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.

While the Qur’an often refers to Jesus Christ, it presents a picture which is different from the New Testament. The Qur’an “denies” that Jesus Christ would be the Son of God, implicitly also discounting the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Jesus is only a creature, a prophet of God, whom God saved from death on the cross. The denial of the death of Jesus Christ was presum- ably theologically motivated, insofar as Muhammad’s successful career was aimed to prove that the servant of Allah cannot fail or suffer because God protects his people and leads them to prosperity. In contrast, Jesus Christ is the One who, if necessary, will take the way of suffering for the sinner and even make the substitutionary sacrifice for his salvation (Is 53:3-6). Muham- mad could have encountered heretical Christian teachings. When the Qur’an refutes teachings concerning the person of Jesus Christ that are irreconcilable with the Bible or the traditional dogmas of Christianity, it refutes, in fact, the heresies of certain Christian sects.

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!