Jurgen Moltmann and the Second Quest for the Historical Jesus (Intro to Christology)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 лип 2023
- Our website: / justandsinner
Patreon: / justandsinner
This video is the second of three in a series covering the Christology of the twentieth century. I address the second quest for the historical Jesus, and then discuss the ideas of Jurgen Moltmann.
Thank you. I’ve watched all of your Christology videos. The fact that this seminary school level of depth is on UA-cam for free is amazing. Please continue making these videos despite the lack of popularity they garner.
I was Prof. Moltmann's last doctoral student at the University of Tübingen (2019-2022). There is much I found to be correct here, in terms of how Moltmann understands the suffering of the Triune God. I do not agree, however, with the sharp difference posited between Theology of Hope and The Crucified God. Rather, I think there is a consistency throughout Moltmann's theology, which is found in his development of a Trinitarian eschatologia crucis. The development beginning in Trinity and the Kingdom of God (1980) is arguably that he turns increasingly to theology as Wisdom, whereas prior to this text his reading of a theologia crucis was (perhaps overly) indebted to Walther von Loewenich, and thus somehow to "dialectical theology." Moltmann's understanding of theology as Wisdom (sapientia) is found in Experiences in Theology: Ways and Forms of Christian Theology (2000), Science and Wisdom (2003), and his newest book available only in German Weisheit in der Klimakrise: Perspektiven einer Theologie des Lebens (31 August 2023). Also, Dr. Jordan Cooper has overlooked Moltmann's reception and radicalization of Karl Barth's Doctrine of Election in the Crucified God, particularly where Moltmann receives Barth's phrase, "The crucified Jesus is the image of the invisible God." Dr. Cooper does, however, bring to light well how Moltmann is receiving Barth's "actualism" related to Christology and the Being of God. Another critique I have is Dr. Cooper has not, at least in my view, addressed how Moltmann is attempting to critique Luther not only through Hegel but through Paul. Further, Moltmann does not argue for "patripassionism," which would obvisouly be a classical Christian heresy, but for "patricompassionism." This distinction is important to emphasize, which Dr. Cooper has overlooked (see The Crucified God, p. 243). Finally, the critique of Moltmann's Trinitarianism as tritheism (a critique that has been charged at him before) overlooks the fullness of Moltmann's reception of the ancient Eastern Christian doctrine of perichoresis, with scriptural roots in John 17:21. In addition to Trinity and the Kingdom, Moltmann's book of essays History and the Triune God helps to make clear what he intends to propose related to social Trinitarianism and perichoresis.
Dr. Cooper, you really need to work on your confession of sins. St. Augustine says in The Confessions, "make me chaste, but not yet" and you say in a video "I want to learn German, but not yet". :)
In my own experience, having someone feel my pain was not helpful at all. Just two examples. My former church at one time was going through some very difficult problems. The Presbytery sent in someone to help us go through that. She had what I would call a non-anxious presence, and because she was not in the pain, she could help us get beyond it. The second example is that my father would always feel a lot of pain when I was going through pain. Because of that, I never felt that I could confide in him because it would just cause him pain. What we need when we suffer is someone who can help and can care, but is not themselves suffering the same thing we are.
Thank you, Dr. Cooper!
I don't think I'll ever get over you saying "edgelords". And thanks for this series. :D
Thank you, very educational.
It makes me wonder what thing that Jesus said that they don't want to follow! I really enjoy your videos and look forward to each one!
Thanks Dr. Cooper.
The ultimate and definitive answers to questions relating to God, love and suffering are to be found in Woody Allen's 1975 movie 'Love and Death.'😊
Seriously, though, if you've ever enjoyed reading Dostoyevsky et al and you've not seen this spoof then a treat awaits you.
Can you do a more in-depth treatment on the doctrine of the call? Maybe getting into its biblical foundation (e.g. Luther's commentary on Galatians 1:1), and tackling questions like what, exactly, constitutes a valid call? For example if someone who is himself validly called gives a call to a woman, is that call valid? It is clearly wrong and contrary to scripture, but is the call itself invalid or not?
An emphasis on God-suffering as "theology of the cross" and God overcoming suffering as "theology of glory" is the dangerous route to suggesting that too much focus on the resurrection is equated with a theology of glory. Slippery slope and clear why this Heidelberg distinction became popular mostly among Lutherans of the Protestant Liberal stripe. It affords a pious and "Lutheran" sounding reason to avoid having to answer questions about the Resurrection.
That being said, I believe the distinction (cross-vs-glory) _is_ very helpful, catholic and practical... but only _if_ it's understood and applied correctly, and it often isn't.
Basically, if your "theology of the cross" doesn't include the legitimate use of neoplatonic philosophy, then you're reading Luther too narrowly.
Cross and Glory are actually very monastic distinctions, and that tension has always reigned in the catholic Church of how we see Christ's precepts being enacted: the ascetic way of suffering alongside Christ, or the "theology of power/glory" that is always the temptation of a Christendom (and post-) settlement.
This distinction is also helpful somewhat in approaching eschatology. While a "theology of the cross" approach to eschatology doesn't deny the legitimacy of a Christendom, there is too much of an element of worldly ambition in a Postmillenialism of Geneva or a world Papalism of Rome for the Lutheran sensibility. Like our approach to progressive sanctification, eschatology is never a fully realized state prior to the Second Advent, and thus a humility of suffering/repentance always reigns in our understanding of transformation (and this is DEEPLY monastic).
Do you have any videos on eberhard jungel?
Not yet, unfortunately.
Might you in the near future?
Might you in the near future?
@joshburks4079 yes, he's a figure I would like to explore.
jurgen moltmann 24:52
Moltmann is my least favorite of the foes of the Fantastic Four.
48:53 - _"Do you draw from this in its fullness that 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'...do you draw on that the conclusion that in the intra-Trinitarian relationship there is a literal rupture or division between Father and Son? You end up in all sorts of weird Trinitarian problems when you go there."_
God is not three distinct persons. That's the "problem".
The Father indeed literally forsook the Son. But it wasn't one person forsaking another person. *It was the unipersonal God* - who "came down from heaven" _without leaving heaven,_ and who manifested _himself_ on earth in genuine human form, as _his own_ Son - *forsaking himself.*
God is love (1 John 4:8,16), and he laid down his own life for us (1 John 3:16) - i.e., he forsook himself - which is the greatest demonstration of love (John 15:13).
And he revealed his name to be the name which is above _every_ name: *JESUS.*
No, no, no. Modalism has been refuted for nearly 2 millenia. Any non Trinitarian God is simply not the Christian God
@@foodforthought8308
I don't know what you mean by "Modalism". I simply believe in the self-sacrificial love of the Father, whose name is JESUS.
God is immutable and impassable, he cannot suffer.
Jesus suffered.
Make of that what you will, but I've long since concluded that theology is not a serious object of study.