{"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}
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.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
