Journal index

The Barth-Brunner debate is one of the significant moments of the Protestant theological history in the 20 th century. The replica-exchange of the two outstanding figures of dialectical theology in 1934 not only includes the theological centres of gravity of Karl Barth and Emil Brunner, but also gives insight into the sparkling theological and spiritual atmosphere of the 1930s. Brunner’s interpretation reveals a specific version of natural theology, while Barth, in the spirit of New Reformation Theology, expresses his position in terms of the authority of the Word. In this essay until we explore the content of some points of the debate, we also briefly reconstruct the circumstances of its origin, as well as we mention its history and evaluation in Transylvania.

Die persönlichen und kollektiven tragischen Erfahrungen des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts haben den französischen Philosophen Emmanuel Lévinas dazu geleitet, das bekannte biblische Gebot wieder ins Licht zu bringen. Der Imperativ, du sollst nicht töten hat in der Philosophie von Lévinas eine paradigmatische Funktion. Auf einer Seite unterstreicht Lévinas die göttliche Originalität des Verbotes, auf der anderen Seite betont er, dass diese Aufforderung fürs jeweilige Ich gültig ist, denn auf dem Gesicht des anderen steht immer zu lesen: Du sollst nicht töten!

Resurrection is one of the central topics in Christian theology, widely discussed within both christology and anthropology. This idea deriving from the New Testament is deeply rooted in Old Testament texts, or, more precisely, in a particular interpretation of those texts. However, this later approach of the New Testament and contemporary Judaism to Old Testament passages speaking about resurrection raises significant questions for current Christian readers who, on the one hand, are familiar with the historical-critical reading of the Bible, and, on the other, strive to be faithful to their tradition. This paper seeks for answers concerning the discrepancy between a responsible exegetical enterprise and the fidelity towards the ecclesial tradition. It maintains that the current reader needs to distinguish between the statement of Christian theology (“the Lord has risen”) and its argumentation (based on Old Testament references). The statement is primarily rooted in the personal experience of eyewitnesses, while the argumentation bears all signs of contemporary time bound hermeneutics.