Archiv Ladislava Hejdánka | Kartotéka

Aristotelés ()

This is why Plato, in the Timaeus, identifies ´matter´ and ´room´, because ´room´ and ´the receptive-of determination´ are one and the same thing. His account of the ´receptive´ differs in the Timaeus and in what are known as his Unwritten Teachings, but he is consistent in asserting the identity of ´place´ and ´room´. Thus, whereas everyone asserts the reality of ´place´, only Plato has so much as attempted to tell us what it is.b
(Physics IV, 2, 209b 14)
- – - – - – -
b Aristotle too identifies ´place´ and ´room´ (cf. Introduction to this Book, p. 272), but Aristotle assimilates them /289/ both to the surface-continent, and Plato to the intramural dimensionally. See Plato, Tim. 52 A and Archer Hind, ad loc.
(xxxx, Physics, Cambridge, Mass. + London 1980, p. 289.)

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.)