|
1.
|
Philotheos:
Volume >
14
Gunter Scholtz
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
|
2.
|
Philotheos:
Volume >
14
Wolfgang Speyer
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
|
3.
|
Philotheos:
Volume >
14
Jörg Splett
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
|
4.
|
Philotheos:
Volume >
14
Vladan Tatalović
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
|
5.
|
Philotheos:
Volume >
14
Blagoje Pantelić
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
|
6.
|
Philotheos:
Volume >
14
Alois M. Haas
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
|
7.
|
Philotheos:
Volume >
14
Vladan Tatalović
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
|
8.
|
Philotheos:
Volume >
14
Anita Strezova
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
The aim of this paper is to analyse certain aspects of the Christian tradition, namely, the doctrines of apophasis (also known as negative theology) and theosis (deification). These are surveyed together because they often complement one another in Christian thought. Although the later Byzantine fathers, of the hesychast tradition, solved the theological questions of apophaticism and deification, the problematic was already articulated in early Christianity through conceptualising the vision of God. The contention of this paper is that although the Alexandrine and Antochene traditions appropriated two diverse ways of understandings of the doctrine of vision of God, the two theological methods were in fact interrelated. In short, whereas for the Alexandrians the vision and knowledge of God stressed the ascent of the human being to God (apophasis), and the Antiochenes were more interested in the divine condescension (kataphasis), both traditions had the same practical goal, union by grace with God or theosis. Both paradigms, too, reveal the paradoxical or antinomical nature of Christian God-transcendent and immanent at the same time. After exploring some of the general characteristics of the Alexandrian and Antiochene though, this paper will address the particularities of the two interpretive strands.
|
|
|
|
9.
|
Philotheos:
Volume >
14
Eirini Christinaki
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
|
10.
|
Philotheos:
Volume >
14
Rodoljub Kubat
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
In diesem Aufsatz werden die exegetische Methoden analysiert, die Theodor von Mopsuestia in seiner Auslegung des Buches Jona benutzt hat. Im ersten Teil wird über seiner theologisch-hermeneutische Grundlagen geschrieben, während im zweiten Teil seine Exegese an konkreten Beispielen dargestellt wird. Dabei wird der gramatisch-hystorischer Sinn der Texten betont, welchen Theodor bevorzugt hat. Das wird besonders in seiner Exegese des Jonas Aufenthalt im Fischbauch und Jonas Befreiung dargestellt. In diesem Aufsatz wird die Theodors Methode der Theoria (θεωρίᾳ) dargestellt und danach das hermeneutische Prinzip „κατὰ παρέκβασιν“, sowie seine reduzierte Anwendung der gewöhnlichen Typologie. Aus der hermeneutischen Perspektive betrachtet, es ist besonders sein Verständnis der Heiligen Schrift als „abgekürzte Rede“ interessant, woraus das im Text erwähnte Geschehen rekonstruiert werden kann.
|
|
|
|
11.
|
Philotheos:
Volume >
14
Vasilije Vranić
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
|
12.
|
Philotheos:
Volume >
14
Evangelos Moutsopoulos
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
|
13.
|
Philotheos:
Volume >
14
Markus Enders
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
|
14.
|
Philotheos:
Volume >
14
Zdravko Jovanović
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
|
15.
|
Philotheos:
Volume >
14
Walter Sparn
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
|
16.
|
Philotheos:
Volume >
14
Friedo Ricken
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
|
17.
|
Philotheos:
Volume >
14
Vladan Perišić
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
|
18.
|
Philotheos:
Volume >
14
Katharina Comoth
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
|
19.
|
Philotheos:
Volume >
14
Krzysztof Narecki
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
|
20.
|
Philotheos:
Volume >
14
Zoran Devrnja
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|