试论犹太人的敬畏上帝观

敬畏上帝观是犹太人对他们信仰的上帝的一种本能的自然尊敬和爱,是犹太教信仰的基本思想之一,也是犹太教教义的一项重要内容.犹太人的敬畏上帝既与爱上帝、敬畏罪以及惩罚等观念有着明显的区别,同时又紧密地联系在一起,并在犹太教思想体系中占有重要的地位,对犹太文化的发展产生了深远的影响.     

律法重于信仰:15世纪犹太教教条思想的基本特征

15世纪犹太教教条思想的基本特征是重新强调律法的中心地位。由迈蒙尼德开始的宗教理性主义强调对上帝的信仰,使犹太教的律法传统受到伤害,并带来了严重的现实后果。为了纠正理性主义的偏颇,杜安、克莱斯卡和阿尔伯批评了迈蒙尼德提出的13条基本原则,但这种批评不是基于科学的客观立场,其目的也不是从逻辑意义上找出最基本的犹太教原则,而是为了强调律法对信仰的优先地位,回归犹太教的律法传统。     

犹太教正统派

犹太教正统派(Orthodox)是犹太教派别中最大的群体,自视为惟一正统的犹太教信众。其最大特点是拒绝犹太教的任何变革,坚“持天不变道亦不变”的原则,确信整部《妥拉》是上帝在西奈山上赋予摩西的神启,犹太律法是不能改变的,所以必须严守犹太教的传统信仰、律法和礼仪。许多人依     

牧场心得之十二 “粪土”与“至宝”

腓立比是一座外邦人居多的城市,由于没有犹太教的信仰背景,这里的居民比犹太人更容易接受福音,所以腓立比教会呈现出良好的发展势头。令人遗憾的是,教会成立不久,就有犹太人潜入其中,向已经归入基督的外邦人大肆宣传律法、鼓吹割礼,致使部分信徒对信仰产生了疑惑,有人甚至萌生出改信犹太教的念头。     

“粪土”与“至宝”

腓立比是一座外邦人居多的城市,由于没有犹太教的信仰背景,这里的居民比犹太人更容易接受福音,所以腓立比教会呈现出良好的发展势头。令人遗憾的是,教会成立不久,就有犹太人潜入其中,向已经归入基督的外邦人大肆宣传律法、鼓吹割礼,致使部分信徒对信仰产生了疑惑,有人甚至萌生出改信犹太教的念头。     

论犹太教对外邦人改宗的矛盾态度

犹太教是一个民族性的宗教。对改宗犹太教的外邦人,拉比们一方面给予他们积极的评价,另一方面又对他们表现出怀疑排斥的消极态度。从根本上说,这种矛盾态度是由犹太教对自身的不同理解造成的。一方面,犹太人将自身看成由律法塑造的宗教共同体;另一方面,犹太教又始终将自身理解为一个民族,甚至其改宗程序,也是为了在象征意义上建立改宗者与犹太人的血缘关系。犹太教对其民族性的坚持是她无法向外邦人敞开怀抱的主要原因。     

论迈蒙尼德犹太教十三条根基性原则

迈蒙尼德的十三条原则具有某种教条性,囊括了犹太教三大核心要素:上帝、《托拉》、以色列人,是他为犹太教所设立的理论根基。为清除谬见而导致的偶像崇拜、回应教内外对《托拉》的挑战、树立一种出于爱而敬拜上帝的理想信仰心态,并为建立一种理论与律法并重的真正律法学而奠定理论基础,迈蒙尼德设立了这些原则。这些原则虽具救赎意义,但并未取消律法,自觉自动地遵行律法是一个人完全理解并相信这些原则的应有之意。     

周燮藩、刘精忠著《犹太教概论》

<正>中国社会科学出版社2012年12月出版,515千字,495页,定价76元。在"引论"中介绍了什么是犹太教,共分十一章:"希伯来人与以色列宗教"、"《希伯来圣经》"、"拉比犹太教"、"《塔木德》与犹太教律法"、"基本信仰、生活及伦理"、"犹太教哲学"、"犹太教神秘主义"、"犹太教在中国"、"近现代犹太教思潮和运动"、"犹太教与现代民族国家"、"当代犹太教的教派发展","结语当代犹太教面临的挑战"。我国对犹太教本身的学术研究起步甚晚,实至20     

论犹太人的尚异性

尚异是犹太人的特性。它蕴藏在犹太教的基本信仰和教义里,体现在犹太人的生活方式、思维方式以及历史和现实中。犹太人在各个领域的杰出成就与其尚异特性有密切联系,同时,其悲惨遭遇也在一定程度上与之有关。犹太人求异、尚异的目的在于使犹太教区别于异教,并借以使犹太人区别于异族。犹太人之所以尚异,并能特立独行于世,在理论上源于圣经里自由、平等的价值,最终源于与众不同的唯一神信仰。揭示犹太人的尚异特性对于普遍具有尚同意识的中国人有着特别重要的意义。     

论基督教与犹太教的文化差异

基督教最初是从犹太教中演变而来的，但是在后来的发展过程中，基督教却在希腊唯心主义哲学的影响下日益与犹太教分道扬镳。基督教与犹太教的文化差异主要体现在道德主义与律法主义、内在信仰与外在仪式的区别之上，早期基督教徒凭藉着一种唯灵主义的信仰和动机论道德观，超越了囿限于直观的禁忌仪式和侧重于规范外在行为效果的犹太教。从犹太教“末世论”到基督教“救赎说”的理论发展意味着基督教最终摆脱了犹太教的浅薄的现世主义和狭隘的民族主义藩篱，成为一种关于灵魂得救（彼岸主义）的福音和普世主义的宗教     

On the Morality of Having Faith that God Exists

Many theists who identify themselves with the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) maintain that it is perfectly acceptable to have faith that God exists. In this paper, I argue that, when believing that God exists will affect others, it is prima facie wrong to forgo attempting to believe that God exists on the basis of sufficient evidence. Lest there be any confusion: I do not argue that it is always wrong to have faith that God exists, only that, under certain conditions, it can be.     

Avoiding Charges of Legalism and Antinomianism in Jewish-Christian Dialogue

This article sets forth a theological approach to Jewish-Christian dialogue on the issue of law, which is often thought to be beyond the grasp of that dialogue because Judaism and Christianity are supposed to be in diametrical opposition here. Christians must recognize that for Jews, law is not in opposition to grace as a substitute for faith but, rather, law is the faithful response to grace in the covenant. Christians cannot be antinomians without simultaneously rejecting the very authority of God to command any faithful response. The issue between Judaism and Christianity is which law, Jewish or Christian, best enables a human being to be in the fullest possible relationship with God in the yet unredeemed world. On many points, though, Jewish and Christian law will overlap, thus reveal some essential commonalities.     

Paul and the Revisionists: Did Luther Really Get it All Wrong?

Abstract : After the advent of the “new perspective” on Paul as explicated in E. P. Sanders, Krister Stendahl, and N.T. Wright, we need to ask: did Luther get Paul right? In this essay, Donfried analyzes N.T. Wright along with David Brondos on whether Paul—and Luther—properly interpreted concepts such as “law” or “justification” in light of ancient Judaism(s). In contrast to the “new perspective,” Donfried argues that Paul got the Judaisms of his own era right and Luther got Paul right: we are justified or rightwised before God because of the presence of Jesus Christ in the faith of the one who believes.     

Faith in doubt in the end

At one time or another, most Contemporary Continental philosophers of religion make reference to Nietzsche’s announcement that “God is dead.” However, their interpretation and treatment of that announcement owes nothing to Nietzsche. Instead, they see the death of God as Hegel did, as a moment in a transition to a new way of talking and thinking about God or the Absolute. Their faith in God or the Absolute is not in doubt in the end. We argue that if one hears and thinks Nietzsche’s word “God is dead”—along with Heidegger’s critique of onto-theo-logy-then faith in the end is in doubt. Any affirmation or profession of faith is questionable; there is no promise that all conflicts will be resolved and that all will be saved and forgiven. Nietzsche’s saying that “God is dead” calls for thinking and questioning; it calls not for faith, but faith in doubt.     

Can a rabbi marry someone of another religion? Debates of the American Reform movement whether intermarried rabbis can lead Reform congregations

Traditionally, rabbis were expected to marry women who were devoted to Judaism. The convention was a logical one. As a symbolic exemplar of Judaism, everything a rabbi does should reflect his commitment to the Jewish religion. Instead, over the course of the modern period, non-Orthodox denominations have deviated from many traditional positions. This has included the Reform movement’s allowance that rabbis can determine whether they will officiate at interfaith marriage ceremonies. However, while many Reform rabbis have conducted such ceremonies, they were nevertheless expected to have married within the faith themselves. Recently, some rabbis have begun advocating for Reform rabbis to marry gentiles who have not converted to Judaism. The Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion, the academic institution serving the Reform movement of North America, which has campuses in the United States and Israel, went through a process of discussion, debate, evaluation, and decision making. At the end of this process, the decision was made to retain the policy of prohibiting intermarried students from matriculating or graduating. This article outlines the development as well as the resolution of the current controversy.     

Faith as Self-Understanding: Towards a Post-Barthian Appreciation of Rudolf Bultmann

Abstract:  The tradition of post-Barthian systematic theology has consistently criticized Rudolf Bultmann's doctrine of faith. Following Barth's critique, contemporary theologians have argued that Bultmann's concept of faith as self-understanding undermines the reality of God and reduces theology to anthropology. This article argues that such arguments rest on a misreading of Bultmann. Far from anthropologizing theological knowledge, Bultmann identifies faith with self-understanding precisely in order to maintain the distinctiveness of God's reality. According to Bultmann, the locus of all true knowledge of God is the living christological event of divine–human encounter in which God is both related to and differentiated from humanity. This conception of God and faith remains relevant, and it offers valuable resources to theological reflection today.     

For God (or) country: the hydraulic relation between government instability and belief in religious sources of control

It has been recently proposed that people can flexibly rely on sources of control that are both internal and external to the self to satisfy the need to believe that their world is under control (i.e., that events do not unfold randomly or haphazardly). Consistent with this, past research demonstrates that, when personal control is threatened, people defend external systems of control, such as God and government. This theoretical perspective also suggests that belief in God and support for governmental systems, although seemingly disparate, will exhibit a hydraulic relationship with one another. Using both experimental and longitudinal designs in Eastern and Western cultures, the authors demonstrate that experimental manipulations or naturally occurring events (e.g., electoral instability) that lower faith in one of these external systems (e.g., the government) lead to subsequent increases in faith in the other (e.g., God). In addition, mediation and moderation analyses suggest that specific concerns with order and structure underlie these hydraulic effects. Implications for the psychological, sociocultural, and sociopolitical underpinnings of religious faith, as well as system justification theory, are discussed.     

Christ’s faith,doubt, and the cry of dereliction

According to accounts of the Passion, Christ cries out from the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” The cry, I argue, manifests that Christ lacks a belief that God is with him. Given the standard view of faith—belief that p is required for faith that p—it would follow that Christ lost his faith that God is with him just before he died. In this paper, I challenge the standard view by looking at the cognitive requirement of faith. Although faith that p requires some positive cognitive orientation toward p, that orientation need not be belief. I show that reliance is an alternative stance that fulfills the cognitive requirement of faith. Reliance aims at providing sensible guidance for action that is in accord with one’s values/ends. Thinking of the cognitive component of Christ’s faith in terms of reliance makes sense of the doubt manifested in his cry.     

God in America: Why Theology Is Not Simply the Concern of Philosophers

As citizens of the most technologically advanced and economically developed country in the world, nearly all Americans stalwartly maintain their faith in God, much more so than residents of other postindustrial countries ( Norris and Ingelhart 2004 ). But what is the content and meaning of this belief? Perhaps belief in God has become so pervasive in contemporary American culture that it reflects little about believers' deeper religious thoughts, identities, and actions. We find the opposite to be true. Outside the confines of seminaries, competing beliefs about who God is and what God wants have a clear and important connection to everyday religious life in the United States. Subtle distinctions in American images of God powerfully predict religious diversity as measured by belief in the truth of a single religious faith, religious devotion, and attitudes about the compatibility of secular and religious spheres. More specifically, we discern that American religious conservatism, in all its forms, can be aptly characterized by the belief that God is highly engaged in the world and particularly judgmental of human behavior.     

Trust,Endangerment, and Divine Vulnerability: An Interdisciplinary Conversation with Niklas Luhmann and K.E. Løgstrup

Faith is trusting God in the midst of endangerment. Yet, human experience of excessive suffering has challenged any spontaneous trust in God. In this article, I reconsider the idea of faith as trust in God, adding an emphasis on the divine vulnerability in the incarnation. I develop a more complex view of trust inspired by the Danish philosopher of religion K.E. Løgstrup and the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann. I use this view of trust to reconsider the relationship between trust and faith in the God of incarnation.