塞林图斯基督论的分类

IF 0.2 0 RELIGION
Michael J. Kok
{"title":"塞林图斯基督论的分类","authors":"Michael J. Kok","doi":"10.1080/2222582X.2018.1564348","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In the academic study of Christian origins, scholars have classified various christological systems of thought as “gnostic,” “docetic,” “adoptionist,” or “separationist.” This article will explore to what extent each of these taxonomic categories or ideal types corresponds to Cerinthus's postulation of the temporary union of the human Jesus with the divine Christ. It will further defend the accuracy of Irenaeus's description of Cerinthus's theological and christological positions and how they differed from those of the Jewish-Christian Ebionites on the one hand and a demiurgical theologian such as Carpocrates on the other.","PeriodicalId":40708,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Early Christian History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2222582X.2018.1564348","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Classifying Cerinthus’s Christology\",\"authors\":\"Michael J. Kok\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/2222582X.2018.1564348\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In the academic study of Christian origins, scholars have classified various christological systems of thought as “gnostic,” “docetic,” “adoptionist,” or “separationist.” This article will explore to what extent each of these taxonomic categories or ideal types corresponds to Cerinthus's postulation of the temporary union of the human Jesus with the divine Christ. It will further defend the accuracy of Irenaeus's description of Cerinthus's theological and christological positions and how they differed from those of the Jewish-Christian Ebionites on the one hand and a demiurgical theologian such as Carpocrates on the other.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40708,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Early Christian History\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2222582X.2018.1564348\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Early Christian History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/2222582X.2018.1564348\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Early Christian History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2222582X.2018.1564348","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

摘要在对基督教起源的学术研究中,学者们将各种基督论思想体系分为“灵知论”、“多科主义”、“收养论”或“分离论”。本文将探讨这些分类类别或理想类型在多大程度上与塞林图斯关于人类耶稣与神圣基督暂时结合的假设相对应。它将进一步捍卫Irenaeus对Cerinthus神学和基督论立场的描述的准确性,以及这些立场与犹太基督徒Ebionites和Carpocrates等非外科神学家的不同之处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Classifying Cerinthus’s Christology
ABSTRACT In the academic study of Christian origins, scholars have classified various christological systems of thought as “gnostic,” “docetic,” “adoptionist,” or “separationist.” This article will explore to what extent each of these taxonomic categories or ideal types corresponds to Cerinthus's postulation of the temporary union of the human Jesus with the divine Christ. It will further defend the accuracy of Irenaeus's description of Cerinthus's theological and christological positions and how they differed from those of the Jewish-Christian Ebionites on the one hand and a demiurgical theologian such as Carpocrates on the other.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
16.70%
发文量
16
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信