Academic literature on the topic 'Doxa (The Greek word). Glory of God'

In 1921 was published the book of the famous Austrian-British philosopher and funder of the analytic philosophy Ludwig Johann Wittgenstein, in which he wrote, that the big part of our philosophical problems, which were subject of the thinking of the thousands philosophers, are created not by the difficulty of reality but by the complication of the language. When a philosopher analyzes a language he uses, he will find that the biggest part of the philosophical problems is illusory. Following Wittgenstein's advices, in this article we probe to analyze what means the concept "polytheism" and to answer the questions: did the phenomenon, what is with this word described, anytime exist, or it is only a phantasies' fabrication, and all attempts to think about it are wandering in the dark labyrinths without exit. The first problem we have in our way is absolutely darkness in this question. We could not find any research, in which the concept of polytheism is analyzed in this way we changed. So we must get through the forest of an unknown ourselves without opportunity to have support from the experience of the predecessors. We hope our mistakes might be useful for the following researches. The Greek word "doxa polytheos" was first time used by Philo of Alexandria and after them many Judaic and Christian authors repeated this word opposing own religion to the paganism. Jan Bodin 1n 16th Century used this word in the modern mean as a France word "polythéisme". The Greek word "doxa polytheos" and the France one "polythéisme", though they are constructed of the same Greek word "Θεός", based on the different concepts, because in 16 centuries the word "Θεός" changed its means. In Greek-speaking society this word was used to detonate any being who overstate the material world. When Thales of Millet wrote, that "the world is full of gods", he did not mean that there is an Absolut in every small part of the world. When he used the word "Θεός" in this mean, Thales thought about different objects, as we called "God" now. The mean of the term "polytheism" is unclear and is the cause of many researches problems in the religious studies. The Greek word "Θεός" detonated every sacral being, which was the object of the worship, but not the Absolut. When this word went in the term "polytheism", its mean was changed, and it was used for the calling Absolut in the Christian meaning. This transformation of the meaning created the wrong conception that in the world there were or are religions, the members of them believes in the existence of some or many Absolutes. The problem of using concept "polytheism" is not a real academic problem but an illusions problem, what is caused by the wrong and incorrect using of the term. The Greek word "Θεός", of them are created the terms "monotheism" and "polytheism", is used in both terms in different meanings. In the term "monotheism" the word "Θεός" means God-Absolut, and in the term "polytheism" – any beings, what are the objects of the religious worship. The monotheism and polytheism are not two different phase of the entvelopment of the religious consciousness. These ideas are created by the wrongness of Hegel's philosophy and must be uprooted from the lexicon of the religious studies.

The story of the raising of Lazarus (John 11.1–44) is one of the most dramatic and impressive of the compositions in the Fourth Gospel. For this very reason it raises a host of problems for the biblical critic. There can be no dispute that it has a theological purpose which dominates the whole narrative. This is clearly set out in the first words attributed to Jesus: ‘This illness is not unto death; it is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by means of it’ (v. 4). The same point is referred to again just before the climax of the narrative in v. 40. But the more prominent the theological aim, the more difficult it becomes to view the narrative simply in terms of history. It must surely be the case that John has based his composition on a source, which was probably much simpler and briefer than the splendid story which it has become in his hands. But the source must be reconstructed before we can begin to think of it in historical terms. The modern tendency is to give up such attempts as hopeless, and to concentrate on the meaning of the text as it stands. But even that presents pitfalls to the critic. All seems well until we come to v. 33: ‘Jesus…was deeply moved in spirit (ένεβριμήσατο τῷ πνεύματι) and troubled.’ Unfortunately the Greek words do not mean ‘deeply moved in spirit’ (RSV). In his recent commentary on John in the Word Biblical Commentary, G. R. Beasley-Murray marshalls a great array of evidence to show that the meaning must be ‘became angry in spirit’. But why should Jesus be represented by John as angry? The effort to answer this question affects the interpretation of the whole story.

Although an abundance of literature is available regarding the glory of Christ in the Fourth Gospel, relatively little has been written on the glory of Christ’s followers in this Gospel. John 17.21-23 is frequently cited to promote various causes with the assumption that this text refers to church unity, but the theme of the glory that Christ has given to his people to enable their unity has scarcely been noted, and there are many diverse understandings of the nature of the oneness for which the Johannine Jesus prayed. What is the glory that Christ has given to believers? Diverse theories have been proposed, but no clear, convincing answers have been offered by contemporary interpreters. In this thesis, answers to the questions regarding the nature of the δόξα in 17.22-23 are found primarily in Chapter 17 and in the Farewell Discourse(s), but contributions are garnered from relevant passages in other sections of the Gospel as well. This is also true of the question regarding the nature of oneness in 17.22-23. The following questions are addressed: (1) Who are the people to whom Jesus has given δόξα in John 17.20-23? (2) What is the δόξα that Jesus has given to his followers? (3) What is meant by oneness of the believers in vv. 20-23? A survey of the lexicographical background of δόξα is focused on the use of δόξα in the LXX, since NT usage usually follows that of the LXX. The meaning of do,xa in the LXX, however, is partly dependent on its meaning in nonbiblical Greek and partly on the meanings of the Hebrew words that δόξα renders in the LXX. A consideration of the meanings of δόξα in the Greek OT is supplemented by an inquiry into the δόξα of the Messiah and of God's People in the LXX. Δόξα in the Apocrypha, glory in the OT Pseudepigrapha, and memra, yeqara, and shekinah in the Targums are discussed in the sections that follow, since the intertestamental writings form an important bridge between the OT and the NT. The survey of the lexicographical background of δόξα concludes with a discussion of the meanings of δόξα in the NT. Proceeding with the supposition that answers to the questions regarding the nature of the gift of δόξα and of oneness in 17.22-23 are found primarily in Chapter 17 and in the Farewell Discourse(s), the study of Chapter 17 begins first in 17.22-23 and its paragraph (vv. 20-23), and radiates out from there into the rest of Chapter 17 and the Farewell Discourse(s). Relevant passages in other sections of the Fourth Gospel are examined as well. This study does not attempt to discuss every text in the Fourth Gospel that speaks of δόξα or δόξαζω, but those that are most closely associated with the passage under consideration are studied and discussed.
Thesis (PhD (New Testament Studies))--University of Pretoria, 2008.
New Testament Studies
unrestricted