Schön gesagt
8. April 2010
Nach ca. fünf-monatiger Abstinenz wende ich mich mal wieder meinem Studium zu und versuche mich an paulinischer Soteriologie. Mitten in James Dunns Opus Magnum bin ich auf folgende Worte gestoßen, die mir in vielerlei Hinsicht gefallen:
The portrayal of a Jesus Messiah who functions severally as another Adam, firstborn from the dead and elder brother of the family of the resurrected, as divine Wisdom and life-giving Spirit, but also as co-regent with God and soon coming Lord, is bound to be confusing. Now we have also a Christ who is conceived as a „location“ into which the convert is „inserted“ and within which believers find themselves, or alternatively as a personal presence within believers; as GodÄs saving action with which believers can be identified, or as the medium through whom God pours out his grace and through whom believers approach God; as a body of which believers have identified; or yet again as a powerful presence equivalent to the Spirit of God. … It must in fact be seriously doubted whether Paul himself actually had a single conception of the risen Christ. … In this case any attempt to harmonize the diversity of Paul’s imagery and to resolve the inconsistencies of different images straining against each other would be to our loss rather than our gain. Better to let the richness of the vision, its poetry and harmonies, capture heart and spirit, even if conceptual clarity remains elusive.
James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 408f.
Technorati Tags: James D.G. Dunn, Jesus, Paulus
Freitag 27. August 2010 um 14:28
“It must in fact be seriously doubted whether Paul himself actually had a single conception of the risen Christ.” (Dunn)
Wenn Dunn mit “single” “erschöpfend” und “vollständig” im Sinne einer 1:1-Replik der Konzeption, die Gott selbst hat, meint, natürlich nicht.
Wenn er mit “single” “klar” meint, dann ja.
Als inspirierter Autor zeichnet Paulus die göttliche Offenbarung auf.
Jedoch können menschliche Denkkonzepte immer nur analog zum göttlichen Denken sein, gewissermaßen auf die endliche, geschöpfliche Ebene herunterskaliert.
Diese Differenzierung vermisse ich in der Diskussion um das Dilemma zwischen “Modern” und “Postmodern”.
Donnerstag 2. Dezember 2010 um 13:18
Echt ein paar schöne Zeilen, sehr zutreffend. Danke für den Tipp!