Already a subscriber? - Login here
Not yet a subscriber? - Subscribe here

Browse by:



Displaying: 1-20 of 34 documents


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