![What is Christology](https://mahasoe.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/IMG_20210130_214357-1024x576.jpg)
What is Christology? In the light of the Christian faith, practice, and worship that branch of theology called Christology reflects systematically on the person, being, and doing of Jesus of Nazareth.
In facing and tackling certain Christological questions, historical, philosophical, and linguistic considerations play a crucial role. They can be distinguished as follows:
History of Christology
How do we know who Jesus was/is and what he did/does? Obviously, the first answer must be: we know Jesus and know about him from human history and experience.
The quest of the historical Jesus will make us examine his background in the story of Israel, his earthly career, his influence on the origins of Christianity, and the subsequent development of Christological thinking and teaching.
In pursuing the reality and meaning of Jesus’ person, being, and work we will examine some themes from Jewish history, and from the origins of Christianity and in particular from the development of Christological reflection and teaching. (We know Jesus through the historical and experiential sources).
Philosophy of Christology
![Philosophy of Christology](https://mahasoe.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/IMG_20210130_214339-1024x576.jpg)
Our questions about Jesus’ ‘being’ and ‘doing’ raise a whole range of questions of a more or less philosophical nature. What is the status of experiential knowledge? Can it supply any reliable information or evidence about Jesus?
Where personal testimonies differ, whose experience counts? Philosophical considerations necessarily turn up when Christology raises questions of hermeneutics (the role of tradition in the work of interpretation), and questions of epistemology (the evidential status of experience and the dependence of Christian faith upon historical knowledge).
Is it logically consistent for someone to be simultaneously fully human and fully divine? If we cannot positively justify this conceptually, can we at least show that it is not blatantly impossible? Or is this simply as impossible and blatantly inconsistent as calling someone a married bachelor? To reach a reasoned position here, one needs to clarify the notions of humanity and divinity.
What counts as being, in the strict sense of the word human and/or divine? What do human nature and a divine nature mean and entail? How could one person be at the same time fully human and fully divine? What does personhood mean?
This is a simple illustration of the role of philosophy in clarifying concepts and testing possibilities. Philosophy comes into play in hammering out concepts that have certain clarity, examining whether some claims are coherent, and judging whether some claims are blatantly incoherent to the point of impossibility.
Language
How far can our language go in expressing Christ, God, and otherworldly realities? In religious worship, practice, and reflection, language gets used in extended or special ways. Jesus’ own symbolic language about a lost coin, a lost sheep and a lost son represent and perceptibly express truths about the invisible God and the divine designs in our regards.
If we put together various particular symbols, the whole Exodus narrative functions as a symbolic story, in which basic truths about God and our existence vis-à-vis God get imaginatively expressed. We are guided towards the ultimate realities not only by abstract concepts but even more by symbolic language.
It is important to note that in Christology, we are dealing with mystery, the mystery of the ineffable God, and for that matter, the corresponding mystery of the human condition. In particular, we should not forget the indirect, analogical, and symbolic character of our biblical, liturgical, and theological language about God.
The historical development of theology reminds us of the inadequacy of all attempts to approach the divine mystery. Any affirmation about God has to be qualified with a corresponding negation and the recognition that God infinitely surpasses our human categories.