Academic literature on the topic 'Ebionism'

AbstractOf the problems raised by Ignatius' letters, the most intransigent have been three.1 Were all the Asian churches to whom he wrote under pressure to "Judaize", or only Magnesia and Philadelphia? Were all these churches threatened by a "docetic" teaching, or only some, perhaps different from those with Judaizers?2 What precisely did the "docetism" consist of? I offer some reflections on the first two of these questions, and a new form (so far as I know) of a solution to the third: "docetism" is a modern misunderstanding for a form of Ebionism.3

This research examines the evidences of the divinity and humanity of Jesus in the New Testament. These two natures of Jesus have often been debated among Christians throughout the history of the church. Evidenced by the emergence of four popular views such as: ebionism, Arianism, docetism, apolinarism. By using qualitative research, the researcher examines, analyzes and elaborates literature, articles and studies from experts to find interpretations of the New Testament texts in order to produce valid and reliable views and be held as truth. The conclusion of this study is that the New Testament evidence shows that Jesus was true God and true man.

Abstract: This article discusses the divinity of Jesus Christ based on Philippians 2:6 as a theological answer to the christology of Ebionism, Arianism, and Jehovah's Witnesses. The main focus in this study is to examine theologically the meaning of “the image of God” in Philippians 2:6. This paper shows the result that Philippians 2:6 is explaining the divine qualifications of Jesus Christ which means Jesus Christ before the incarnation, He has existed in eternity with the Father. So it can be said that Jesus Christ is not a creation of God or an ordinary man because Jesus Christ is the same morphe as God the Father. This paper certainly uses a qualitative method, namely a method that describes a phenomenon under study. then to describe the phenomenon under study, of course, requires literature (library review). The purpose of this paper is for the lay congregation to fully and correctly understand the teachings of the Person of Jesus Christ (Christology) in order to ward off false teachings. Abstrak: Artikel ini membahas keilahian Yesus Kristus berdasarkan Filipi 2:6 sebagai jawaban teologis terhadap kristologi Ebionisme, Arianisme, dan Saksi Yehuwa. Fokus utama dalam kajian ini yaitu mengkaji secara teologis makna “rupa Allah” dalam Filipi 2:6. Tulisan ini memperlihatkan hasil bahwa Filipi 2:6 sedang menjelaskan kualifikasi ilahi Yesus Kristus yang artinya Yesus Kristus sebelum berinkarnasi, Ia telah ada dalam kekekalan bersama dengan Bapa. Jadi dapat dikatakan bahwa Yesus Kristus bukan ciptaan Allah atau manusia biasa karena Yesus Kristus morfe yang sama dengan Allah Bapa. Tulisan ini tentu menggunakan metode kualitatif yaitu metode yang mendeskripsikan sebuah fenomena yang dikaji. maka untuk mendeskripsikan fenomena yang diteliti tentunya membutuhkan literatur-literatur (kajian pustaka). Tujuan dari tulisan ini agar jemaat khusus awam bisa memahami secara utuh dan benar mengenai ajaran tentang Pribadi Yesus Kristus (Kristologi) guna menangkal ajaran yang sesat.

El presente artículo busca responder la pregunta: ¿Cuál es la cristología que defiende Gregorio Nacianceno en La Pasión de Cristo? A través del análisis e interpretación de los textos se descubre en qué sentido se defiende la verdadera divinidad y humanidad de Cristo, así como las cristologías divergentes que circulaban en la época. Los personajes del drama son la ocasión para manifestar las opiniones sobre Cristo: adopcionismo, monarquismo patripasiano, apolinarismo, arrianismo, docetismo y ebionismo. A partir de este análisis quedan manifiestas las líneas principales de la cristología de Gregorio Nacianceno, así como la creatividad de su obra escrita con la técnica del centón.

The aim of this article is to show that scholars assess the Infancy Gospel of Thomas disparagingly as “illogical”, “un-Christian” and “banal”. A more positive judgment is that it is either “Gnostic” or “purified of Gnosticism”, or merely one of many ancient tales in the form of a historical allegory about Jesus as a child. The article argues that the author of the Greek version of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in Codex Sinaiticus (Gr 453) describes the miracles of Jesus in a positive and negative light as if he were an adult. This phenomenon should be understood against the background that this second-century gospel is presented not so much in the genre of a Gnostic redeemer myth, but rather as a god-child myth that has neither an Orthodox nor a Gnostic orientation. Its context is rather early Ebionite Christianity.

Cloud computing, utility computing, the future will be the main IT field. The government and companies are realizing that foreigners can clearly increase the cloud with minimal costs and maximum flexibility in the plant or existing equipment. But the clouds to ensure user privacy and digital asset management challenge in cloud client. Protection must always contain a performance. The complex is a sure way to end the occupation of the problem, the study suggests two Ebionitism security architecture. The movement and different approaches to health and safety and the level of the best things for their security costs hyper-visor layer to a reduction in order to avoid false alarms

Artykuł opisuje herezje chrystologiczne występujące w Listach św. Hieronima. Są to arianizm, apolinaryzm, herezje, które głoszą ebionici i nazaretanie, herezje wyznające doketyzm oraz pelagianizm. Autor Wulgaty w opisywanych herezjach wykazuje nie tylko na błędy doktrynalne, ale również broni w swoich pismach ortodoksji wiary chrześcijańskiej. Artykuł wskazuje ponadto na istotne zagadnienia w chrystologii, na które zwrócił uwagę Mnich z Betlejem. Chodzi głównie o pomieszanie pojęć w grece i łacinie dotyczących terminów οὐσία i ὐπόστασις (spiritus asper), próba przywrócenia im właściwego znaczenia, formowanie właściwego znaczenia i rozumienia pojęcia persona, wskazywanie na niebezpieczeństwa pelagianizmu oraz powiązanie go z wcześniejszymi herezjami w celu zwrócenia uwagi na jego zgubne działanie.

Abstract Since the fourth century, Mark 13:32/Matt 24:36 have regularly been taken in hand as evidence of Jesus’s ignorance and used to advance subordinationist, kenotic, or Ebionite christological agendas. Meanwhile, modern biblical scholars regularly use patristic commentary on this passage as evidence that the classical Christian tradition advanced ahistorical, docetic eisegesis. In this essay, I consider patristic commentary on this pericope to show that these criticisms are unwarranted. The church fathers did not consider Jesus’s humanity to be an abstract, philosophical conundrum. Rather, their approach was driven by intertextual concerns set within a theistic metaphysical framework. They did not resolve a competition between Jesus’s humanity and divinity in favor of his divinity but upheld the confession that he was fully God and fully man in the face of a variety of approaches that threatened to corrupt or relinquish his humanity. I suggest that certain philosophical developments in the thought of Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) allow us to make distinctions that both uphold the patristic exegetical tradition and extend it in ways that do greater justice to the passage.

If this very weighty and important book did nothing else than establish the fact for modern systematic theology that the trinitarian theology of the fourth century cannot be understood properly by dividing Eastern from Western theology with the usual statement that the former begins with the three persons and moves towards the divine unity while the latter begins with the divine unity and moves towards the three persons, then something truly significant would have been accomplished (Nicaea, pp. 52, 384). Why? Because then one would not be able to trace a supposed modalist tendency directly from Augustine through much Western theology to contemporary theologians such as Barth in order to argue for a view of God's triunity which actually could undermine the full divinity of each of the persons of the Trinity who in reality exist eternally as three persons, one being. Consider, for instance, the remark made by Ted Peters that ‘There is no inherent reason for assuming that the three persons have to be identical or equal in nature.’ If one studies the development of fourth-century trinitarian theology, I think one would find many reasons to insist that the three persons are in fact equal in nature, among which are that any other assertion would undermine the divinity of the Son, lead to some sort of subordinationism or adoptionism (what Barth called Ebionite christology), and would ultimately strip the Gospel of its saving power.

Aquest treball pretén analitzar el procés de secularització de la manera d'entendre el curs i la finalitat de la història - especialment pel que fa a una possible consumació intrahistòrica - des d'un origen fonamentalment cristià fins a les modernes filosofies de la història que apuntaven a un progrés ineluctable, en concret les de Kant, Saint-Simon i Fichte. En particular es posa l'accent en el dinamisme secularitzador de dues de les més importants heretgies dels primers segles del cristianisme: la gnosi i l’ebionisme, que apareixen com a motors d'aquesta deformació. A continuació es destacarà el paper que ha tingut l'obra de Joaquín de Fiore a l’hora de transmetre a la posteritat certs aspectes heterodoxos que es prestaven a unes interpretacions errònies del curs de la història. Finalment s'evidenciarà que una esperança intrahistòrica al cristianisme ha estat defensada per diversos Pares de l'Església, per Sant Bonaventura i en part per Sant Agustí, mentre que les modernes filosofies de la història es presenten com a formes de immanentització de l'esperança escatològica cristiana.
Este trabajo pretende analizar el proceso de secularización del modo de entender el curso y la finalidad de la historia - especialmente acerca de una posible consumación intrahistórica - desde un origen fundamentalmente cristiano hasta las modernas filosofías de la historia que apuntaban a un progreso ineluctable, en concreto las de Kant, Saint-Simon y Fichte. En particular se hace hincapié en el dinamismo secularizador de dos de las más importantes herejías de los primeros siglos del cristianismo: la gnosis y el ebionismo, que se presentan como motores de dicha deformación. A continuación se destacará el papel que ha tenido la obra de Joaquín de Fiore en orden a trasmitir a la posteridad ciertos aspectos heterodoxos que se prestaban a unas interpretaciones erróneas del curso de la historia. Finalmente se evidenciará que una esperanza intrahistórica en el cristianismo ha sido defendida por varios Padres de la Iglesia, por San Buenaventura y en parte por San Agustín, mientras que las modernas filosofías de la historia se presentan como formas de inmanentización de la esperanza escatológica cristiana.

AFRIKAANS: Die Christendom is steeds die grootste religieuse beweging en die ontstaan daarvan word aan die historiese persoon, Jesus Christus, toegeskryf. Alhoewel talle Hom steeds as Verlosser en Here aanbid, bestaan alternatiewe opvattinge wat Hom tot ʼn mens reduseer wat tot ʼn verhewe geestelike vlak beweeg het. Vir die mensdom dien Hy dus slegs as voorbeeld en is teenstellend tot die tradisionele beskouing eeuelank deur die ortodokse Christendom voorgehou. Navorsers wat hierdie oorwegend ebionitiese opvatting jeens Jesus huldig, beweer dat die Nuwe Testament verkeerdelik goddelikheid aan Jesus toeskryf. Die wonderwerke aan Hom toegedig – veral sy geboorte uit ʼn maagd asook sy liggaamlike opstanding – word veral sedert die Verligting bevraagteken of selfs verwerp. Die betroubaarheid van die Nuwe Testament, en veral die evangelies, kom dus in die gedrang. Die bewering word ook gemaak dat rasionele persone nie meer aan so ʼn argaïese boodskap gehoor kan gee nie. Dié Christus in die vroeë kerk se geloof en verkondiging verwoord, is dus nie dieselfde persoon as dié een wat in die eerste eeu geleef het nie. Die Christus wat tans verkondig word, het dus nooit bestaan nie en die werklike historiese Jesus lê agter hierdie kerugmatiese Christus versluier en moet daarvan verlos word. Die ontstaan van die Skrifkritiek het ook tot die ondersoek na die historiese Jesus gelei. In die twintigste eeu het Barth, Bultmann, Moltmann en Pannenberg nuwere sistematies teologiese bydraes gelewer wat veral op die interpretasie van die opstanding van Jesus Christus gefokus het. Barth en Bultmann het hierin radikaal van mekaar verskil met eersgenoemde wat die belang van die liggaamlike opstanding van Jesus Christus, asook die leë graf as bevestiging daarvan, beklemtoon het. Met hierdie gebeure is Hy ook as die Seun van God aangetoon. Bultmann, aan die anderkant, het heelwat gegewens in die evangelies as van mitologiese aard beskou. Die opstanding is dus nie ʼn gebeurtenis in die geskiedenis van die wêreld nie en Jesus het slegs in die bewussyn van die dissipels opgestaan. Sy invloed het teologie-beoefening daarna drasties beïnvloed. Moltmann en Pannenberg beklemtoon die belang van die liggaamlike opstanding van Jesus as gebeure in die wêreldgeskiedenis en dus vir historiese navorsing oop. Beide beklemtoon ook die kosmiese belang van die Jesusgebeure. Die brandpunte in die teologiese debat rakende die opstanding behels wonderwerke asook die belang van historiese navorsing. Die bewerings in die evangelies aangaande die leë graf asook Jesus se verskynings, is dus in die spervuur. ʼn Fundamentele vraag is wat tot die ontstaan van die Christendom gelei het, asook die bepaalde vorm wat dit aangeneem het. Die historiese probleem bly steeds dat Jesus Christus se impak op die wêreldgeskiedenis die afgelope twee duisend jaar ongeëwenaard is. Die paradoksaliteit hiervan hang met die historiese feit saam dat Jesus na sowat drie tot vier jaar van sy bediening op ʼn aaklige wyse aan ʼn Romeinse kruishout gesterf het. Die verrassende was dat hy binne ʼn paar dae daarna deur veral Jode as God vereer is en hierdie beweging het binne ʼn kort tyd duisende volgelinge gehad. Die deurslaggewende rede vir hierdie drastiese verandering was dat ʼn aantal persone vanaf die derde dag na sy kruisdood beweer het dat hulle hom lewend ervaar en met hom oor ʼn periode van veertig dae ontmoetings gehad het. Hierdie persone het binne sewe weke hierdie gebeure as sentraal in hulle verkondiging beskou en dit het tot die ontstaan van die Christendom gelei. Hierdie drastiese gevolg vra na ʼn buitengewone oorsaak. Die tradisionele Christelike apologetiek aangaande die identiteit en betekenis van Jesus Christus as Seun van God is tot ʼn groot mate op die getuienis rakende wonderwerke in die evangelies, met die opstanding as hoogtepunt, gefundeer. Sedert die Verligting is die moontlikheid van wonderwerke egter bevraagteken en hiertoe het veral Spinoza en Hume bydraes gelewer. Die naturalistiese uitgangspunt het voorkeur geniet en daartoe gelei dat die moontlikheid van wonderwerke apriories uitgeskakel is. Die wetenskap het veral die Newtoniaanse meganiese ordening van die heelal aangehang. Aangesien wonderwerke ʼn verbreking hiervan is, is dit bevraagteken en selfs verwerp. Die betroubaarheid en die aard van die evangelies is dus aan die orde aangesien dit hierdie gebeure rapporteer. Die strewe na gelykvormigheid op alle gebiede in die wetenskap het daartoe gelei dat die opstanding van Jesus apriories uitgeskakel is aangesien ons tans geen ervaring het van dooie mense wat opstaan nie. Gevolglik is die evangelies histories onbetroubaar en heelwat gegewens daarin as van mitologiese aard beskou. Geskiedenis word egter deur onvoorspelbaarheid gekenmerk en uit die rapportering in die evangelies blyk die opstanding van Jesus Christus histories te wees. Die Joodse wêreldbeskouing waarbinne hierdie Jesusgebeure plaasgevind het, word juis deur God se optrede in die eskiedenis gekenmerk. Aangesien die opstanding as historiese gebeurtenis oorgedra word, blyk dit vir ondersoek oop te wees. Die literêre aard van die evangelies vergelyk met dié van Grieks-Romeinse biografieë van daardie tydperk – al is hulle met teologiese en kerugmatiese aspekte vermeng. Aangesien die Nuwe Testament en spesifiek die evangelieverhale in die Joodse wêreldbeeld veranker is, blyk die historiese betroubaarheid daarvan voorop te wees en rapporteer hulle dié Jesus van die geskiedenis. Veral die ooggetuie-aard daarvan, asook nabyheid aan die gebeure, maak hierdie dokumente betroubaar. Die opstandingsparadigma het met verloop van tyd in die Joodse gedagtegang ontwikkel en het deurentyd met liggaamlikheid te make gehad. Die Skepper- en Verbondsgod is lief vir sy skepping en algaande het die opvatting posgevat dat Hy nie sou toelaat dat sy skepping en veral die mense met wie Hy in ʼn verhouding getree het, tot niet sou gaan nie. Die term “opstanding” het in die eerste eeu vir beide Jood asook heiden liggaamlikheid beteken. Laasgenoemde het liggaamlike opstanding egter as onmoontlik beskou, maar die vroegste Christene, wat veral uit die Judaïsme gekom het, het dit aangaande Jesus Christus gesê. Met hul opmerking: “Hy is op die derde dag opgewek,” is die liggaamlike interpretasie voorop en laat reg aan die opstandingsverhale in die evangelies geskied. Die direkte, oftewel spesifieke, historiese getuienis rakende die opstanding van Jesus Christus fokus op die leë graf, asook die ontmoetings wat talle persone daarna met Jesus gehad het. Hulle het Hom opnuut lewend ervaar, alhoewel sy liggaam verandering ondergaan het. Die eerste Christene was egter nie op hierdie gebeure voorberei nie. Enige alternatiewe verklarings vir die leë graf asook ontmoetings daarna, lei tot allerlei ingewikkelde hipoteses wat die historiese gebeure nie op koherent eenvoudige wyse verklaar nie. Van belang, egter, is dat enige historiese ondersoek nie met absolute sekerheid nie, maar met waarskynlikheid gepaardgaan. Die indirekte historiese getuienis (omstandigheidsgetuienis) aangaande die opstanding van Jesus Christus het onder andere met die verandering van die eerste dissipels, asook die ontstaan van die Christendom te make. Joodse tradisies wat vir eeue gekoester en van lewensbelang beskou is, het binne ʼn kort tyd onder die eerste Christene, meestal Jode, drasties verander. ʼn Hoë Christologie het ook vroeg sy beslag gekry en die Nuwe Testament reflekteer hierdie teologiese benadering tot Jesus Christus as Logos en dus deel van die Drie-eenheid – veral die vroeë formule in 1 Korintiërs 15:3-7 onderstreep dit. Jesus se sterwe is ook op hierdie vroeë stadium as soteriologies aangedui. Verdere omstandigheidsgetuienis behels die herdefiniëring van die Joodse messiaanse verwagting asook die Joodse Godbeskouing. In Jesus het die God van Israel en die kosmos tussen sy skepsele kom woon. Gefundeerde historiese opstandingsnavorsing is tans van fundamentele belang en lei tot identifisering van die historiese Jesus. Dit identifiseer Hom ook as die vertrekpunt en historiese verwysing rakende die Godvraag. Met sy opstanding het Jesus die nuwe skepping en God se koninkryk ingelei wat die vernietiging van die dood impliseer. Die soteriologie sluit ook die totale materiële werklikheid in en die liggaamlike opstanding van Jesus beklemtoon dit juis. Die opstanding van Jesus Christus is koherent met ʼn Christelik-teïstiese wêreldbeskouing en lei noodwendig tot die herdefiniëring van enige wêreldbeskouing. Die Christosentriese benadering tot God toon ook God se aard aan ons. Veral die dienskneggestalte, asook die beoefening van geregtigheid, was by Hom voorop en toon aan dat navolging van Hom hieraan voorkeur behoort te gee. Hiermee word die navolging van Christus gekonkretiseer en die Heilige Gees speel hierin ʼn fundamentele rol. Verwondering en sinvolheid van die lewe word deur die opstanding van Jesus Christus daargestel. Die opstanding van Jesus bied dus ʼn fundamentele uitdaging aan enige wêreldbeskouing aangesien die mees aanvaarbare historiese verklaring vir hierdie gebeurtenis is dat Jesus liggaamlik uit die dood opgestaan het – dus ‘n unieke gebeurtenis van fundamentele en kosmiese belang. Die hipotese dat Jesus van Nasaret uit die dood opgewek is, was in die eerste eeu net so kontroversieel as tans en word nie slegs deur die moderne mens bevraagteken nie. Dit verskaf egter die mees koherente en bevredigende verklaring vir die ontstaan van die Christendom asook die spesifieke vorm wat dit aangeneem het. ENGLISH: Christianity remains the largest religious movement and its origin is ascribed to the historical person of Jesus Christ. Although many still worship him as Saviour and Lord, alternative viewpoints reduce him to a mere human being that evolved to a highly developed spiritual plane. To humankind he is therefore nothing more than an example and contradicts the traditional viewpoint held by orthodox Christianity throughout the centuries. Researchers subscribing to this ebionitical viewpoint, is of the opinion that the New Testament wrongly depicts him as God. Since the Enlightenment, especially the miracles ascribed to him – his virginal conception and bodily resurrection – are questioned, or plainly rejected. The reliability of the New Testament, and the gospels specifically, is questioned. It is maintained that a rational person can no more adhere to such an archaic message. Therefore, the Christ of the early faith and proclamation of the church, is not the same person who lived in the first century. The Christ presently proclaimed thus never existed and the real historical Jesus should be released from captivity. The commencement of Scriptural criticism led to the search for the historical Jesus. In the twentieth century Barth, Bultmann, Moltmann and Pannenberg produced newer systematic theological contributions that focused on the interpretation of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In this regard Barth and Bultmann differ substantially. Barth emphasises the importance of the bodily resurrection as well as the empty tomb of Jesus Christ as its corroboration, thereby confirming Him as the Son of God. Bultmann, on the other hand, regards much of the gospels as mythology. The resurrection, therefore, is not an event in the history of the world and Jesus only arose in the minds and memories of the apostles. Bultmann had an immense influence on theological research in the twentieth century. Moltmann and Pannenberg emphasise the importance of the bodily resurrection of Jesus as an event in world history and thus open to historical verification. Both emphasise the cosmic importance of the Jesus event. The issues in the theological debate regarding the resurrection are miracles and the importance of historical research thereof. The assertions in the gospels regarding the empty tomb and Jesus’ appearances are under scrutiny. A fundamental question is what led to the origin of Christianity as well as its specific features. The historical problem remains that the impact Jesus Christ made on world history the past two thousand years, is without parallel. Paradoxically it coheres with the historical fact that Jesus, after two to three years of ministry, was crucified by the Romans. The amazing development, however, is that within a few days mostly Jews worshipped him as God and within a short time this movement grew to multitudes praying to Jesus. The reason for this dramatic change was the announcement by a few people that on the third day after his crucifixion they had experiences of Jesus being alive and this continued for forty days. Within seven weeks these people announced this event as central to their faith and praxis and led to the origin of Christianity. Such a drastic effect cries out for a drastic cause. The traditional Christian apologetic regarding the identity and meaning of Jesus Christ as the Son of God is to a great extent founded on miracles in the gospels with the resurrection as the ultimate example thereof. Since the Enlightenment the possibility of miracles were questioned and Spinoza, as well as Hume, played a role in this. The naturalistic viewpoint enjoyed preference and led to the prior exclusion of miracles. The Newtonian mechanical ordering of the universe was the chosen scientific paradigm. Due to the fact that miracles represent a violation thereof, it was questioned and even rejected. Thereby the reliability as well as the nature of the gospels are questioned because they report these events. The quest towards uniformity in all aspects of science led to the prior exclusion of the resurrection of Jesus because of the contemporary lack of experience of deceased people rising from the dead. Therefore the gospels are regarded as later additions to the historical Jesus and interpreted as mythology. History is contingent and the gospels report the resurrection of Jesus as historical. The Jewish worldview that provided the setting for the events surrounding Jesus, had fundamentally been moulded by God’s involvement in history. Because the resurrection is reported as an historical event, it is open to research. The literary character of the gospels resembles biographies of that time although mixed with theological and kerygmatic aspects. Due to the fact that the New Testament, and specifically the gospels, are rooted in the Jewish worldview it seems that their historical reliability is above question and they represent the Jesus of history. Their eyewitness testimony and nearness to the events, specifically, establish these documents as reliable. Jesus’ selfconsciousness also comes to the fore and contributes to the religious-historical context that signifies the high probability of the bodily resurrection and meaningfully explains it. The resurrection paradigm developed in the Jewish mindset over time and had to do with corporeality. The Creator and God of the covenant loves his creation and the viewpoint gradually developed that He would not allow his creation, and especially the people to whom He relates, to perish. “Resurrection” in the first century to both Jew and gentile had to do with bodies. The gentiles regarded bodily resurrection as impossible, but the earliest Christians – mostly Jews – proclaimed it regarding Jesus. With their remark: “He is risen on the third day,” corporeality was foremost and reflected the resurrection narratives in the gospels. The direct, or specific historical witness regarding the resurrection of Jesus Christ, focuses on the empty tomb, as well as meetings with Jesus following the discovery of the empty tomb. They experienced him alive again, although his body had changed. The first Christians were not prepared for these events. Any alternative explanation for the empty tomb and meetings afterwards, leads to complicated hypotheses that do not reflect the historical events in a coherent and simple way. Of importance, however, is that historical research does not lead to absolute certainty but probability. The indirect historical evidence (circumstantial evidence) regarding the resurrection of Jesus Christ, focuses on the change the first disciples underwent, as well as the origin of Christianity. Jewish tradition for centuries regarded as of fundamental and life importance, changed dramatically within a short time period amongst Christians, mostly Jews. A high Christology developed within a very short time and the New Testament reflects this theological viewpoint with regard to Jesus Christ as Logos and thus part of the Trinity. The early formula in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 highlights this. At an early stage Jesus’ death was also indicated to be of soteriological nature. Further circumstantial evidence consists of the redefinition of the Jewish messianic expectation as well as the Jewish view about God. In Jesus the God of Israel and the cosmos came to dwell amongst his creatures. Thorough historical research is of fundamental importance and leads to identifying the historical Jesus. This establishes him as the historical reference point regarding the question about God. With his resurrection Jesus initiated the new creation as well as God’s kingdom and implies the annihilation of death. Soteriology has to do with the total universe, including its materiality, and the bodily resurrection of Jesus accentuates this. The resurrection of Jesus is coherent with a Christian-theistic worldview and necessarily leads to redefining any worldview. The Christological approach to God also shows his character. Servanthood, as well as righteousness, especially, was fundamental in his conduct. This implies that his followers should give this special attention. In this way the imitation of Christ becomes visible and the Holy Spirit plays a fundamental part. The resurrection of Christ accomplishes a sense of wonder as well as meaning to life. The resurrection of Jesus challenges any worldview fundamentally because the most acceptable historical explanation for this event is that Jesus rose bodily from the dead. This signifies a unique event of cosmic importance. The hypothesis that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, was in the first century just as controversial as today and not only questioned by modern man. It still provides the most coherent and satisfying explanation for the origin of Christianity as well as the specific form it took.
Thesis (PhD)--University of Pretoria, 2010.
Dogmatics and Christian Ethics
unrestricted

This investigation of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas focuses on the question why the author of this infancy gospel narrated the mighty deeds – either received as blessings or as curses – as though the child Jesus were an adult. A possibility is that the author could have been inspired by tales from antiquity in which the heroic deeds of gods, emperors and philosophers were projected to their infancy. The study purports that the answer to this question is rather to be found in the combination of myth interpretation and societal expectations with regard to children in a Hellenistic-Semitic context. The purpose of this study is to investigate the history of the Greek manuscripts and the translation history of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas as a second century infancy gospel, secondly to identify as the most authentic text the eleventh century version thereof in Codex Sinaiticus (Gr 453) and to translate it into Afrikaans. The study demonstrates that the most likely context within which this Greek manuscript of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was communicated most significantly was Ebionite early Christianity. By identifying and examining quotations from and allusions to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in works by the church fathers and by comparing the Greek expressions and phrases in the Greek manuscript in Codex Sinaiticus (Gr 453) with those of versions in other Greek manuscripts and early translations, a Gnostic tradition in the message can by ruled out, while Ebionite traditions can be confirmed. The child Jesus is depicted as interacting positively with his biological family which signifies salvation for other Israelites. Such salvation manifests in the identification and recognition of the child’s divinity by the Israelite teachers. The study argues that the Greek version of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in Codex Sinaiticus (Gr 453) represents the genre of a discursive-biographical gospel type and as a result, the narrative and argumentative structure of this infancy gospel is of great importance. So too is the phenomenon that the narrative argument of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is cast in the form of the ancient god-child myth. In this myth the child acts as if he were an adult. This adult-like behaviour of the child Jesus is not interpreted in an allegorically way. Rather, as myth, the message is interpreted in a tautegoric manner and explained in a social scientific way.
Thesis (DLitt (Greek))--University of Pretoria, 2006.
Ancient Languages
unrestricted

Bibliography: leaves 653-669
Before God created human beings, He devised a plan to save them in case they sinned. In this plan, the second Person of the Godhead would become human. Thus, the incarnation of the second Person of the Godhead was solely for the purpose of saving fallen, sinful human beings. There would have been no incarnation if human beings had not sinned. Thus, the nature of the mission that necessitated the incarnation determined what kind of human nature Jesus was to assume. It was sin that necessitated the incarnation – sin as a tendency and sin as an act of disobedience. In His incarnational life and later through His death on Calvary’s cross, Jesus needed to deal with this dual problem of sin. In order for Him to achieve this, He needed to identify Himself with the fallen humanity in such a way that He would qualify to be the substitute for the fallen humanity. In His role as fallen humanity’s substitute, He would die vicariously and at the same time have sin as a tendency rendered impotent. Jesus needed to assume a human nature that would qualify Him to be an understanding and sympathetic High Priest. He needed to assume a nature that would qualify Him to be an example in overcoming temptation and suffering. Thus, in this study, after comparing and critically evaluating the Christological views of Jack Sequeira, Millard J. Erickson and Norman R. Gulley, I propose that Jesus assumed a unique post-fall (postlapsarian) human nature. He assumed the very nature that all human beings since humankind’s fall have, with its tendency or leaning towards sin. However, unlike other human beings, who are sinners by nature and need a saviour, Jesus was not a sinner. I contend that Jesus was unique because, first and foremost, He was conceived in Mary’s womb by the power of the Holy Spirit and was filled with the Holy Spirit throughout His earthly life. Second; He was the God-Man; and third, He lived a sinless life. This study contributes to literature on Christology, and uniquely to Christological dialogue between Evangelical and Seventh-day Adventist theologians.
Philosophy, Practical and Systematic Theology
D. Phil. (Systematic Theology)

Origen mentions Philo by name only three times in his surviving works. More often, he refers to Philo obliquely as “one of our predecessors” or, more literally, “one of those who came before us.” An analysis of Origen’s references to Philo in light of his usage of the terms Jew, Hebrew, Israel, and Ebionite in Contra Celsum and the Commentary on Matthew reveals Origen’s approval of Philo’s allegorical interpretations of biblical narratives. Yet on one occasion, Origen criticizes Philo for failing to interpret the commandments of the Jewish law “according to the spirit” rather than “according to the letter.” Origen charges Philo with committing the same error that he charges against Jews in general, namely, the failure to interpret and observe the commandments of the Mosaic law spiritually rather than literally.

José Costa reminds us that, while the Qur’ān refers to Jesus as the ‘Messiah’, it never explains the meaning of the term. And if one leaves aside the ambiguous passages dealing with al-masīḥ, then the Messiah and messianism do not appear in the Qur’ān. This absence is all the more puzzling given that eschatology and apocalypticism do play an important role within it. Costa argues that the early layers of the Qur’ān contain a non-messianic eschatology, and the late layers a non-eschatological Messiah. The former may be related to a Jewish background, the latter connected to Ebionite Christology.