영과 정신은 동일한 것인가: 판넨베르크의 인간학과 자연신학에서 고찰 (Are the Soul and Spirit to be Identical: A Research on Pannenberg’s Anthropology & Theology of Nature)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국조직신학회
· 수록지 정보 : 한국조직신학논총 / 20호 / 39 ~ 66페이지
· 저자명 : 최민옥

초록

본고는‘영과 정신은 동일한 것인가’라는 논제하에 I I장에서
판넨베르크의『인간학』(Anthropology in theological Perspective)에서
영과 정신의 실체를 구성하는 여정과『자연 신학』(Toward a Theology
of Nature)에서 영과 정신의 동일성에 대한 탐구를 살펴보고, I I I장 나
가는 말에서 그의 영과 정신에 대한 전개에 대한 주요점을 언급함으로
논의를 갈음하려 한다.

영어초록

With the viewpoint of natural science, phenomenology,
psychology, philosophy and theology etc., Pannenberg develops the
formation process of spirit and/or soul with Darwinism in his
Anthropologie in theologischer Perspektive and discusses the
relationship of spirit and soul in Toward a Theology of Nature. This
article has a purpose to research on identity of soul and spirit through
his anthropology and theology of nature.
Pannenberg develops the formation process of spirit with
Darwinism in his anthropology. He develops the peculiarity of the
human being against the other animals out of behavioral science of
the animal and philosophical anthropology and theological
anthropology in “The Person in Nature” of his anthropology. He
induces the concept of spirit through formation process of identity of
self “The Human Person as a Social Being” and “The Shared World”
of his anthropology. With Darwinism development process,
consciousness is induced from behavior pattern and concept of soul
and/or spirit is induced from consciousness.
The ‘physical characteristic’ that Pannenberg himself talks fades
and flows into the tendency excluded, from the phase of a spirit
transferred by consciousness. Consequently the discontinuation
between conceptual regulation of spirit from formation process of
identity of self and theology description of end will be a natural
result.
In Pannenberg’s theology of nature, his conceptual regulation
about soul which is based on its own transcendence tendency
synthesize union of soul and spirit, but he affirms that soul is not
identical with spirit and is not manifestation of spirit. When he
develops about soul and a spirit with connecting pneuma of ancient
times, wind, breathing and breath in the Bible, even if the location of
spirit and soul is changed, any special does not occur. In spite of he
asserts spirit differ from soul, it seems that he considers spirit and
soul as identical form of the existence.
I think his effort into theology is worth of being located as the
virtue to become the theologian standard.

참고자료

· 없음