> > My interpretation, however, is that Christ must have laughed or else
> > he just wouldn't have been fully human.
>
> This, of course, forms an important part of the plot of "The Name of the
> Rose", although I've read other references to the medieval debate about
> Christ's laughter in (slightly) more serious works.
>
> I'm sure we're all with William of Baskerville on this issue. But, one can
> see certain ways in which Keith's argument might get one into dangerous
> territory. "Christ must have done X or he wouldn't have been fully human."
>
> How far can you go? What does this X include?
I would be interested to know, schematically, what 'heretical' teachings
in the middle ages would have existed concerning this, or how the church
countered any such claims.
George
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|