十字架之谜——对牺牲概念的哲学和神学含义的考察

Q4 Arts and Humanities Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift Pub Date : 2021-05-12 DOI:10.7146/dtt.v83i3-4.125880
Annette Hjort Knudsen
{"title":"十字架之谜——对牺牲概念的哲学和神学含义的考察","authors":"Annette Hjort Knudsen","doi":"10.7146/dtt.v83i3-4.125880","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"According to Asle Eikrem’s book “God as Sacrificial love”, the concept of the Christian God as a God of love is not coherent with the claim that Jesus was sacrificed on the cross for the redemption of human sins. Eikrem’s conclusion builds on a conceptual framework that describes the crucifixion as a self-sacrifice. His argument makes Jesus co-responsible, thus sanctioning the violent action. This way, evil becomes instrumental which is inconsistent with the notion of God as love. It is the intention of this article to show that (at least) one alternative conceptual framework makes it possible to maintain the view that the crucifixion was necessary for Jesus’ redemptive mission. The crucifixion is thus not inconsistent with, but rather a consequence of the conception of God as love. For Jesus to realize God’s incarnational intention of establishing a living fellowship with humanity is for him to realize a fellowship of experienced damnation followed by a truly redemptive resurrection.","PeriodicalId":38473,"journal":{"name":"Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Korsets gåde – en undersøgelse af offerbegrebets filosofiske og teologiske implikationer\",\"authors\":\"Annette Hjort Knudsen\",\"doi\":\"10.7146/dtt.v83i3-4.125880\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"According to Asle Eikrem’s book “God as Sacrificial love”, the concept of the Christian God as a God of love is not coherent with the claim that Jesus was sacrificed on the cross for the redemption of human sins. Eikrem’s conclusion builds on a conceptual framework that describes the crucifixion as a self-sacrifice. His argument makes Jesus co-responsible, thus sanctioning the violent action. This way, evil becomes instrumental which is inconsistent with the notion of God as love. It is the intention of this article to show that (at least) one alternative conceptual framework makes it possible to maintain the view that the crucifixion was necessary for Jesus’ redemptive mission. The crucifixion is thus not inconsistent with, but rather a consequence of the conception of God as love. For Jesus to realize God’s incarnational intention of establishing a living fellowship with humanity is for him to realize a fellowship of experienced damnation followed by a truly redemptive resurrection.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38473,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7146/dtt.v83i3-4.125880\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7146/dtt.v83i3-4.125880","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

根据Asle Eikrem的著作《上帝作为爱的牺牲》,基督教上帝作为爱之神的概念与耶稣被献祭在十字架上以救赎人类罪恶的说法并不一致。Eikrem的结论建立在一个概念框架之上,该框架将钉十字架描述为自我牺牲。他的论点使耶稣承担连带责任,从而批准了暴力行为。通过这种方式,邪恶变成了工具,这与上帝作为爱的概念不一致。这篇文章的目的是表明(至少)有一个替代的概念框架可以维持耶稣被钉十字架是救赎使命所必需的观点。因此,钉十字架并不是不一致的,而是上帝作为爱的概念的结果。对于耶稣来说,要实现上帝与人类建立生活友谊的化身意图,就意味着他要实现一种经历了诅咒的友谊,然后才是真正的救赎复活。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Korsets gåde – en undersøgelse af offerbegrebets filosofiske og teologiske implikationer
According to Asle Eikrem’s book “God as Sacrificial love”, the concept of the Christian God as a God of love is not coherent with the claim that Jesus was sacrificed on the cross for the redemption of human sins. Eikrem’s conclusion builds on a conceptual framework that describes the crucifixion as a self-sacrifice. His argument makes Jesus co-responsible, thus sanctioning the violent action. This way, evil becomes instrumental which is inconsistent with the notion of God as love. It is the intention of this article to show that (at least) one alternative conceptual framework makes it possible to maintain the view that the crucifixion was necessary for Jesus’ redemptive mission. The crucifixion is thus not inconsistent with, but rather a consequence of the conception of God as love. For Jesus to realize God’s incarnational intention of establishing a living fellowship with humanity is for him to realize a fellowship of experienced damnation followed by a truly redemptive resurrection.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift
Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift Arts and Humanities-Religious Studies
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
期刊最新文献
Joachim Wiewiura (red.): Den politiske filosofis historie. Frem til 1600 Christine Mundhenk (red.): Melanchthons Briefwechsel, Band T 23: Texte 6691-7056 (1553), hg. von Matthias Dall’ Asta, Heidi Hein, Regine Klar, Christine Mundhenk Holger Villadsen: Kristus- Baggers Alterbog 1688. Forhistorie, indledning og tekstudgave Det er Herren, der styrer en mands gang Fra studienummer til hyrde for en menighed
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1