Global ETD Search

1	Chalkedonský sněm z pohledu křesťanské Orthodoxie a monofyzitské Koptské ortodoxní církve. / The Council of Chalcedon from the point of view of Christian Orthodoxy and the Monophysite Coptic Orthodox Church. David, Miloš January 2020 (has links) The thesis deals with the comparison attitudes of two Eastern Christian traditions - Orthodox and Coptic to 4th ecumenical council, which held in 451 in Chalcedon. The Monophysite, or Non- Chalcedonian, Coptic Orthodox Church regards it as return to the heterodox teaching called Nestorianism whilst Eastern Orthodox Church this council considers in accordance with the Orthodox doctrine. For Orthodox Christians Chalcedon represents the breakthrough for a refinement of the Christology, concretely in the doctrine about two natures - divine and human - in single person of Christ which the Copts regard as return to Nestorian heresy which due to its dualism interfered the integrity of the person of Christ. The thesis puts forward the insight into the Council of Chalcedon from both perspectives objectively. The thesis is based on authors which represent Orthodox and Coptic traditions but also on these who researched this issue solely from a historical-theological point of view. I have noted reasons - theological and non-theological - why the Copts reject to accept conclusions of this ecumenical council to this day, among other things. I have tried to point out that Monophysitism, or Miaphysitism - whose way the Copts follow - is not only a heretical teaching from the Orthodox theological point of view but...
2	Jesus Christ’s humanity in the contexts of the pre-fall and post-fall natures of humanity: a comparative and critical evaluative study of the views of Jack Sequeira, Millard J. Erickson and Norman R. Gulley Mwale, Emanuel 12 1900 (has links) 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) Adoptionism Alleles Anhypostatic Christology Anthropotokos Alternative Christology Apollinarianism Apthartodocetism Arianism Augustinian model Autosomal chromosomes Autosomal inheritance Born-again Christology Chalcedonian creed Christology from above Christotokos Chromosomes Chromosomal abnormalities Cloning Co-dominance Communicatio idiomatum Complementary base pairing Cri-du-chat syndrome Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) Diploid cell Docetism Dominant gene Down syndrome Dynamic incarnation Dynamic monarchianism Eastern Orthodox Christology Ebionitism Embryogenesis Eutychianism Evangelical Christology Existential Christology Functional Christology Genes Gene mutation Gene expression Genome Genotype Gnosticism Hamartiology Haploid cell Heterozygous History of Jesus’ Christology Homoiousios Theology Homozygous Human cloning Immaculate conception Incarnation Incarnational life Inheritance Karyotype Kenoticism Klinefelter syndrome Logos-flesh Christology Meiosis Mitosis Modalistic monarchianism Monarchianism Monophysitism Mutation Nestorianism Nicene Creed One-nature Christology Ontological Christology Organogenesis Patripassianism Phenotype Polygenic inheritance Post lapsarian view/model Prelapsarian view/model Recessive gene Roman Catholic Christology Sabellianism Seventh-day Adventist Christology Sex chromosomes Sex-linked inheritance Speculative Christology Theotokos Turner syndrome Two-natures Christology Unique post-fall Christology Socinianism Soteriology Theotokos Turner syndrome Two-natures Christology Unique post-fall Christology Virginal conception 231.4 Seventh-Day Adventists -- Doctrines Salvation -- Seventh-Day Adventists Fall of man -- History of doctrines Jesus Christ -- History of doctrines Sequerra, Jack Erickson, Millard J. Gulley, Norman R.

Search results

Chalkedonský sněm z pohledu křesťanské Orthodoxie a monofyzitské Koptské ortodoxní církve. / The Council of Chalcedon from the point of view of Christian Orthodoxy and the Monophysite Coptic Orthodox Church.

Jesus Christ’s humanity in the contexts of the pre-fall and post-fall natures of humanity: a comparative and critical evaluative study of the views of Jack Sequeira, Millard J. Erickson and Norman R. Gulley