'divine humans ~ humane g ds'

{DB}
A second approach,
currently enjoying ascendance especially among New Testament scholars,
sees the earliest versions of high Christo-logy as emerging within a Jewish religious context.
Adela Yarbro Collins has recently distinguished two senses of "divinity": "One is functional. The 'one like a son of man' in Daniel 7:13-14, 'that Son of Man' in the Similitudes of Enoch, & Jesus in some Synoptic passages are divine in this sense when they exercise {or are anticipated as exercising} divine activities like ruling over a universal kingdom, sitting on a heavenly throne, judging human beings in the end-time or traveling on the clouds, a typically divine mode of transport.
The other sense is ontological."

It is that former sense to which I refer,
as I believe that the very distinction between "functional" & "ontological"
is a product of leter Greek reflection on the Gospels. I submit that it is possible to understand the Gospel only
if both Jesus & the Jews around him held to a high Chris-tology whereby the claim to Messiahship was also a claim to being a divine man.

Were it not the case, we would be very hard-pressed to understand the extremely hostile reaction to Jesus on the part of Jewish leaders who did not accept his claim. Controversy among Jews was hardly a new thing; for a controversy to lead to a crucifixion,
it must have been a doozy. A Jew claiming that he was G d, that he was the divine Son of Man
whom the Jews had been expecting &, moreover,
not being laughed out of the
village for this claim,
would have been
such a
doozy.
23 mei 2012 - meld ongepast verhaal
Weet je zeker dat je dit verhaal wilt rapporteren? Ja | Nee
Profielfoto van Asih
Asih, man, 81 jaar
   
Log in om een reactie te plaatsen.   vorige volgende