This paper aims to discover the various problems of the term syncretism, and its definition in anthropology, religious studies and theology in relation to the Korean Protestant inter-denominational discourse. Before being able to evaluate any case or accusation of syncretism within the Korean context, we need to realise, that even the term itself is a widely disputed concept.
In this paper we provide a short semantic analysis of the most important anthropological terms of the Bible. By this analysis we would like to point out that in the biblical anthropological view humans cannot be divided into either two or three parts, but they are unitary beings. What we call flesh (body), soul and spirit (or mind) are not independent substances but rather different aspects of manifestation of the same being. On the one side, we see that terms denoting the soul, body or spirit can also refer the whole man as well.
The closing part of this study presents the most important dichotomic and trichotomic anthropological models from the era of Reformation (Erasmus, Calvin, Bullinger, the Confessio Helvetica Posterior, the Heidelberg Catechism, István Szegedi Kis) and provides a synthesis of the anthropological view of 20th century theology (Karl Barth, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Oscar Cullmann, Jenő Sebestyén, István Török, Botond Gaál, and others).
This article is concerned with the question of dichotomy and trichotomy of the human person. Following an earlier semantic analysis of biblical terms (published in Református Szemle 105.3 (2015)), the present paper introduces the reader into the significance of theological anthropology for the most important authors of the Early Church.
This paper concludes that within the moral philosophy of Jankélévitch, the problem of forgiveness is ambiguous; or rather the author has an ambiguous attitude towards forgiveness. His point of view also has shortcomings that are due to the deficiencies of his metaphysics, his anthropology, his image of God and his interpretation of death. The God of Jankélévitch is creative energy, eternal acting goodness and love, but it is not a person and does not personally know its creations.
This paper concludes that within the moral philosophy of Jankélévitch, the problem of forgiveness is ambiguous; or rather the author has an ambiguous attitude towards forgiveness.His point of view also has shortcomings that are due to the deficiencies of his metaphysics, his anthropology, his image of God and his interpretation of death. The God of Jankélévitch is creative energy, eternal acting goodness and love, but it is not a person and does not personally know its creations.
Philon von Alexandrien war, infolge seiner Abstammung und Erziehung, fest an die griechische Philosophie gebunden. Er war unzertrennlich zugleich Philosoph und Theolog, genauer gesagt ein Religionsphilosoph. Er hielt die Thora für eine absolute Autorität. Mit seiner allegorischen Schriftauslegung wollte er beweisen, daß die heiligen Schriften nicht nur eine zuverlässige Fundgrube der göttlichen Wahrheiten, sondern zugleich auch der Philosphie darstellen.