Modern Christological arguments often strike me as ridiculous. In these arguments, theologians debate the Person of Christ in light of his unique nature as God and man. From what I understand, there’s higher Christology (which emphasizes his divine nature) and lower Christology (which emphasizes his human nature).
As far as I can figure, we can’t come anywhere near to knowing the answer to the Christ puzzle. God wholly transcends understanding. God, of course, reveals himself, and that helps somewhat, but he primarily did so through Jesus Christ. If we rely on the revelation of Jesus to discern Jesus’ nature, we walk in a Christological circle.
Added problem: We don’t even fully understand human nature. We understand it better than God’s nature, but there are still uncertain and wholly unknown variables.
Seems to me that the Christological arguments are the equivalent to this formula: a x b = x, where “a” might be 4 through 10, and “b” is a number anywhere from negative infinity to positive infinity. “a” is human nature; “b” is divine nature. “x,” of course, is simply unknowable.
The monk told us to imitate Christ, not understand him.Bookmark it: del.icio.us | Reddit | Slashdot | Digg | Facebook | Technorati | Google | StumbleUpon | Window Live | Tailrank | Furl | Netscape | Yahoo | BlinkList