Archiv Ladislava Hejdánka | Kartotéka

Hendrikus Berkhof ((1979) 1986)

In the previous paragraph we presented one approach to the way of Jesus as the messiah of Israel. We might call that the approach from behind: we see him in the line of redemptive history, how he arises out of the Old Testament problematic, and gives and is answer to it. But with this approach he does not come fully within our purview. He is the fulfillment od Israel´s way precisely because he is more than a small segment of that way, namely a new beginning and a turn made by God. Therefore, to the approach from behind must be added an approach from above. In other words, there must be added an approach that starts from the Word, the creative and saving speech of God which in him became „flesh,“ that is, an historical human life. But because the word became historical in him, a dated life within human history, yet a third approach is possible and necessary, the approach from below, whereby we apply to his appearance the methodology of all historical investigation, and ascertain what he looks like in the light of a careful investigation of the sources and within the framework of his own time.
We regard these three approaches as complementary. All three relate to the manner in which eternity unites itself to time in Jesus the Christ. We could think of yet a fourth approach, one from before, from the perspective of what he works through the centuries in human hearts and in the peoples of the world. We cannot do without that approach either. In the study of the faith it is usually dealt with under other headings: the work of the Spirit, the church, justification, etc. We shall do that too, but wish to make a clear transition between Christology and the subsequent chapters. In this separate chapter on Christology we concern ourselves particularly with the approaches from above and from below. Thereby it should be noted that through the ages classical dogmatics knew only the first: the man Jesus was seen exclusively as the product of the Word becoming flesh, the “Word“ being thought of as the “second person“ of the Trinity. As a reaction there arose since the Enlightenment a strong emphasis on the approach from below. Ecclesiastical thinking often fiercely opposed that. Understandably so, because this supposed “purely /272/ historical scientific“ approach was often motivated by the desire to prove that Jesus had not been the Son of God, but only a uniquely gifted and inspiring man. Yet that does not as such justify the church´s opposition. If in Christ the Word has become flesh, it should be able to stand the test of historical-critical investigation. Precisely from the standpoint of faith, historical investigation is to be left free. …
(6402, Christian Faith, rev.ed., Grand Rapids (Mich.) 1986, p. 271-2.)

Sirach ()

Nepřítel Sirach
Nebývá poznán v neštěstí přítel, aniž se v neštěstí tají nepřítel.
(12,6)
Nevěř nepříteli svému na věky.
(12,8)
Rty svými lahoditi nepřítel bude, a v srdci svém radu skládati, aby tě vstrčil do jámy.
(12,14)
(Apokryfy, Praha 1952, překlad Kralických, V. díl, Eccl.-Sirach 12,6; 8; 14 – str. 226-7.)

()

13Nebo ne nějaký zjevný nepřítel útržky mi činil, sic jinak snesl bych to; ani ten, kdo mne nenávidí, pozdvihl se proti mně, nebo skryl bych se před ním: 14Ale ty, člověče mi rovný, vůdce můj a domácí můj, 15Ješto jsme spolu mile tajné rady držívali, a do domu Božího společně chodívali.
(6630, Kutná Hora 1940, žalm 55, 13.)

Alfred North Whitehead (1941)

… I venture upon one remark which applies to all philosophic work: – Philosophy is an attempt to express the infinity of the universe in terms of the limitations of language.
… Dovolím si jednu poznámku, jež se týká veškeré filosofické práce: – Filosofie je pokus vyjádřit nekonečnost vesmíru omezenými výrazy jazyka.
(Autobiographical Notes, in: 2879, Essays in Science and Philosophy, New York 1948, p. 15.)
(Autobiografické poznámky, in: 5800, Matematika a dobro, Mladá Fronta 1970, str.18.)

Aristotelés (–384-324)

It remains to disarm the considerations urged in /263/ support of the existence of the unlimited not only as a potentiality but as actually compassed. Some of them do not follow as alleged from the admitted premises; and the rest can be met along some other line od sound reasoning.
(1)Admitting that things never cease to come into being, it does not follow that there actually exists some sense-perceptible body unlimited in quantity; for though the sum of things be limited, things may come out of and pass into each other without end.
(2)Again, being in contact and being limited are different things. Contact is a relation with something else, for there must be something to touch the touched; and this may happen to something limited incidentally; but ,being limited‘ is not a relation. Also a limited thing need not be touched by a thing homogeneous with itself and cannot be touched by any other.
(3)It is futil to trust to what we can conceive as a guide to what is or can be; for the excess or defect in such a case lies not in the thing but in the conceiving. One might conceive any one of us to be many times as big as we are, without limit; but if there does not exist a man too big for the city to hold, for instance, or even bigger than the men we know of, that is not because we have conceived him to exist, but because he does; and whethe we have or have not conceived him to exist is a mere incident.
Fys. III, 8, 208a
(The Physics I, London etc. 1970, p. 261+263