What do you think?
Rate this book
اسطوره تجسد خدا
این کتاب شامل ده مقاله از هفت نویسنده مسیحی است که مسئله الوهیت عیسی را که بر اساس نظریه تجسد خدا توجیه شده، نقد و بررسی کرده اند.
کتاب اسطوره تجسد خدا در دو بخش سنجش منابع و سنجش تحولات با این هدف نگارش یافته که اثبات کند تجسد خدا و الوهیت مسیح، اسطوره است و واقعیت ندارد.
عیسای تاریخی تصوری از خود به عنوان «خدای متجسد» یا «تجسد شخص دوم تثلیث الهی » نداشت. همچنان که تصور عیسی در سه انجیل مرقس، متی و لوقا تفاوتی با تصور او در قرآن، به عنوان یک پیامبر بزرگ الهی ندارد.
هاله ای از شواهد، اسطوره ای در الهیات، عیسی و ادیان جهانی، مسیح جهان مسیحیت، عیسی؛ مرد سرنوشت جهانی، مسیحیت بدون تجسد و مشرب تجربه از جمله مباحث طرح شده در این کتاب است.
از نویسندگان این مقالات می توان موریس وایلز، فرانسیس یانگ، مایکل گولدر، لسلی هولدن، دان کیوپیت، دنیس ناینم و جان هیک را نام برد.
این کتاب در 30 سال پیش توسط هفت نفر منتشر شد و با وجود اینکه موضوع آن سخن جدیدی نبود غوغایی در بین مسیحیان برانگیخت.
کتاب اسطوره تجسد خدا در دو بخش سنجش منابع و سنجش تحولات با این هدف نگارش یافته که اثبات کند تجسد خدا و الوهیت مسیح، اسطوره است و واقعیت ندارد.
عیسای تاریخی تصوری از خود به عنوان «خدای متجسد» یا «تجسد شخص دوم تثلیث الهی » نداشت. همچنان که تصور عیسی در سه انجیل مرقس، متی و لوقا تفاوتی با تصور او در قرآن، به عنوان یک پیامبر بزرگ الهی ندارد.
هاله ای از شواهد، اسطوره ای در الهیات، عیسی و ادیان جهانی، مسیح جهان مسیحیت، عیسی؛ مرد سرنوشت جهانی، مسیحیت بدون تجسد و مشرب تجربه از جمله مباحث طرح شده در این کتاب است.
از نویسندگان این مقالات می توان موریس وایلز، فرانسیس یانگ، مایکل گولدر، لسلی هولدن، دان کیوپیت، دنیس ناینم و جان هیک را نام برد.
این کتاب در 30 سال پیش توسط هفت نفر منتشر شد و با وجود اینکه موضوع آن سخن جدیدی نبود غوغایی در بین مسیحیان برانگیخت.
- GenresChristianityTheology
387 pages, Unknown Binding
First published July 1, 1977
3 people are currently reading
79 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
March 11, 2025
For an assignment
June 30, 2024
BEFORE THERE WAS THE JESUS SEMINAR, THERE WAS THIS BOOK
The Myth of God Incarnate is a 1977 book edited by John Harwood Hick (1922-2012), who was a philosopher of religion and theologian who taught at a number of universities.
The Preface states, “The writers of this book are convinced that another major theological development is called for in this last part of the twentieth century. The need arises from growing knowledge of Christian origins, and involves a recognition that Jesus was ... 'a man approved by God' for a special role within the divine purpose, and that the later conception of him as God incarnate ... is a mythological or poetic way of expressing his significance for us… Many people, including both conservative believers and perhaps a still larger group of conservative unbelievers, will take exception to the thinking that is going on in this book. They will hold that Christianity consists… in a certain definite set of beliefs, and that theologians who seek to modify or reinterpret those beliefs … would be more honest… to abandon the faith as no longer tenable. To this it must be replied that modern scholarship has shown that the supposed unchanging set of beliefs is a mirage. Christianity was from the first very diverse, and has never ceased developing…. ‘Orthodoxy’ is a myth, which can and often does inhibit the creative thinking which Christianity sorely needs today. We therefore ask that the ideas and arguments in this book be judged on their merits rather than by their conformity to some previous stage of Christian development…
“There is nothing new to the main theme of this book and we make no pretense to originality A growing number of Christians… have been thinking along these lines. But we have written this book in order to place the topic firmly on the agenda of discussion… It the course of writing this book we have met together for discussion five times during the last three years, and we now offer the results in the hope they will stimulate a wider discussion both inside and outside the churches.”
Frances Young points out, “there are difficulties in tracing explicit Messianic claims back to Jesus himself. Apart from John whose interpretative material is clearly placed upon the lips of Jesus, the gospels invariably portray not Jesus but others as using phrases like the ‘Holy One of God,’ or ‘Son of David,’ or ‘Son of God.’ Alone of all the titles ‘Son of Man’ regularly appears as used by Jesus himself, and even here the evidence if puzzling, partly because of the continuing uncertainty as to the implications of the phrase, but also because in some texts Jesus seems to be referring to a figure other than himself... Furthermore, Mark’s gospel conveys the impression that Jesus attempted to keep his identity as Messiah a secret divulged only to his inner circle.” (Pg. 17-18)
She continues, “It is hardly surprising that the fathers themselves were driven to admit that the ultimate nature of the divine and his relationship with the world is a mystery inexplicable in terms of human philosophy. It would be less than true to this insight to regard their theology… as timeless and unquestionable… It is not by accepting traditional formulations as God-given and unquestionable that we join the band of witnesses with the problem of expressing intelligently in our own contemporary environment, our personal testimony to the redemptive effect of faith in Jesus of Nazareth.” (Pg. 29-30)
Michael Goulder writes, “The assumption of Jesus’ human ancestry runs all through Gal 3… The promises were made to Abraham and to his seed.’ [v. 16]. It does not say And to seeds,’ referring to man; but referring to one… The argument falls to the ground if Jesus is not Abraham’s seed… when Paul is writing to incarnation-minded converts at Corinth, the new christology is drawn in, however briefly. In Romans and Galatians it is pushed into the background by more familiar notions. Even in Philippians, Paul's last letter, there seems to be a wavering in the logic. Christ Jesus was in the form of God and emptied himself, being born; and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross; therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name. But if he was in the form of God, did he not have the name which is above every name from the beginning? It looks as if a landing christology has been prefixed to, and not quite assimilated to, a take-off christology.” (Pg. 78-79)
He adds, “Luke shows honest traces of the old Galilean christology when he makes Peter say in Acts 2:22, 36, ‘Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God… Let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God HAS MADE HIM both Lord and Christ.’ Jesus was a man to whom God bore witness by the miracles: now he has by his resurrection made him Messiah…” (Pg. 80)
Don Cupitt says, “the doctrine of Christ must be such as to strengthen and purify, not to compromise, men’s understanding of the divine transcendence. For it is the divine TRANSCENDENCE which alone judges, delivers and restores, as Jesus, in his teaching and in his person, communicates the power of transcendence (the Holy Spirit) to his disciples. God is with man, in man, only in his transcendence. The criterion of religious adequacy, rightly understood, itself demands that christology be not any kind of man-cult: it must be theocentric, not christocentric.” (Pg. 146)
John Hick suggests, “it must be doubted whether the resurrection-event---whatever its nature---was seen by Jesus’ contemporaries as guaranteeing his divinity. For the raising of the dead to life, understood in its most literal sense, did not at that time and in those circles seem so utterly earth-shaking and well nigh incredible as it does to the modern mind. This is evident from the numerous raisings of the dead referred to in the New Testament and the patristic writings. Jesus is said to have raised Lazarus… and Jairus’ daughter… and to have told John the Baptist’s messengers to report that they had seen… that the dead are being raised up…” (Pg. 170)
He argues, “we find within the New Testament itself a variety of terms being tried out. Some of them failed to catch on: Jesus’ self-designation as the eschatological Son of Man who was to come on the clouds of heaven is not used outside the reports of his own teaching; and St. Paul’s distinctive designation of him as the second Adam, although it has persisted down to today, has never been very widely or centrally used. St. John’s use of the idea of the Logos has remained important, through mainly as a theologian’s title. But the central development is that which began with Jesus as the Messiah of the Jews and culminated in the Nicene identification of him as God the Son, Second Person of the Trinity, incarnate.” (Pg. 174)
Dennis Nineham points out, “Is it, however, possible to validate claims of the kind in question on the basis of historical evidence? To prove an historical negative, such as the sinlessness of Jesus, is notoriously difficult to the point of impossibility. How, for example, could even the most constant companion of Jesus have been sure he remained unbrokenly true to his own principles and never, for example, ‘looked on a woman to lust after her’ in the sense of Matthew 5:28? Such a question is not for a moment asked with any intention of casting doubt on the sexual purity of Jesus; it is meant simply as an example designed to show that the sort of claims for Jesus we are discussing could not be justified to the hilt by ANY historical records, however full or intimate or contemporary they might be, and even if their primary concern was with the quality and development of Jesus’ inner life and character.” (Pg. 188)
Don Cupitt closes on the note, "How can we depend upon the uncertainties of historical tradition for our knowledge of, and our power to attain, a history-transcending truth? Here the doctrine of Christ and the doctrine of man coincide; for this is not just A problem, but the human condition itself."
The controversy following the publication of this book prompted a 1979 sequel (Incarnation and Myth: The Debate Continued), as well as several critical volumes (e.g., The Truth of God Incarnate; God Incarnate: Meeting the Contemporary Challenges to a Classic Christian Doctrine; and The Myth/Truth of God Incarnate: The Tenth National Conference of Trinity Institute).
The Myth of God Incarnate is a 1977 book edited by John Harwood Hick (1922-2012), who was a philosopher of religion and theologian who taught at a number of universities.
The Preface states, “The writers of this book are convinced that another major theological development is called for in this last part of the twentieth century. The need arises from growing knowledge of Christian origins, and involves a recognition that Jesus was ... 'a man approved by God' for a special role within the divine purpose, and that the later conception of him as God incarnate ... is a mythological or poetic way of expressing his significance for us… Many people, including both conservative believers and perhaps a still larger group of conservative unbelievers, will take exception to the thinking that is going on in this book. They will hold that Christianity consists… in a certain definite set of beliefs, and that theologians who seek to modify or reinterpret those beliefs … would be more honest… to abandon the faith as no longer tenable. To this it must be replied that modern scholarship has shown that the supposed unchanging set of beliefs is a mirage. Christianity was from the first very diverse, and has never ceased developing…. ‘Orthodoxy’ is a myth, which can and often does inhibit the creative thinking which Christianity sorely needs today. We therefore ask that the ideas and arguments in this book be judged on their merits rather than by their conformity to some previous stage of Christian development…
“There is nothing new to the main theme of this book and we make no pretense to originality A growing number of Christians… have been thinking along these lines. But we have written this book in order to place the topic firmly on the agenda of discussion… It the course of writing this book we have met together for discussion five times during the last three years, and we now offer the results in the hope they will stimulate a wider discussion both inside and outside the churches.”
Frances Young points out, “there are difficulties in tracing explicit Messianic claims back to Jesus himself. Apart from John whose interpretative material is clearly placed upon the lips of Jesus, the gospels invariably portray not Jesus but others as using phrases like the ‘Holy One of God,’ or ‘Son of David,’ or ‘Son of God.’ Alone of all the titles ‘Son of Man’ regularly appears as used by Jesus himself, and even here the evidence if puzzling, partly because of the continuing uncertainty as to the implications of the phrase, but also because in some texts Jesus seems to be referring to a figure other than himself... Furthermore, Mark’s gospel conveys the impression that Jesus attempted to keep his identity as Messiah a secret divulged only to his inner circle.” (Pg. 17-18)
She continues, “It is hardly surprising that the fathers themselves were driven to admit that the ultimate nature of the divine and his relationship with the world is a mystery inexplicable in terms of human philosophy. It would be less than true to this insight to regard their theology… as timeless and unquestionable… It is not by accepting traditional formulations as God-given and unquestionable that we join the band of witnesses with the problem of expressing intelligently in our own contemporary environment, our personal testimony to the redemptive effect of faith in Jesus of Nazareth.” (Pg. 29-30)
Michael Goulder writes, “The assumption of Jesus’ human ancestry runs all through Gal 3… The promises were made to Abraham and to his seed.’ [v. 16]. It does not say And to seeds,’ referring to man; but referring to one… The argument falls to the ground if Jesus is not Abraham’s seed… when Paul is writing to incarnation-minded converts at Corinth, the new christology is drawn in, however briefly. In Romans and Galatians it is pushed into the background by more familiar notions. Even in Philippians, Paul's last letter, there seems to be a wavering in the logic. Christ Jesus was in the form of God and emptied himself, being born; and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross; therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name. But if he was in the form of God, did he not have the name which is above every name from the beginning? It looks as if a landing christology has been prefixed to, and not quite assimilated to, a take-off christology.” (Pg. 78-79)
He adds, “Luke shows honest traces of the old Galilean christology when he makes Peter say in Acts 2:22, 36, ‘Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God… Let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God HAS MADE HIM both Lord and Christ.’ Jesus was a man to whom God bore witness by the miracles: now he has by his resurrection made him Messiah…” (Pg. 80)
Don Cupitt says, “the doctrine of Christ must be such as to strengthen and purify, not to compromise, men’s understanding of the divine transcendence. For it is the divine TRANSCENDENCE which alone judges, delivers and restores, as Jesus, in his teaching and in his person, communicates the power of transcendence (the Holy Spirit) to his disciples. God is with man, in man, only in his transcendence. The criterion of religious adequacy, rightly understood, itself demands that christology be not any kind of man-cult: it must be theocentric, not christocentric.” (Pg. 146)
John Hick suggests, “it must be doubted whether the resurrection-event---whatever its nature---was seen by Jesus’ contemporaries as guaranteeing his divinity. For the raising of the dead to life, understood in its most literal sense, did not at that time and in those circles seem so utterly earth-shaking and well nigh incredible as it does to the modern mind. This is evident from the numerous raisings of the dead referred to in the New Testament and the patristic writings. Jesus is said to have raised Lazarus… and Jairus’ daughter… and to have told John the Baptist’s messengers to report that they had seen… that the dead are being raised up…” (Pg. 170)
He argues, “we find within the New Testament itself a variety of terms being tried out. Some of them failed to catch on: Jesus’ self-designation as the eschatological Son of Man who was to come on the clouds of heaven is not used outside the reports of his own teaching; and St. Paul’s distinctive designation of him as the second Adam, although it has persisted down to today, has never been very widely or centrally used. St. John’s use of the idea of the Logos has remained important, through mainly as a theologian’s title. But the central development is that which began with Jesus as the Messiah of the Jews and culminated in the Nicene identification of him as God the Son, Second Person of the Trinity, incarnate.” (Pg. 174)
Dennis Nineham points out, “Is it, however, possible to validate claims of the kind in question on the basis of historical evidence? To prove an historical negative, such as the sinlessness of Jesus, is notoriously difficult to the point of impossibility. How, for example, could even the most constant companion of Jesus have been sure he remained unbrokenly true to his own principles and never, for example, ‘looked on a woman to lust after her’ in the sense of Matthew 5:28? Such a question is not for a moment asked with any intention of casting doubt on the sexual purity of Jesus; it is meant simply as an example designed to show that the sort of claims for Jesus we are discussing could not be justified to the hilt by ANY historical records, however full or intimate or contemporary they might be, and even if their primary concern was with the quality and development of Jesus’ inner life and character.” (Pg. 188)
Don Cupitt closes on the note, "How can we depend upon the uncertainties of historical tradition for our knowledge of, and our power to attain, a history-transcending truth? Here the doctrine of Christ and the doctrine of man coincide; for this is not just A problem, but the human condition itself."
The controversy following the publication of this book prompted a 1979 sequel (Incarnation and Myth: The Debate Continued), as well as several critical volumes (e.g., The Truth of God Incarnate; God Incarnate: Meeting the Contemporary Challenges to a Classic Christian Doctrine; and The Myth/Truth of God Incarnate: The Tenth National Conference of Trinity Institute).
Read
July 7, 2009Buku yang diedit oleh John Hick ini berisi kumpulan artikel dari para teolog (juga filsuf) yang mengusung teologi pluralisme. Melalui tulisan-tulisan tersebut mereka ingin meyakinkan pembacanya bahwa sudah saatnya Kristologi ortodoks (mis., Inkarnasi Kristus, Dua Natur Kristus, Kelahiran dari Anak Dara, Nilai Substitusional dari Karya Penebusan Kristus,dsb). Alasanya, misalnya, Yesus sendiri tidak pernah mengajarkan bahwa Dia adalah Allah; bahwa Dia dilahirkan dari seorang perawan, dsb.
Jika demikian, kesimpulan apa yang harus kita tarik ketika kita membaca PB yang berisi klaim-klaim deifikasi Kristus? Menurut para penulis buku ini, salah satunya: John Hick, klaim-klaim ketuhanan Kristus harus dimengerti sebagai mitos. Itulah pengertian yang cocok untuk pengakuan ortodoks mengenai Kristus.
Konkretnya, jika anda adalah seorang yang mengaku bahwa Yesus adalah TUHAN, Yesus dilahirkan dari seorang perawan, Yesus adalah satu-satunya Inkarnasi Allah, Yesus adalah satu-satunya Juruselamat dunia, maka para penulis buku ini berusaha meyakinkan anda bahwa semua klaim tersebut adalah mitos.
Adalah bijaksana, menurut saya, untuk membaca buku ini dengan sikap yang sama kritisnya dengan sikap yang mereka perlihatkan terhadap klaim-klaim Kristologi Ortodoks. Cukup adilkan?
Jika demikian, kesimpulan apa yang harus kita tarik ketika kita membaca PB yang berisi klaim-klaim deifikasi Kristus? Menurut para penulis buku ini, salah satunya: John Hick, klaim-klaim ketuhanan Kristus harus dimengerti sebagai mitos. Itulah pengertian yang cocok untuk pengakuan ortodoks mengenai Kristus.
Konkretnya, jika anda adalah seorang yang mengaku bahwa Yesus adalah TUHAN, Yesus dilahirkan dari seorang perawan, Yesus adalah satu-satunya Inkarnasi Allah, Yesus adalah satu-satunya Juruselamat dunia, maka para penulis buku ini berusaha meyakinkan anda bahwa semua klaim tersebut adalah mitos.
Adalah bijaksana, menurut saya, untuk membaca buku ini dengan sikap yang sama kritisnya dengan sikap yang mereka perlihatkan terhadap klaim-klaim Kristologi Ortodoks. Cukup adilkan?
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews