| Abstract
|
:
|
Although Christian theologians find the yin-yang perspective in Taoism relevant to Christology, the yin-yang’s movement of “harmony with conflict as complementary beings for each other” is not accord with complexities of the diverse realities of Christ’s two natures. Nonetheless, the yin-yang perspective based on its cosmo-anthropology sheds new light on the controversies over the relationship between Christ’s nature and his person. While patristic Christology was conceptualized by the Greek dualism in understanding the relationship between Christ’s nature and his person, the yin-yang perspective connects the ultimate root of all things (根本) to humans. With both continuity and distinctiveness between nature and person understood, we may find a clue that Christ’s divinity, without losing its distinctive nature from humanity, has continuity with Christ’s sacrificial death and that his humanity participates in Christ’s person as he shares and bears all things on the cross. Although Christian theologians find the yin-yang perspective in Taoism relevant to Christology, the yin-yang’s movement of “harmony with conflict as complementary beings for each other” is not accord with complexities of the diverse realities of Christ’s two natures. Nonetheless, the yin-yang perspective based on its cosmo-anthropology sheds new light on the controversies over the relationship between Christ’s nature and his person. While patristic Christology was conceptualized by the Greek dualism in understanding the relationship between Christ’s nature and his person, the yin-yang perspective connects the ultimate root of all things (根本) to humans. With both continuity and distinctiveness between nature and person understood, we may find a clue that Christ’s divinity, without losing its distinctive nature from humanity, has continuity with Christ’s sacrificial death and that his humanity participates in Christ’s person as he shares and bears all things on the cross.
|