4051-5360-7 | url = https://books.google.com/?id=tHlY94UWi3UC&pg=PA282&dq=Justin+Martyr+christology}} <!-- N --> * {{Citation | last =Netland | first =Harold | year =2001 | title =Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith & Mission | publisher =InterVarsity Press}} <!-- O --> * {{Citation | last1 =O'Collins | first1 =Gerald | last2 =Kendall | first2 =Daniel | year =1996 | title =Focus on Jesus: Essays in Christology and Soteriology | publisher =Gracewing Publishing}} * {{Citation | last =O'Collins | first =Gerald | year =2009 | title =Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus | isbn =978-0-19-955787-5}} <!-- P --> * {{Citation | last =Packer | first =J. I. | year =1973 | title =What did the Cross Achieve? The Logic of Penal Substitution | publisher =Tyndale Biblical Theology Lecture}} * {{Citation | last =Pannenberg | first =Wolfhart | year =1968 | title =Jesus God and Man | isbn =978-0-664-24468-2}} * [[Wolfhart Pannenberg]], ''Systematic Theology'', T & T Clark, 1994 Vol.2. * {{Citation | last1 =Price | first1 =Richard | last2 =Gaddis | first2 =Michael | year =2006 | title =The acts of the Council of Chalcedon | isbn =978-0-85323-039-7}} * {{Citation | last =Pugh | first =Ben | year =2015 | title =Atonement Theories: A Way through the Maze | publisher =James Clarke & Co}} <!-- R --> * {{Citation | last =Rahner | first =Karl | year =2004 |title =Encyclopedia of theology: a concise Sacramentum mundi | isbn =978-0-86012-006-3}} * {{Citation | last = Ramm | first = Bernard L. | year =1993 | author-link = Bernard Ramm | chapter = Christology at the Center | title = An Evangelical Christology: Ecumenic and Historic | publisher = Regent College Publishing | isbn = 9781573830089}} * {{Citation| last =Rausch | first =Thomas P. | year = 2003 | title = Who is Jesus? : an introduction to Christology | publisher =Liturgical Press | isbn = 978-0-8146-5078-3}} <!-- S --> * Schwarz, Hans. ''Christology''. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1998. {{ISBN|0-8028-4463-4}} <!-- T --> * {{Citation | last =Talbert | first =Charles H. | year =2011 | title =The Development of Christology during the First Hundred Years: and Other Essays on Early Christian Christology. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 140 | publisher =BRILL}} * {{Citation | last =Taylor | first =Vincent | year =1956 | authorlink =Vincent Taylor (theologian) | title =The Cross of Christ | publisher =Macmillan & Co}} <!-- W --> * {{Citation | last =Weaver | first =J. Denny | year =2001 | title =The Nonviolent Atonement | publisher =Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing}} * {{Citation | last= Witherington | first =Ben| year =2009 | authorlink =Ben Witherington III | chapter= Christology&nbsp;– Paul’s christology | editor-last1 =Hawthorne | editor-first1 =Gerald F. | editor-last2 =Martin | editor-first2 =Ralph P.| editor-last3 =Reid |editor-first3 =Daniel G. | title =Dictionary of Paul and His Letters: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship | publisher =InterVarsity Press | isbn =978-0-8308-7491-0 | chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=QfLIDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT106}} {{refend}} ;Web-sources {{reflist|group=web}} ==Further reading== ;Overview * {{Citation | last =Kärkkäinen | first =Veli-Matti | year =2016 | title =Christology: A Global Introduction | publisher =Baker Academic}} ;Early high Christology * {{Citation | last =Hurtado | first =Larry W. | year =2003 | title =Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity | publisher =Eerdmans | isbn =9780802860705 | oclc =51623141}} * {{Citation | last =Hurtado | first =Larry W. | year =2005 | title =How on Earth did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus | publisher=Eerdmans | isbn =9780802828613 |oclc=61461917 }} * {{Citation | last =Bauckham | first =Richard | year =2008 | title =Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity}} * {{Citation | last =Ehrman | first =Bart | year =2014 | title =How Jesus became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee | publisher =Harper Collins}} * {{Citation | last1 =Bird | first =Michael F. | last2 =Evans | first2 =Craig A. | last3 =Gathercole | first3 =Simon | last4 =Hill | first4 =Charles E. | last5 =Tilling | first5 =Chris | year =2014 | title =How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus' Divine Nature - A Response to Bart Ehrman | publisher =Zondervan}} * {{Citation | last =Loke | first =Andrew Ter Ern | year =2017 | title =The Origin of Divine Christology | publisher =Cambridge University Press | isbn =978-11-071-9926-2}} * {{Citation | last =Bird |first =Michael F. | year =2017 | title =Jesus the Eternal Son: Answering Adoptionist Christology | publisher =Wim. B. Eerdmans Publishing}} ;Atonement * {{Citation | last =Pugh | first =Ben | year =2015 | title =Atonement Theories: A Way through the Maze | publisher =James Clarke & Co}} ==External links== *[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9399699/Christology Encyclopædia Britannica, Christology - full access article] {{Christian theology|state=uncollapsed}} {{Christianity footer}} {{Jesus footer}} [[Category:Christology| ]] [[Category:Ancient Christian controversies]] [[Category:Catholic theology and doctrine]] [[Category:Christian terminology]] [[Category:Systematic theology]]'