Arne jeg skal nok komme tilbage til det her dit indlæg.
Men læs nu hvad jeg svarer Tikka og Jørgen i tråden, emnet: "Hvad er JESUS KRISTUS kendt for?"
Fordi du her får en chance for at forstå hvad det er jeg forsøger at sige, hvordan jeg præsenterer Paulus som Paul Tillich gør det på smukkeste dygtigste vis.
-0-0-0-0-
Den religiøse åbenbaring, Kristusbegivenheden/Damaskusoplevelsen, er en begivenhed, der ikke blot sker for mig. Den er en indre katastrofe i mig, og indtræffer denne katastrofe ikke med mig, er åbenbaringen uden betydning (Nicholas Berdyaev/Hanskrist).
[b][/b]
den indre katastrofe som jeg gerne benævner en "lyksaligheds katastrofe"
det henviser til at alle vores åbenbarede gudserfaringer og erfaringer af det guddommelige de hviler på ikke menneskets ånd, fornuft, men på Guds Ånd, Ekstatisk Fornuft - det beror på en EKSTATISK TRANSCENDENS begivenhed hvor vi overskrider vores hverdags fornuft og tænkemåde og sansemåde. Sådan har det alle dage været med det den religiøse spirituelle dybdedimension. Ja det er definitionen på det religiøse spirituelle som ikke hører ind under naturlig fornufts erkendelse, men hører ind under ÅBENBARINGS DIMENSIONEN ERKENDELSES -former.
Guds Ånd og menneskets ånd (som vi møder tankegangen i 1 Kor 2 fx).
The Divine Spirit and the human Spirit.
The Divine Spirit dwells and works in the human spirit.
The Divine Spirit breaks into the human spirit.
Ecstasy is the classical term for this state of being grasped by the Divine Spiritual Presence.
Although the ecstatic character of the experience of Divine Spiritual Presence does not destroy the rational structure of the human spirit (1)* it does something the human spirit could not do by itself.
The truth that the human spirit is unable to compel the Divine Spirit to enter the human spirit.
The Divine Spiritual Presence is not that of a teacher but of a meaning-bearing experience, the teacher can analyse and formulate the element of meaning in the ecstasy of inspiration, but when the analysis of the teacher begins, the inspirational experience has already passed.
But if the ecstatic reception of the Divine Spiritual Presence is described as "inspiration" or "infusion" or as both, we must observe the basic rule that the Divine Spiritual Presence's reception can only be described in such a way that ecstasy does not disrupt structure. The unity of ecstasy and structure is classically expressed in Paul's doctrine of the Divine Spirit. Paul is primarily the theologian of the Divine Spirit. His Christology and his eschatology are both dependent on this central point in his thinking. His doctrine of justification through faith by grace is a matter of support and defense of his main assertion that with the appearance of the Christ a new state of things came into being, created by the Divine Spirit. Paul strongly emphasizes the ecstatic element in the experience of the Divine Spiritual Presence, and he does so in accordance with all the New Testament stories in which he described. These experiences, which he acknowledges in others, he claims also for himself. He knows that every succesful prayer, i.e., every prayer which reunites with God has ecstatic character. Such a prayer is impossible for the human spirit, because man does not know how to pray; but it is possible for the Divine Spirit to through man, even should man not use words ("unspeakable sighs" - Paul). The formula - being in Christ - which Paul often uses, does not suggest a psychological empathy with Jesus Christ; rather it involves an ecstatic participation in the Christ who "is the Divine Spirit", whereby one lives in sphere of this Divine Spiritual power.
At the same time, Paul resist any tendency that would permit ecstasy to disrupt structure (jeg'ets forstands strukturer). The classical expression of this is given in the first letter to Corinthians where Paul speaks of the gifts of the Divine Spirit and rejects ecstatic speaking in tongues if it produces chaos and disrupts the community, the emphasis on personal ecstatic experiences if they produce hubris, and the other charismata (gifts of the Divine Spirit) if they are not subjected to agape. He then disusses the greatest creation of the Divine Spiritual Presence, agape itself. In the hymn to agape in 1 Corinthians, chapter 13, the structure of the moral imperative and the ecstasy of the Divine Spiritual Presence are completely united. Similarly, the first three chapters of the same letter indicate a way to unite the structure of cognition with the ecstasy of the Divine Spiritual Presence. The relation to the divine ground of being through the Divine Spirit is not agnostic (as it is not amoral); rather it includes the knowledge of the "depth" of the Divine. However, as Paul shows in these chapters, this knowledge is not the fruit of theoria, the receiving function of the human spirit, but has an ecstatic character, as indicated by the language of Paul uses in these chapters as well as in the chapter on agape. In ecstatic language Paul points to agape and gnosis - forms of morality and knowledge in which ecstasy and structure are united.
The church had and continues to have a problem in actualizing Paul's ideas, because of concrete ecstatic movements. The church must prevent the confusion of ecstasy with chaos, and it must fight for structure. On the other hand, it must avoid the institutional profanization of the Divine Spirit which took place in the early Catholic church as a result of its replacement of charisma with office. Above all, it must avoid the secular profanization of contemporary Protestantism which occurs when it replaces ecstasy with doctrinal or moral structure. The Pauline criterion of the unity of structure and ecstasy stands against both kinds of profanization.
Hvad Paul Tillich giver udtryk for ovenfor har vi også her:
(1)*:
Paul's mysticism was not like the mysticism elsewhere described as a soul being at one with God. In the mysticism he felt and encouraged, there is no loss of self but an enriching of it; no erase of time or place but a comprehension of how time and place fit within the eternal. A. Schweitzer.
Tillich:
"Ecstasy" ("standing outside one's self)") points to a state of mind which is extraordinary in the sense that the mind transcendens its ordinary situation. Ecstacy is not a negation of reason; it is the state of mind in which reason is beyond itself, that is, beyond its subject-object structure. In being beyond itself reason does not deny itself. "Ecstatic reason" remains reason; it does not receive anything irrational or anti-rational -- which it could not do without self-destruction --- but it transcends the basic condition of finite rationality, the subject-object of structure. This is the state mystics try to reach by ascetic and meditative activities.
Svar
Citer
