Repository index

Dogmatics is not a static whole, systematic reflection on Christian faith. It is itself part of history and participates fully in it. Sometimes, even colleagues in the theological faculty still have the idea, that dogmatics is a field that pretends that God can be fully comprehended, that everything can be explained. Some might even think that the best theologian is the best believer. That is certainly not what we imagine that dogmatics is all about. It is a reflection on practices of faith, on the actual relationship with God, informed by the Bible and the teaching of the Church. Sound reflection on the Christian faith is a task that has to be done by every generation. Sheer repetition of what former generations said and wrote would be irresponsible. Every age is confronted with new challenges. The promise of the Holy Spirit should encourage us to fresh reflection.

A tervezett előadás célkitűzése filológiai és tudományelméleti alapon megvizsgálni a dogma szó szemantikai mezejét, és az így nyert eredmények alapján tágabb összefüggésrendszerben szemléltetni a dogmatörténet és a dogmatika viszonyát. Vizsgálatunk során arra összpontosítunk, hogy felmutassuk: a rendszeres teológiának eme két ága (a szemantikai mező által meghatározott természetéből adódóan) hogyan mutat egy zárt, vagy bezáródófélben lévő földi rendszer felől az istenismeret végtelenül nyitott világa felé.

This article argues that Isaiah's so-called ‘refrain poem’ (Kehrvergedicht) in Isa. 9.7–20 is a composite text, going back to two early prophecies with different concerns. Isaiah 9.7–17* focused originally on the arrogant refusal of the divine word, while Isa. 9.18–20* reflected on the chaotic social circumstances in Samaria in the eighth century. The refrains in vv. 9,11cd, 16ef and 20cd were added to these two already connected prophecies at a later stage. The theological summary in v. 12 is yet another addition, closely affiliated with 5.24–25. Unlike v. 12, the refrains do not have the repentance of Israel in view, nor its final destruction, but the fall of Assyria in Isa. 10.5–15, 24–27. The refrains support the theory that the Isaianic collection was formed by means of reusing, restructuring and reinterpreting earlier material. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0309089216690385

In Jeremiah 28, there is a dispute between the prophets Jeremiah and Hananiah over the (il)legitimacy of prophecies of salvation concerning Judah and prophecies of judgement regarding Babylon. On the eve of Jerusalem’s fall to the Babylonians, the prophet Jeremiah, who proclaims judgement on Judah at the hands of Babylon, appears to be the true, genuine, canonical voice of God. While this text does not preclude the eventual authenticity of prophecies of salvation in the event that they are proven valid by being fulfilled, it nevertheless is rather strange that the book of Jeremiah ends with a collection of prophecies against the Chaldaeans. The anti-Babylonian statements in Jeremiah 50-51 are ascribed to the very same prophet who had once dismissed Hananiah for uttering similarly worded – and presumably uninspired – invectives before the people of Jerusalem.

Joggal feltételezhetjük, hogy az Ézs 10,16–19 verseit eredetileg nem erre a helyre írták. A perikópa egy Izrael elleni prófécia része volt. Ezt a hipotézist erősítik meg a szerző által használt metaforák, a szöveg intertextuális kapcsolatai más, Izraelre vonatkozó próféciákkal, illetve a perikópa környezetéből gyűjtött információk is. A relokalizáció révén az Ézs 10,16–19 eredeti értelme megváltozott: az ítélet, amely korábban Izraelre vonatkozott, Asszíria-ellenes beszéddé alakult, azaz azon hatalom ellen fordult, akin keresztül JHVH egykor a saját népe feletti ítéletét hajtotta végre. Az Ószövetségben több olyan kései prófétai szöveggel találkozunk, amelyek explicite is azt jelzik, hogy az igazságos világrend helyreállítása rendkívüli jelentőséggel bírt e kései szerzők teológiájában. Ez a koncepció nemcsak ilyen explicit textusokban érhető tetten, hanem implicit formában a prófétai könyvek egész újraszerkesztésének módszertani logikájában is.

Deși Catehismul a ajuns până la noi din trecut, prin încărcătura sa ideatică, el este extrem de actual, prezența sa este extrem de necesară în dezbaterile metafizice și ideologice din contemporaneitate. Problema „apartenenței” credinciosului, așa cum ne-o prezintă Catehismul, nu este una pur teologică, valabilă exclusiv întrun anumit cadru religios și confesional de discuție, ci ea vizează, cu maximă gravitate, omul și condiția sa aici și acum, propunându-și să ne pună în gardă cu privire la pericolele grave care pândesc existența umană. Cea mai mare amenințare pentru om este omul însuși, cu modul său defectuos de gândire.

Eduard Böhl, a 19. század második felének tudós teológusa 1864-től 1899-ig volt a bécsi Protestáns Teológiai Fakultás Református dogmatikai tanszékének professzora. A Habsburg-kormányzat 1818-ban központi rendelettel tiltotta be a birodalom egész területén élő diákok számára a külföldi egyetemjárást, hogy ezzel az intézkedéssel akadályozza meg a német egyetemek liberális szellemiségének beszivárgását.

The purpose of this study is twofold. First, it sets the historical context in which Aphrahat wrote his Demonstrations and deals with the interesting relationship between his writings, ‘against the Jews’ and the Sassanian persecution of Christians. It also treats his refutation of the Jewish charges. Secondly, it addresses his ‘unique’ view of christology which is not in line with the Nicene decision concerning one aspect yet at the same time it is congruent with it. The paper also tries to point out that his view on christology was ‘unique’ but not exceptional in the Early Church.