2022/02/04

Tillich and the Perennial Philosophy | Owen C. Thomas, Harvard Theological Review | 2011

Tillich and the Perennial Philosophy |
 Harvard Theological Review | Cambridge Core



Tillich and the Perennial Philosophy

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 June 2011
Owen C. Thomas

Abstract :

Paul Tillich represents Christian tradition as a synthesis of biblical religion and the perennial philosophy. 

Tillich's synthesis, which is only partially successful, involves the description of God as both being-itself and personal.

 Tillich also relates creation and fall to the universal shift from essence to existence, while fulfillment is interpreted as the transition from existence to essence. 

Tillich's synthesis is most successful in relation to the nature of the divine and least successful in the interpretation of creation and fall as a change from essence to existence.



Extract


In an earlier essay I proposed the paradoxical theses that the main religio-philosophical alternative in the West to Judaism and Christianity has always been the perennial philosophy in its various forms, and that Christianity (and less so Judaism) has always been an amalgam or synthesis of the ideal types, biblical religion and the perennial philosophy. 

An example of the former is the concept delineated by the biblical theology movement of the 1940s and 1950s. By the latter I mean the religio-philosophical world view exemplified by Neoplatonism and Vedanta, and by the philosophical foundation of Gnosticism, Rosicrucianism, and Theosophy, and propounded by such authors as René Guénon, Frithjof Schuon, S. H. Nasr, and Huston Smith.

TypeResearch Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 89 , Issue 1 , January 1996 , pp. 85 - 98
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816000031825[Opens in a new window]
CopyrightCopyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1996

===

Paul Tillich. The Eternal Now. Ch12. The Eternal Now

 

Chapter 11: The Eternal Now

 

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.

Revelation 21:6

 

It is our destiny and the destiny of everything in our world that we must come to an end. Every end that we experience in nature and mankind speaks to us with a loud voice: you also will come to an end! It may reveal itself in the farewell to a place where we have lived for a long time, the separation from the fellowship of intimate associates, the death of someone near to us. Or it may become apparent to us in the failure of a work that gave meaning to us, the end of a whole period of life, the approach of old age, or even in the melancholy side of nature visible in autumn. All this tells us: you will also come to an end.

Whenever we are shaken by this voice reminding us of our end, we ask anxiously -- what does it mean that we have a beginning and an end, that we come from the darkness of the "not yet" and rush ahead towards the darkness of the "no more"? When Augustine asked this question, he began his attempt to answer it with a prayer. And it is right to do so, because praying means elevating oneself to the eternal. In fact, there is no other way of judging time than to see it in the light of the eternal. In order to judge something, one must be partly within it, partly out of it. If we were totally within time, we would not be able to elevate ourselves in prayer, meditation and thought, to the eternal. We would be children of time like all other creatures and could not ask the question of the meaning of time. But as men we are aware of the eternal to which we belong and from which we are estranged by the bondage of time.

I

We speak of time in three ways or modes -- the past, present and future. Every child is aware of them, but no wise man has ever penetrated their mystery. We become aware of them when we hear a voice telling us: you also will come to an end. It is the future that awakens us to the mystery of time. Time runs from the beginning to the end, but our awareness of time goes in the opposite direction. It starts with the anxious anticipation of the end. In the light of the future we see the past and present. So let us first consider our going into the future and towards the end that is the last point that we can anticipate in our future.

The image of the future produces contrasting feelings in man. The expectation of the future gives one a feeling of joy. It is a great thing to have a future in which one can actualize one’s possibilities, in which one can experience the abundance of life, in which one can create something new -- be it new work, a new living being, a new way of life, or the regeneration of one’s own being. Courageously one goes ahead towards the new, especially in the earlier part of one’s life. But this feeling struggles with other ones: the anxiety about what is hidden in the future, the ambiguity of everything it will bring us, the shortness of its duration that decreases with every year of our life and becomes shorter the nearer we come to the unavoidable end. And finally the end itself, with its impenetrable darkness and the threat that one’s whole existence in time will be judged as a failure.

How do men, how do you, react to this image of the future with its hope and threat and inescapable end? Probably most of us react by looking at the immediate future, anticipating it, working for it, hoping for it, being anxious about it, while cutting off from our awareness the future which is farther away, and above all, by cutting off from our consciousness the end, the last moment of our future. Perhaps we could not live without doing so most of our time. But perhaps we will not be able to die if we always do so. And if one is not able to die, is he really able to live?

How do we react if we become aware of the inescapable end contained in our future? Are we able to bear it, to take its anxiety into a courage that faces ultimate darkness? Or are we thrown into utter hopelessness? Do we hope against hope, or do we repress our awareness of the end because we cannot stand it? Repressing the consciousness of our end expresses itself in several ways.

Many try to do so by putting the expectation of a long life between now and the end. For them it is decisive that the end be delayed. Even old people who are near the end do this, for they cannot endure the fact that the end will not be delayed much longer.

Many people realize this deception and hope for a continuation of this life after death. They expect an endless future in which they may achieve or possess what has been denied them in this life. This is a prevalent attitude about the future, and also a very simple one. It denies that there is an end. It refuses to accept that we are creatures, that we come from the eternal ground of time and return to the eternal ground of time and have received a limited span of time as our time. It replaces eternity by endless future.

But endless future is without a final aim; it repeats itself and could well be described as an image of hell. This is not the Christian way of dealing with the end. The Christian message says that the eternal stands above past and future. "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end."

The Christian message acknowledges that time runs towards an end, and that we move towards the end of that time which is our time. Many people -- but not the Bible -- speak loosely of the "hereafter" or of the "life after death." Even in our liturgies eternity is translated by "world without end." But the world, by its very nature, is that which comes to an end. If we want to speak in truth without foolish, wishful thinking, we should speak about the eternal that is neither timelessness nor endless time. The mystery of the future is answered in the eternal of which we may speak in images taken from time. But if we forget that the images are images, we fall into absurdities and self-deceptions. There is no time after time, but there is eternity above time.

II

We go towards something that is not yet, and we come from something that is no more. We are what we are by what we came from. We have a beginning as we have an end. There was a time that was not our time. We hear of it from those who are older than we; we read about it in history books; we try to envision the unimaginable billions of years in which neither we nor anyone was who could tell us of them. It is hard for us to imagine our "being-no more." It is equally difficult to imagine our "being-not-yet." But we usually don’t care about our not yet being, about the indefinite time before our birth in which we were not. We think: now we are; this is our time -- and we do not want to lose it. We are not concerned about what lies before our beginning. We ask about life after death, yet seldom do we ask about our being before birth. But is it possible to do one without the other? The fourth gospel does not think so. When it speaks of the eternity of the Christ, it does not only point to his return to eternity, but also to his coming from eternity. "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." He comes from another dimension than that in which the past lies. Those to whom he speaks misunderstand him because they think of the historical past. They believe that he makes himself hundreds of years old and they rightly take offense at this absurdity. Yet he does not say, "I was" before Abraham; but he says, "I am" before Abraham was. He speaks of his beginning out of eternity. And this is the beginning of everything that is -- not the uncounted billions of years -- but the eternal as the ultimate point in our past.

The mystery of the past from which we come is that it is and is not in every moment of our lives. It is, insofar as we are what the past has made of us. In every cell of our body, in every trait of our face, in every movement of our soul, our past is the present.

Few periods knew more about the continuous working of the past in the present than ours. We know about the influence of childhood experiences on our character. We know about the scars left by events in early years. We have rediscovered what the Greek tragedians and the Jewish prophets knew, that the past is present in us, both as a curse and as a blessing. For "past" always means both a curse and a blessing, not only for individuals, but also for nations and even continents.

History lives from the past, from its heritage. The glory of the European nations is their long, inexhaustibly rich tradition. But the blessings of this tradition are mixed with curses resulting from early splits into separated nations whose bloody struggles have filled century after century and brought Europe again and again to the edge of self-destruction. Great are the blessings this nation has received in the course of its short history. But from earliest days, elements have been at work that have been and will remain a curse for many years to come. I could refer, for instance, to racial consciousness, not only within the nation itself, but also in its dealings with races and nations outside its own boundaries. "The American way of life" is a blessing that comes from the past; but it is also a curse, threatening the future.

Is there a way of getting rid of such curses that threaten the life of nations and continents, and, more and more, of mankind as a whole? Can we banish elements of our past into the past so that they lose their power over the present? In man’s individual life this is certainly possible. One has rightly said that the strength of a character is dependent on the amount of things that he has thrown into the past. In spite of the power his past holds over him, a man can separate himself from it, throw it out of the present into the past in which it is condemned to remain ineffective -- at least for a time. It may return and conquer the present and destroy the person, but this is not necessarily so. We are not inescapably victims of our past. We can make the past remain nothing but past. The act in which we do this has been called repentance. Genuine repentance is not the feeling of sorrow about wrong actions, but it is the act of the whole person in which he separates himself from elements of his being, discarding them into the past as something that no longer has any power over the present.

Can a nation do the same thing? Can a nation or any other social group have genuine repentance? Can it separate itself from curses of the past? On this possibility rests the hope of a nation. The history of Israel and the history of the church show that it is possible and they also show that it is rare and extremely painful. Nobody knows whether it will happen to this nation. But we know that its future depends on the way it will deal with its past, and whether it can discard into the past elements which are a curse!

In each human life a struggle is going on about the past. Blessings battle with curses. Often we do not recognize what are blessings and what are curses. Today, in the light of the discovery of our unconscious strivings, we are more inclined to see curses than blessings in our past. The remembrance of our parents, which in the Old Testament is so inseparably connected with their blessings, is now much more connected with the curse they have unconsciously and against their will brought upon us. Many of those who suffer under mental afflictions see their past, especially their childhood, only as the source of curses. We know how often this is true. But we should not forget that we would not be able to live and to face the future if there were not blessings that support us and which come from the same source as the curses. A pathetic struggle over their past is going on almost without interruption in many men and women in our time. No medical healing can solve this conflict, because no medical healing can change the past. Only a blessing that lies above the conflict of blessing and curse can heal. It is the blessing that changes what seems to be unchangeable -- the past. It cannot change the facts; what has happened has happened and remains so in all eternity! But the meaning of the facts can be changed by the eternal, and the name of this change is the experience of "forgiveness." If the meaning of the past is changed by forgiveness, its influence on the future is also changed. The character of curse is taken away from it. It becomes a blessing by the transforming power of forgiveness.

There are not always blessings and curses in the past. There is also emptiness in it. We remember experiences that, at the time, were seemingly filled with an abundant content. Now we remember them, and their abundance has vanished, their ecstasy is gone, their fullness has turned into a void. Pleasures, successes, vanities have this character. We don’t feel them as curses; we don’t feel them as blessings. They have been swallowed by the past. They did not contribute to the eternal. Let us ask ourselves how little in our lives escapes this judgment.

III

The mystery of the future and the mystery of the past are united in the mystery of the present.

Our time, the time we have, is the time in which we have "presence." But how can we have "presence"? Is not the present moment gone when we think of it? Is not the present the evermoving boundary line between past and future? But a moving boundary is not a place to stand upon. If nothing were given to us except the "no more" of the past and the "not yet" of the future, we would not have anything. We could not speak of the time that is our time; we would not have "presence."

The mystery is that we have a present; and even more, that we have our future also because we anticipate it in ‘the present; and that we have our past also, because we remember it in the present. In the present our future and our past are ours. But there is no "present" if we think of the never-ending flux of time. The riddle of the present is the deepest of all the riddles of time. Again, there is no answer except from that which comprises all time and lies beyond it -- the eternal. Whenever we say "now" or "today," we stop the flux of time for us. We accept the present and do not care that it is gone in the moment that we accept it. We live in it and it is renewed for us in every new present." This is possible because every moment of time reaches into the eternal. It is the eternal that stops the flux of time for us. It is the eternal "now" which provides for us a temporal "now." We live so long as "it is still today" -- in the words of the letter to the Hebrews. Not everybody, and nobody all the time, is aware of this "eternal now" in the temporal "now." But sometimes it breaks powerfully into our consciousness and gives us the certainty of the eternal, of a dimension of time which cuts into time and gives us our time.

People who are never aware of this dimension lose the possibility of resting in the present. As the letter to the Hebrews describes it, they never enter into the divine rest. They are held by the past and cannot separate themselves from it, or they escape towards the future, unable to rest in the present. They have not entered the eternal rest which stops the flux of time and gives us the blessing of the present. Perhaps this is the most conspicuous characteristic of our period, especially in the western world and particularly in this country. It lacks the courage to accept "presence" because it has lost the dimension of the eternal.

"I am the beginning and the end." This is said to us who live in the bondage of time, who have to face the end, who cannot escape the past, who need a present to stand upon. Each of the modes of time has its peculiar mystery, each of them carries its peculiar anxiety. Each of them drives us to an ultimate question. There is one answer to these questions -- the eternal. There is one power that surpasses the all-consuming power of time -- the eternal: He Who was and is and is to come, the beginning and the end. He gives us forgiveness for what has passed. He gives us courage for what is to come. He gives us rest in His eternal Presence. 


하느님 - 위키백과

하느님

위키백과, 우리 모두의 백과사전.
Schnorr von Carolsfeld Bibel in Bildern 1860 001.png

하느님은 한국어에서 절대적인 존재(Existence)이신 신이 계신 위치, '하늘'과 '신자들 내적 마음' 중 '하늘'을 선택하여 가리키는 말이다. 그리스도교유대교이슬람교에서 성서와 꾸란을 한국어로 번역하는 과정에서 그들의 신앙의 대상 또한 하느님으로 번역하기로 결정함에 따라, 기독교와 이슬람교에서도 사용하게 되었다. 개신교는 하나님이라는 명칭을 별도로 사용하여, 개신교 성경과 예배에서 사용한다.

인류가 탄생되면서 인간의 능력으로 다스릴 수도 이해할 수도 없는 일에, 어떤 초월 존재가 개입되어 있다는 의식이 싹트기 시작하였고, 이를 두려워하고 숭상하게 되었다. 물리적 실체인 유한세계는 비물리적 실체인 무한세계의 종속된 차원으로 연결되어 있고, 그 무한한 세계를 다스리는 초월 존재를 지칭하는 단어가 자연스레 생기게 되었다. 초월존재에 대한 두려움과 숭배는 동-서양을 막론하고, 고대 유물과 각 민족의 전승 “신화”로서 그 실상이 명백하게 밝혀지고 있다.

초월 존재를 부르는 단어에는 크게 2가지로 분류할 수 있는데, 대표적인 호칭이 “하느님”과 “신(神)”이라 할 수 있다. 민족마다 초월 존재에 대한 2가지 의식을 가지고 있는데, 만물과 만유를 다스리는 절대적인 분이 유일하다고 생각하는 유일신 사상과 반면에 다양한 초월적 존재, 즉 환경이나 행위마다 길흉화복을 직접 다스리는 귀신들이 있다고 생각하는 범신 사상이다. 이처럼 초월 존재에 대한 서로 다른 관념은 세계의 대부분의 언어에서 나타나는데, 영어God와 영어Deity가 그 관념 차이를 바탕으로 하고 있다.

사람의 의식에 자리잡고 있는 것이 실제로 유일신인지 범신인지 뚜렷하게 구별하기는 쉽지 않다. 이는 민족 정신과 종교 및 문화에 따라서, 그리고 시대 변화에 따라서 이들 관념이 뒤섞여 있기 때문이다, 일반적으로 초월 존재만을 지칭하는 일반적인 경우에는 God 와 Deity를 동일한 뜻으로 차별 없이 사용하기도 한다.

최근에, 이렇게 동서양을 막론하고 종교적 초월존재를 인정하는 민족들마다 유일신과 범신 관념이 혼재되고 혼동되어온 까닭에 사람들이 진정한 진리를 깨닫는데 실패해 왔다[1]는 주장이 있으며, 유일신으로서의 초월적 존재를 "하느님(God)" 관념으로, 범신론에서의 초월적 대상을 "신(神 Deity)" 관념으로 구분해야 한다고 말하기도 한다.

이 분석에 따르면 종교의 탄생과 이후의 발전 과정에서 사람의 관념에 어떤 절대적이고 초월적 개인성을 지닌 존재자가 의식되는 경우에는 "하느님(God)" 개념으로 성장되어 왔고, 초월적 개인성을 포함하여 개인성이 없는 단순한 초월 상태나 현상이나 힘을 두루 포함하는 경우에는 "신(神 Deity)" 개념으로 형성되어 왔다고 말한다. 이 주장에서는, 초월존재를 명백하게 깨닫고 인식해 왔다는 점에서, 유일하고 초월적 개인성인 "하느님(God)" 관념을 지녔던 민족이나 그러한 종교 사상이 보다 높은 진리를 전승하고 있다고 말한다.[2]

단어의 기원[편집]

어원[편집]

하느님이란 단어의 어원은 '하늘'이다. 한민족중국인일본인 등은 오래전부터 '하늘(天)'을 절대적이고 지고한 존재로 인식하는 사상이 있었다. 이들 국가의 천손사상 또한 이러한 맥락과 관련이 깊으며, 중화사상에서의 '천자(天子)', 일본의 '덴노(天皇)' 모두 이러한 사상에 연원하고 있다. 이러한 '하늘'에 존칭접미사 '-님'을 붙여 '하느님'이라는 말이 생겨나게 된 것이다.

The Chinese recorder 제 13-14판에 따르면 조선어로 heaven은 '하늘'이고 lord 또는 prince는 '-님'이다. 또 '하느님'은' 한국인들에게 어디에서나 '천상의 통치자와 지상에서 가장 높은 자'로 의 뜻으로 인정되고 있는 단어로 정의하였다.[3]

불교에서의 하느님[편집]

하느님은 한자로 환인이며, 삼국유사를 쓴 일연과 제왕운기를 쓴 이승휴는 제석천은 바로 단군신화에 처음 등장한다. 제석천은 원래 인도 신화의 인드라신의 한자어이다. 도리천의 천주인 제석천은 전체 우주의 행정을 총괄한다고 한다. 제석천은 석가모니가 성불한 뒤에 그의 수호신이 되었다. 새해에 보신각종은 33번 친다. 기미독립선언서는 민족대표 33인이 서명했다. 도리천의 33천을 의미한다.

인드라는 무기인 금강저를 가지고 벼락을 친다. 신들의 왕, 벼락이 무기라는 점, 날씨를 주관한다는 점에서 그리스 신화의 제우스와 동일하다. 리그베다에서는 인드라가 자신을 상징하는 무기인 금강저를 사용하여 브리트라를 쫓아버리는 내용이 묘사되고 있다. 브리트라는 인도 토속 신앙에서 '가뭄'이라는 자연현상 자체를 신격화 한 것이다. 일례로 리그베다에서 묘사하는 인드라는 뇌신(雷神), 그의 무기인 금강저는 뇌전을 뜻하므로 이것은 가뭄 끝에 천둥 벼락과 함께 비가 내려 해갈이 되는 과정을 묘사한 신화로 여겨지고 있다.

그리스도교에서의 하느님[편집]

천주교가 조선에 들어오면서 그리스도교의 신을 한국어로 옮기기 위해 하느님이라는 호칭을 처음으로 사용하기 시작했다. 초기 성서에서는 천주교가 숭상하는 신의 이름인 야훼를 직접 사용하였으나 단어가 생경해서 청나라에서 들어온 한문으로 된 그리스도교 변증서인 《천주실의》에 쓰인 세상을 창조한 유일신을 뜻하는 단어 천주(天主)의 당시 한글 표현인 하ᄂᆞ(天)님(主)으로 받아들이게 된 것이다.

하느님이라는 말이 가장 처음 나오는 것은 조선 개신교회의 최초 한국어 성경 번역판인 《예수성교 누가복음전서》이다.“하느님”이라는 이름을 번역어로 선택한 일
「예수성교누가복음전서」 번역의 가장 큰 공헌은 무엇보다도 신명을 “하느님”으로 정했다는 점일 것이다. 로스 목사는 당시의 선교 보고서에서, “하늘”(heaven)과 “님”(prince)의 합성어인 “하느님”이 가장 적합한 번역어일 것이라고 보고하고 있다. 그 후로 오랫동안 “참신, 상제, 천주” 등 여러 이름이 검토가 되었지만, 한국 사람이면 누구나 알고 있는 이 이름을 신명으로 정한 로스 번역 팀의 선택은 오늘날까지 한국의 기독교가 성장하는 데에 큰 영향을 미친 중요한 결정이었다. 이 이름은 그 후로 평안도 방언인“하ᄂᆞ님”과 이에서 발전한“하나님”으로, 공동번역 성서에서는 “하느님”으로 표기된다.

유대교에서의 하느님[편집]

이슬람교에서의 하느님[편집]

교단에서의 사용[편집]

현재 하느님이라는 용어를 사용하는 교단으로는 한국의 로마 가톨릭교회대한성공회한국 정교회여호와의 증인 대한민국 지부, 한국이슬람교평화회 등이 있다. 한국 천주교에서는 전통적으로 '천주'(天主)를 사용하였고, 제2차 바티칸 공의회 이후에는 야훼를 '하느님'이라는 단어로 표기하고 있다. 현재 한국 천주교에서는 '하느님'과 '천주' 모두 교회의 공식 용어로 인정되고 있는데, 주로 '하느님'을 보편적으로 사용하면서 때에 따라 '천주'를 병용한다. 성공회의 경우 1965년판 공동기도문에서는 '천주'로, 2004년판 성공회 기도서에서는 '하느님'으로 표기되어 있다. 초기 개신교에서는 상제, 천주, 하느님, 하나님 등 다양한 용어를 사용하였으나, 현재 다수의 개신교 교파들은 하나님이라는 표기를 사용함에 따라 "하느님"이라는 용어는 거의 사용되지 않고 있다.

공동번역성서는 1977년 에큐메니컬 운동의 실천을 위해, 천주교의 선종완 신부와 개신교의 문익환 목사가 함께 번역한 한국어 성경으로, 여기서는 신의 호칭을 '하느님'으로 표기하고 있다.

이슬람교에서도 하느님이라는 용어를 사용한다.

하나님[편집]

하나님은 만물의 창조주를 가리키는 종교 용어이며, 일반적으로 개신교나 예수 그리스도 후기성도 교회무슬림을 비롯한 한국의 일부 종교계에서 쓰인다.

현대 한국어의 국어사전에서는 두 단어를 모두 수록하고 있으며, 한글맞춤법 통일안을 따르는 국립국어원의 표준국어대사전[4]에서는 "하느님"과 "하나님" 둘 다 뜻에 따라 쓸 수 있는 표준어로 정하고 있으며[5] "하느님"의 경우 종교에 관계 없이 쓸 수 있는 용어로, "하나님"은 '개신교에서 하느님을 이르는 말'로 정의해 놓고 있다. 그러나 한국어 문법에서 '하나', '둘' 과 같이 숫자를 의미하는 단어에 '님'이라는 존칭을 붙이는 것은 잘못된 것이므로 그렇게 이해해서는 안된다. 다만, 개신교와 이슬람에서는 '유일신'의 의미로 하나님을 사용하고 있기는 하다.

개신교에서의 하나님[편집]

대부분의 개신교에서는 유일신인 여호와를 하느님보다는 하나님으로 호칭하기를 선호한다.

한국 그리스도계에서는 이 명칭이 통일되어 있지 않은데, 하ᄂᆞ님을 현대의 맞춤법에 알맞게 적으면 "하느님"이 되기 때문에 가톨릭과 성공회정교회는 이를 사용하며, 개신교는 "하나님"으로 표기해야 더 맞는 소리가 난다고 주장한다.[출처 필요] 또한 개신교 일부 종파에서는 성경에 바탕을 둔 신의 고유 이름인 여호와(야훼)를 그대로 써야 한다고 주장하기도 한다. 또한 영어권에서는 Jehovah, 혹은 Yahweh 로 표기하고 NIV 국제 성경에서도 God 이란 단어를 함께 사용한다. (하나님의 성함을 함부로 다루지 않았다고 한다.)

성서의 번역[편집]

초기 개신교에서는 상제, 천주, 하느님, 하나님 등 다양한 용어를 사용했으나 개역성서를 번역하여 펴내는 과정에서 아래아(·)를 홀소리 ‘ㅏ’로 일괄적으로 변경하면서 하나님이란 호칭을 쓰기 시작했다. 천주교에서는 원뜻과 맞춤법을 참고해 하느님으로 표기하고 있다. 1977년 천주교와 개신교가 함께 번역한 공동번역성서에는 신의 호칭으로 하느님이란 표현이 쓰였다. 그러나 대부분 개신교 교파가 하나님이라는 표기를 고수하고 있다. 정중호 계명대 기독교학과 교수는 이에 대해 “하나님이란 명칭이 유일신의 의미가 강한데다 하나님이라 부르던 기존 습관을 바꾸기 힘들었을 것”이라고 분석했다. 성공회에서는 하느님으로 표기한다. 한편, 한글맞춤법 통일안은 하느님을 표준어로 삼고있으며 하나님은 하느님을 개신교에서 이르는 말로 풀이하고 있다. 상제(上帝)는 '하느님'의 한자식 표기이다. 차이가 있지만 하나님은 유일신, 하느님은 하늘님으로 하늘에 계신 창조주를 의미한다. 이때 하늘은 영의세계를 의미한다고 한다.[6]

같이 보기[편집]

각주[편집]

  1.  하나님과 신(神) Archived 2012년 2월 8일 - 웨이백 머신, 하느님과 신(神)-용어의 혼란 : 《유란시아 책(The Urantia Book)》(2008년), 유란시아 연구회 발행
  2.  종교의 진화와 하느님과 신(神)의 용어적 차이 Archived 2012년 1월 18일 - 웨이백 머신,《유란시아 책(The Urantia Book)》(2008년), 유란시아 연구회 발행 ISBN-13: 978-8996044413
  3.  The Chinese Recorder Vol 13-14 pg. 494 인용: "The Corean for "heaven" is hanal, for "lord" or "prince" nim, originaly Chinese; and Hananim is the term by which Coreans everywhere acknowledge the Ruler above and the supreme on earth.
  4.  표준국어대사전 Archived 2011년 9월 3일 - 웨이백 머신,국립국어원
  5.  http://krdic.naver.com/rescript_detail.nhn?seq=2278
  6.  천주교 '야훼' 표현 금한 이유는? 매일신문(2008.10.25) 기사 참조