There are many questions that arise when discussing Jesus, more importantly, the historical Jesus VS the human Jesus. Some of the many questions that can be asked are, “What does history tell us about the human Jesus?” and “How do we understand Jesus’s humanity?”. By looking deep into these “simple” questions, one can discover many different answers to what become rather complex and un-simple questions. The Jesus of history leads to what can be said about the human Jesus. Meeting Jesus AGAIN for the First Time, by Marcus J. Borg, explains what history has to offer us about the human Jesus. The Gospels are historical documents that provide us with much of the information that we know about the human Jesus today. History can tell us who Jesus
…show more content…
How is it that Jesus referred to God as Abba, but is also God, and how is God fully God and also fully human? There are many different ways to approach this answer. Ebionitism, which viewed Jesus as an ordinary human being, and Docetism, which concluded Christ was not a real human being, were both quickly rejected (Christ in History, 64). A second view, monarchianism, had two subcategories: dynamic and modalistic. These explanations were also rejected. Dynamic monarchianism stated that, “Jesus was almost God” (Christ in History, 67). Modalistic monarchianism saw the three Persons of the Trinity simply as names that were used depending on the occasion, and was considered heretical by the church (Christ in History, 68). Following the rejection of the above explanations, the questions on Jesus’s humanity still remained. The Council of Nicea brought about many new explanations, but the Eastern and Western churches both had different ideas and felt that the other’s view left something out. It is apparent that this was not a simple question. Jesus’s divinity required a complex answer. In 451 AD The Council of Chalcedon was able to combat the major deviating views by saying that Jesus is fully and human and fully divine, but still could not provide a complete answer. The Council argued for a hypostatic union where Jesus is two natures in one person, and those two natures are not to get confused, separated, or
How is it that Jesus referred to God as Abba, but is also God, and how is God fully God and also fully human? There are many different ways to approach this answer. Ebionitism, which viewed Jesus as an ordinary human being, and Docetism, which concluded Christ was not a real human being, were both quickly rejected (Christ in History, 64). A second view, monarchianism, had two subcategories: dynamic and modalistic. These explanations were also rejected. Dynamic monarchianism stated that, “Jesus was almost God” (Christ in History, 67). Modalistic monarchianism saw the three Persons of the Trinity simply as names that were used depending on the occasion, and was considered heretical by the church (Christ in History, 68). Following the rejection of the above explanations, the questions on Jesus’s humanity still remained. The Council of Nicea brought about many new explanations, but the Eastern and Western churches both had different ideas and felt that the other’s view left something out. It is apparent that this was not a simple question. Jesus’s divinity required a complex answer. In 451 AD The Council of Chalcedon was able to combat the major deviating views by saying that Jesus is fully and human and fully divine, but still could not provide a complete answer. The Council argued for a hypostatic union where Jesus is two natures in one person, and those two natures are not to get confused, separated, or