Lese gerade ein Buch, das sich darum dreht, ob im „alten Testament“ schon die Menschwerdung Jesu angedeutet wird.
Unter dem Thema „Annahmen“ schreibt der Autor etwas wesentliches, was heute ihmo oft nicht ernst genug wird:
man vergisst oft, die eigene Anschauung von dem zu trennen, was an Beweisen oder Aussagen vorliegt.
(Quelle „The God who became human A BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF INCARNATION“
Assumptions play a role in every claim to knowledge. For example, if I claim to know X, I express that claim in some language. In so doing I am assuming that language can convey thought from one mind to another. That is to say, I am assuming that language is a vehicle for communicative action. Part of my job is not only to read books and articles but to help students to do so intelligently. More often than not, writers do not make their assumptions visible. Consequently students need some help in detecting a given writer’s assumptions. For example, if I read Scripture with materialist assumptions, then I need to explain—explain away?—any references to the supernatural. In this view Saul of Tarsus did not meet the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. Rather he had an epileptic fit or some other aberrant neurological episode. The Christ he met was the Christ of a fevered imagination. So what assumptions underlie this work?
A key assumption is that there is a living God who is a personal agent. Walter Brueggemann captures the essence of the biblical testimony to this living God in a fine way. He is writing of the God revealed in the Old Testament, but what he writes is true of both testaments: ‘ “God” as rendered in the Old Testament is a fully articulated personal agent, with all the particularities of personhood and with a full repertoire of traits and actions that belong to a fully formed and actualized person.’ It is this God who providentially orders human affairs. Nature and history are thus open to divine action.