"Participation in Christ's death and resurrection" is a soteriological notion in Paul, and Rom 6:8 has been taken as one of the instances of such a Pauline soteriological notion. However, as this paper will demonstrate, what stands out most in Rom 6:8 is the sense of Paul's Christ mysticism, as signaled by the phrase "we will also live with Christ." In the first section of this paper, how past commentators speak of Paul's Christ mysticism is reviewed, and it is affirmed that what lies at the core of Paul's religious experience is Christ-intimacy, or the fellowship with the risen, living, pneumatic Christ. Secondly, an exegetical examination on Rom 6:8-10 is done so as to demonstrate how this passage can be related to Paul's Christ mysticism, and that the term "dying and living with Christ" can best describe Rom 6:8. In Rom 6:9-10 Christ is spoken of as a risen Lord, who has been raised from the dead and will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. The death he died on the cross, he died to sin, but the life he lives now, he lives to God. What Paul says about the believer's dying and living with Christ in Rom 6:8 (note that Paul uses the Greek word συζαω, rather than αυνεγειΡω) not only conveys the soteriological meaning of participating in Christ's death and thus dying to sin, but also points to the vivid, living reality of the fellowship with Christ, i.e., the believer's living with the risen Christ in the new life at present. Thirdly, when Paul's Christ mysticism is confirmed as the reading perspective with regard to the context of Rom 6:8-11, it further sheds light on how the phrase ενΧpιστω'Ιησου in Rom 6:11 is to be interpreted.
The present paper explores the historical and exegetical context of Luther's trinitarian exposition of the plural form of the adjective qualifying the generic name of God in Deuteronomy 4:7. Granted that Deuteronomy 4:7 utilises only one of several plural forms applied to the Divine and adduced by Luther as proof of the presence of the trinitarian concept within the Hebrew Bible, the function of that biblical passage in his trinitarian argumentation from the Tanakh was examined. To display typical features of Luther's use of Hebrew scholarship in favour of the Patristic trinitarian and christological doctrines, his statements about the reliability of the Masoretic vocalisation were outlined and his views on the Jewish religion and on the Jewish people were discussed.
因著社會處境的重合,聖經研究與古典學研究(本文以新約研究與古希臘羅馬研究為例)有著天然的交融與互通。近幾年來,古典學研究在大陸學界逐漸升溫,古典學一級學科的申請籌畫也在積極進展中。將西方古典學與新約正典的交叉研究引入漢語聖經研究,既可深化我們對聖經文本的立體化認識,也可促進聖經研究在大陸人文研究領域的影響,同時還開闢了比較經學研究的可能進路。本文將主要從漢語聖經研究本身、大陸的中西古典學研究以及比較古典學研究,探討古典學與新約領域交叉研究的可能性與方法論等層面的貢獻。
在衛生史的研究中,很少有人注意到基督教教會在近代中國的影響力。在既有的研究中,也很少有研究者注意到:西方衛生觀是如何灌輸至一般民眾的日常生活中的?透過本文研究可以看出,在整個下層民眾的衛生教育上,在二十世紀三○年代前,教會團體實發揮了重大的作用。他們透過對民眾演講的方式,一方面講道理-講基督之道,也講衛生之理。演講是所有衛生活動中最重要的一環,因為不論怎麼貼海報、放電影,最後終究是要有人講解的,這是教育的基本內涵。又對教會來說,「衛生」一詞很好地將教義、道德、強國強種等包裝在一起;並且,改善人們的衛生,跟去除疾病、貧窮、迷信都有關係,故教會把衛生與傳教結合在一起,透過演講的方式逐漸輸入到民眾的日常生活思考中,此方式有別於醫院和醫學校,用另一種方式將西方醫學觀念的種子灑入中國。教會成功的原因,當然與各種宣傳策略與動員有關。以各種音樂、舞蹈、戲曲、電影等為工具,散播衛生觀,其實除了受到近代傳播方式改變的影響,也不可忽略教會本身傳教的活動,其實很多都是靠這些媒介,它多是西方文化的產物,結合運用也顯得更加順理成章。至三○年代後,國家漸漸介入控管衛生事務,一些信仰基督教或由教會醫院變成的西醫,也開始融入國家系統的衛生演講與運動中,衛生演講與傳道之間的關係,遂漸漸變淡,而產生與政府力量相結合的態勢。
近來英語宗教學界對施賴爾馬赫的《論宗教》作了一種有別於黑格爾、巴特式的「主體主義」批判,它認為施氏把宗教看作一種純「私人的」事件,把宗教完全限制在宗教個體的內在領域,從而使它完全與公共領域隔離,即與宗教社會、文化和歷史的可觀察的領域相隔離。本文對這種批判提出質疑。筆者認為施賴爾馬赫所描述的宗教情感必須與普遍關聯的宇宙觀相結合才能獲得準確的理解。由於宗教情感不僅是對宇宙關聯的感知,而且會進一步激發人們通過情感溝通去完善已有的關聯,因此宗教情感必然導向宗教的會社性。我們也不能脫開宗教的情感性而討論宗教的會社性。因為後者正是建立在宗教情感溝通之上的,是這種溝通的自然產物,而且其主要特徵也是以情感溝通之特徵為基礎。
在二十一世紀文化際衝突與交流已成為二十世紀末冷戰結束後及全球化興起後、特別是911事件後不可避免的世界現象。本文乃在東西文化際之會通與轉化乃全球文化際問題之主要事件的問題意識下,選擇以周易經傳中的三才之道(或道統三才,或三才一道)理念與基督宗教神學中的三位一體教義進行一種文化際對話之初步構思嘗試,而且就方法學暨存有學向度之思路進行之。本文以《易》為主體,揭示《易》之生成基本結構中所隱涵的三元一系體系性思維為其三才一道之前結構為本,接著三才一道與三位一體之義理進行對比、對話與對化。換言之,本文一則就體系性詮釋學之存有學基設向度出發論述兩方觀念之同異。接著討論兩者所呈現不同的內在性哲思與超越性信仰之精神關係典範,亦即天人合一所顯現的東方宗教與哲學統合典範與西方神學與哲學辯證典範。再者就體系性詮釋學之文化際哲思而言,在其文化際哲學之三種三元一系底三元一系基構理論下,討論兩者所產生的文化際效應。最後尤其是在文化轉化、文化脈絡化及文化融合或創新文化之三元一系中設想兩者對化乃至融會創新的可能性。