{"title":"路德和慈运理","authors":"R. Cross","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198846970.003.0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter shows that Luther’s Christology follows the basic structure of Ockham’s, both in terms of the metaphysics and the semantics. It demonstrates that Luther accepts the supposital-union theory, and shows how to read complex texts that have sometimes been taken to show the opposite. It is shown that Luther’s most distinctive and original claim is that the divine person is the bearer of his human accidents. The chapter contextualizes Luther’s claims about Christ’s bodily omnipresence in Medieval debates, and shows that Luther did not hold bodily omnipresence to amount to the possession of a divine attribute. It also provides a detailed account of Zwingli’s Christological semantics. It shows how Luther misunderstood Zwingli’s claims about the communicatio, and concludes that Zwingli’s Christology, contrary to Luther’s appraisal, is in no sense Nestorian.","PeriodicalId":360748,"journal":{"name":"Communicatio Idiomatum","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Luther and Zwingli\",\"authors\":\"R. Cross\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780198846970.003.0001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter shows that Luther’s Christology follows the basic structure of Ockham’s, both in terms of the metaphysics and the semantics. It demonstrates that Luther accepts the supposital-union theory, and shows how to read complex texts that have sometimes been taken to show the opposite. It is shown that Luther’s most distinctive and original claim is that the divine person is the bearer of his human accidents. The chapter contextualizes Luther’s claims about Christ’s bodily omnipresence in Medieval debates, and shows that Luther did not hold bodily omnipresence to amount to the possession of a divine attribute. It also provides a detailed account of Zwingli’s Christological semantics. It shows how Luther misunderstood Zwingli’s claims about the communicatio, and concludes that Zwingli’s Christology, contrary to Luther’s appraisal, is in no sense Nestorian.\",\"PeriodicalId\":360748,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Communicatio Idiomatum\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Communicatio Idiomatum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198846970.003.0001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communicatio Idiomatum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198846970.003.0001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
This chapter shows that Luther’s Christology follows the basic structure of Ockham’s, both in terms of the metaphysics and the semantics. It demonstrates that Luther accepts the supposital-union theory, and shows how to read complex texts that have sometimes been taken to show the opposite. It is shown that Luther’s most distinctive and original claim is that the divine person is the bearer of his human accidents. The chapter contextualizes Luther’s claims about Christ’s bodily omnipresence in Medieval debates, and shows that Luther did not hold bodily omnipresence to amount to the possession of a divine attribute. It also provides a detailed account of Zwingli’s Christological semantics. It shows how Luther misunderstood Zwingli’s claims about the communicatio, and concludes that Zwingli’s Christology, contrary to Luther’s appraisal, is in no sense Nestorian.