francisdesales
Member
- Aug 10, 2006
- 7,793
- 4
In these past discussions on Trinity, several people have mentioned that Eastern Christology - the idea that Jesus was God incarnate, as expressed at Nicea in 325 CE - is a strictly Hellenistic proposition, a pagan proposal. I think it is high-time that illusion is dispelled, to clear the way for the Truth God has expressed to mankind through His Scriptures and His Church.
First of all. Is "the Christological dogma...a product of the spirit of Hellenism on the soil of the Gospel", as Adolf von Harnack assured us?
("Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte" is the primary source, the secondary source is "In the Shadows of the Temple", Oskar Skarsaune).
After him, it appears that almost every scholar writing on the subject of early church dogma blindly agreed with that thesis. Thus, many Christians and non-Christians are infected with this paradigm without really exploring the implication of that statement from von Harnack. Many would have us believe that the Greeks would LOVE to hear such things and would appreciate and embrace enthusiastically the doctrine later defined at Nicea, that Jesus was of the essence of God Himself.
However, most Hellenists would react in DISGUST over such ideas that God would come in the flesh and DIE on a cross in a most ignoble manner.
The ENTIRE CONCEPT COMPLETELY IGNORES THE REASON OF EXISTENCE OF THE DOCETISTS, who tried to teach that Jesus was NOT human at all, and was merely a form to fool people. Have these modern "scholars" read Docetist literature? Clearly, the Greeks could NOT accept that God could become a man... It was their disgust of the Gospel proclamation of God becoming man and dying that forced them to explain away the humanity of the Christ as illusional...
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 1 Cor 1:21-24.
What is the "foolishness"? The idea that the Son of God's death on the cross was salvific. The idea that God would become man...
Celsus, a Platonist philosopher who was very knowledgeable about Christianity and its claims wrote (c 175 AD):
God is good and beautiful and happy, and exists in the most beautiful state. If then, he comes down to men, he must undergo change, a change from good to bad, from beautiful to shameful, from happiness to misfortunate, and from what is best to what is most wicked. Who would choose a change like this? It is the nature only of a mortal being to undergo change and remolding, whereas it is the nature of an immortal being to remain the same without alteration. Accordingly, God could not be capable of undergoing this change (the incarnation)... Either God does change, as the Christians say, into a mortal body; and it has already been said that this is an impossibility; Or he does not change, but makes those who see him think that he does so; and leads them astray, and tells lies... Dear Jews and Christians, no God or child of God has either come down or would want to come down (from heaven)! (Celsus' book is preserved in Origen's refutation, Contra Celsum. this is taken from Contra Celsum 4.14; 4.18; 5.2)
This passage says several things...
First, that Christians believed that Jesus was God become man in the flesh - at least 150 years BEFORE Nicea... This dispels the foolish notions that Constantine directed paganistic Hellenism into Christianity by himself.
Secondly, the Greek idea of the Supreme Diety was an impassible God. One totally separate from mankind, unchangeable in the eternity that transcends time and space. According to Celsus, God COULD NOT become man, because this would make God passable. Furthermore, it was a monstrosity to Greeks that God would SUFFER and experience DEATH on the cross. THIS was the "foolishness" that Paul spoke of to the Corinthians. The Greek idea that the Supreme God WOULD NOT become man made the Gospel FOOLISH.
Tertullian made a point of this difficulty, the offensiveness of the Incarnation, to the Greeks. He says that nobody would have dreamt of inventing anything so offensive to the Greeks! Tertullian reminded his readers that Paul has warned us that in the gospel we meet the foolishness of God. He writes to Marcion that IF we eliminate the foolishness of the birth and suffering of the Divine Son from the Gospel, there REMAINS NO FOOLISHNESS!
Which is more unworthy of God, which is more likely to raise a blush of shame, that God should be borne, or that he should die? That he should bear the flesh, or the cross? be circumcised, or be crucified, be cradled or be coffined, be laid in a manager, on in a tomb?
The Son of God was crucified. I am not ashamed of it, because it seems shameful. And the Son of God dies, it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd. And He was buried, and rose again; the fact is certain, precisely because it is impossible. (De carne Christi 5.1, 4)
According to Tertullian, the VERY FOOLISHNESS of the Christological confession carries the conviction of truth. This is something that could not be made up. Both Celsus and Tertullian were aware of the Greek response to the Incarnation. It was foolishness, an impossibility. As such, the Christian doctrine of the incarnation can hardly be the product of Hellenism. The Church Fathers concluded that this doctrine was indeed BIBLICAL and JEWISH.
My next post will show that Eastern Christological thought comes from the Jewish concept of Wisdom Incarnate, not Hellenism.
Regards
First of all. Is "the Christological dogma...a product of the spirit of Hellenism on the soil of the Gospel", as Adolf von Harnack assured us?
("Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte" is the primary source, the secondary source is "In the Shadows of the Temple", Oskar Skarsaune).
After him, it appears that almost every scholar writing on the subject of early church dogma blindly agreed with that thesis. Thus, many Christians and non-Christians are infected with this paradigm without really exploring the implication of that statement from von Harnack. Many would have us believe that the Greeks would LOVE to hear such things and would appreciate and embrace enthusiastically the doctrine later defined at Nicea, that Jesus was of the essence of God Himself.
However, most Hellenists would react in DISGUST over such ideas that God would come in the flesh and DIE on a cross in a most ignoble manner.
The ENTIRE CONCEPT COMPLETELY IGNORES THE REASON OF EXISTENCE OF THE DOCETISTS, who tried to teach that Jesus was NOT human at all, and was merely a form to fool people. Have these modern "scholars" read Docetist literature? Clearly, the Greeks could NOT accept that God could become a man... It was their disgust of the Gospel proclamation of God becoming man and dying that forced them to explain away the humanity of the Christ as illusional...
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 1 Cor 1:21-24.
What is the "foolishness"? The idea that the Son of God's death on the cross was salvific. The idea that God would become man...
Celsus, a Platonist philosopher who was very knowledgeable about Christianity and its claims wrote (c 175 AD):
God is good and beautiful and happy, and exists in the most beautiful state. If then, he comes down to men, he must undergo change, a change from good to bad, from beautiful to shameful, from happiness to misfortunate, and from what is best to what is most wicked. Who would choose a change like this? It is the nature only of a mortal being to undergo change and remolding, whereas it is the nature of an immortal being to remain the same without alteration. Accordingly, God could not be capable of undergoing this change (the incarnation)... Either God does change, as the Christians say, into a mortal body; and it has already been said that this is an impossibility; Or he does not change, but makes those who see him think that he does so; and leads them astray, and tells lies... Dear Jews and Christians, no God or child of God has either come down or would want to come down (from heaven)! (Celsus' book is preserved in Origen's refutation, Contra Celsum. this is taken from Contra Celsum 4.14; 4.18; 5.2)
This passage says several things...
First, that Christians believed that Jesus was God become man in the flesh - at least 150 years BEFORE Nicea... This dispels the foolish notions that Constantine directed paganistic Hellenism into Christianity by himself.
Secondly, the Greek idea of the Supreme Diety was an impassible God. One totally separate from mankind, unchangeable in the eternity that transcends time and space. According to Celsus, God COULD NOT become man, because this would make God passable. Furthermore, it was a monstrosity to Greeks that God would SUFFER and experience DEATH on the cross. THIS was the "foolishness" that Paul spoke of to the Corinthians. The Greek idea that the Supreme God WOULD NOT become man made the Gospel FOOLISH.
Tertullian made a point of this difficulty, the offensiveness of the Incarnation, to the Greeks. He says that nobody would have dreamt of inventing anything so offensive to the Greeks! Tertullian reminded his readers that Paul has warned us that in the gospel we meet the foolishness of God. He writes to Marcion that IF we eliminate the foolishness of the birth and suffering of the Divine Son from the Gospel, there REMAINS NO FOOLISHNESS!
Which is more unworthy of God, which is more likely to raise a blush of shame, that God should be borne, or that he should die? That he should bear the flesh, or the cross? be circumcised, or be crucified, be cradled or be coffined, be laid in a manager, on in a tomb?
The Son of God was crucified. I am not ashamed of it, because it seems shameful. And the Son of God dies, it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd. And He was buried, and rose again; the fact is certain, precisely because it is impossible. (De carne Christi 5.1, 4)
According to Tertullian, the VERY FOOLISHNESS of the Christological confession carries the conviction of truth. This is something that could not be made up. Both Celsus and Tertullian were aware of the Greek response to the Incarnation. It was foolishness, an impossibility. As such, the Christian doctrine of the incarnation can hardly be the product of Hellenism. The Church Fathers concluded that this doctrine was indeed BIBLICAL and JEWISH.
My next post will show that Eastern Christological thought comes from the Jewish concept of Wisdom Incarnate, not Hellenism.
Regards
