Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

Dois tipos de F!

Por Ruy Porto Fernandes


Eu concordo com Iaveh Elohim, e com Martin Buber em seu livro Two Types os Faith: A study of the
interpenetration of Judaism and Christianity. Eu no me surpreendi com a colocao que este filsofo judeu
faz aps anlise da cultura e religiosidade dessas duas grandes comunidades, Judaica e Crist, ao observar suas
histrias que culminou com a desgraa do Holocausto na 2 Grande Guerra.

Martin Buber. Two Types os Faith: A study of the interpenetration of Judaism and Christianity. Martin Buber contrasts the "faith of
Abraham" with the "faith of St Paul" and ponders the possibilities of reconciliation between the two. He offers a sincere and reverent
Jewish view of Christ and of the unique and decisive character of His message to Jew and Gentile. Translated by Norman E.
Goldhawk, M.A. late Finch Scholar, Wesley House, Cambridge. Harper TorchBooks/The Cloister Library. This volume was first
published in the United States by The Macmillan Company, New York, 1951, and is reprinted by arrangement. Harper & Brothers,
New York. First Harper Torchbook edition, published 1961.

Tal como ele, hoje eu sei e creio que existem dois tipos de F intermediados pelo mesmo Esprito Santo de
Iaveh Elohim. E, a esse respeito, escrevi no artigo A9-Apocalipse: Os 24 Ancios e os sete Espritos de Deus,
captulo 4, postado em 07/12/2009. Depois, revisado e republicado em 19/04/2012, no conjunto com os demais
artigos desse Estudo do Apocalipse, sob o ttulo Estudo do livro de Apocalipse - artigos de A1 at A22.
A9 - Apocalipse: Os 24 Ancios e os sete Espritos de Deus, captulo 4.

O captulo 4 do livro do Apocalipse registra que alm de Deus em seu trono, localizados no centro da viso que o apstolo Joo
recebeu quando exilado na ilha de Patmos, so vistos vinte e quatro ancios assentados sobre vinte e quatro tronos, dispostos ao
redor do trono de Deus (Ap 4.4). E, que diante do trono de Deus ardem sete tochas de fogo, simbolizando os sete Espritos de Deus
(Ap 4.5).

Alm dos sete Espritos de Deus representar o conjunto de incontveis Espritos de Deus, porm de um nmero fixo e no um
nmero infinito (cf. artigo A4), existem tambm diferentes conjuntos de sete Espritos de Deus nos captulos 4 e 5 do Apocalipse. Os
sete Espritos de Deus, que so os sete chifres e sete olhos do Cordeiro, e que apenas simboliza o Senhor Jesus Cristo Glorificado (Ap
5.6), um conjunto distinto porque somente deste conjunto dito ser enviados por toda a terra, isto , aos gentios (aos que no
so descendentes de Abrao) para darem testemunho do Senhor Jesus Cristo Ressuscitado e Glorificado, de Deus Pai (Jo 20.17), que
o Deus Iaveh Elohim de Israel e do Deus Esprito Santo (At 5.3-4). Isto sem considerar que tambm simbolizam dois conjuntos
diferentes: o de sete chifres, e o de sete olhos. [no artigo Correspondncia entre o Vaso de Man e a Vara de Aro com os Sete
Chifres e Sete Olhos publicado em 5/4/12 explico esta diferena]

O conjunto de sete Espritos de Deus que est diante do trono smbolo do ministrio do Esprito de Deus entre os descendentes de
Abrao (1Cr 1.28); dos judeus, que so filhos de Isaque (Gn 17.19), bem como dos rabes, que so filhos de Ismael (Gn 17.20)!.
Devido Sua vontade o povo de Israel e seu o Estado existem at os dias de hoje. Tambm dos rabes como descendentes de
Abrao. Que apesar de no crerem no Deus Iaveh Elohim de Israel em um determinado tempo futuro ir sim se converter a Ele pelo
testemunho do conjunto destes sete Espritos de Deus. Alm deste relacionamento entre Iaveh Elohim (grafado como Senhor
Deus em certas edies) e a descendncia de Abrao, este conjunto tambm simboliza a formao e manuteno de toda a criao
de Deus por Seu Esprito (J 26.13; 33.4; Sl 33.6; 104.30).

Compreendemos assim por que representao deste conjunto est simbolizada pelas sete tochas de fogo que ardiam no candelabro
(menorah) da tenda da congregao (x 25.31-35) e do templo, e que ficava posicionada diante da rea do santssimo (x 26.35),
mas separados por uma espessa cortina que se rompeu com o sacrifcio vicrio do Senhor Jesus Cristo lanando a luz dos sete
Espritos de Deus sobre a santidade de Deus no Santssimo Lugar. Tambm porque os 24 ancios representavam as 24 turmas de
sacerdotes que oficiavam no templo (1Cr 24.1-19), bem como as 24 turmas de cantores que profetizavam com harpas, cmbalos e
saltrios (1Cr 25.1-31). interessante notar que a Bblia Hebraica tambm est dividida em 24 rolos (cf. apndice da lista dos Livros
da Bblia Hebraica na Bblia de Jerusalm). E, finalmente, por que no dito que os sete Espritos de Deus diante do Trono so
enviados por toda a terra.

Os 24 ancios tambm simbolizam a Imanncia de Deus nossa existncia. Isto, devido ao aspecto da forma anci humana que
representam e por seu nmero ser o mesmo que os de cromossomos que determinam a constituio humana. So 22 cromossomas
autossmicos e 2 cromossomas sexuais, X e Y, perfazendo um total de 24 tipos distintos de cromossomas humanos. Da tambm
poder representar os gneros sexuais humanos masculinos e femininos como conjunto de 12 casais de ancios! Os cromossomos
autossmicos esto presentes nas clulas masculinas e femininas. Os cromossomos sexuais que determinam os sexos so diferentes
nas clulas masculinas e femininas. Cada clula do corpo humano possui 46 cromossomos. Os machos tm 22 pares de autossomos
mais um cromossomo X e outro cromossomo Y. As fmeas tm 22 pares de autossomos mais um par de cromossomos X.

interessante notar que a disposio dos ancios ao redor do trono de Deus semelhante de do relgio de sol da antiguidade (2Rs
20.11). O trono central simboliza o indicador fixo do relgio solar denominado gnmon. Os ancios em seus tronos, dispostos ao
seu redor, simbolizam as diferentes partes sobre as quais o ponteiro lana a sua sombra, mas neste caso a prpria Luz de Deus se
projeta sobre as partes ocupadas pelos ancios e seus tronos. Assim como o relgio de sol um indicador de tempo, os 24 ancios
indicam o tempo da volta do Senhor Jesus Cristo. Desde a ressurreio do Senhor Jesus Cristo (Hb 9.26) at hoje se passaram 21
sculos. Se estamos no incio do sculo 21, com base no smbolo do relgio a volta do Senhor Jesus Cristo no ultrapassar o fim do
sculo 24 (Mt 13.40, 49; 28.20). Mas podendo ocorrer antes, na necessidade de Deus antecipar o tempo deste evento (Mt 24.22; Mc
13.20).

Niteri, 07 de dezembro de 2009.
- revisado em 9/4/12.

Two Types of Faith, by Martin Buber
FOREWORD
THE subject with which I am concerned in this book is the two fold meaning of faith.

There are two, and in the end only two, types of faith.

To be sure there are very many contents of faith, but we only know faith itself in two basic forms. Both can be understood from the
simple data of our life: the one from the fact that I trust someone, without being able to offer sufficient reasons for my trust in him; the
other from the fact that, likewise without being able to give a sufficient reason, I acknowledge a thing to be true. In both cases my not
being able to give a sufficient reason is not a matter of a defectiveness in my ability to think, but of a real peculiarity in my
relationship to the one whom I trust or to that which I acknowledge to be true. It is a relationship which by its nature does not rest
upon reasons, just as it does not grow from such; reasons of course can be urged for it, but they are never sufficient to account for
my faith. The Why? is here always subsequent, even when it already appears in the early stages of the process; it appears, that is to
say, with the signs of having been added. This does not at all mean that it is [7] 15 a matter of irrational phenomena. My rationality,
my rational power of thought, is merely a part, a particular function of my nature; when however I believe, in either sense, my entire
being is engaged, the totality of my nature enters into the process, indeed this becomes possible only because the relationship of faith
is a relationship of my entire being. But personal totality in this sense can only be involved if the whole function of thought, without
being impaired, enters into it and may work within it, as properly disposed to it and determined by it. To be sure we are not allowed to
substitute feeling for this personal totality; feeling is by no means everything, as Faust thinks, but is at best only an indication of
the fact that the being of the man is about to unite and become whole, and in other cases it is an illusion of becoming a whole without
its being actually effected.

The relationship of trust depends upon a state of contact, a contact of my entire being with the one in whom I trust, the relationship of
acknowledging depends upon an act of acceptance, an acceptance by my entire being of that which I acknowledge to be true. They
depend upon this, but they are not this itself. The contact in trust leads naturally to the acceptance of that which proceeds from the one
whom I trust. The acceptance of the truth acknowledged by me can lead to contact with the one whom it proclaims. But in the former
instance it is the existent contact which is primary, in the latter the acceptance accomplished. It is obvious that trust also has a
beginning in time, Hut the one. who trusts does not know when: he identifies it of necessity with the beginning of the contact; on the
other band the one who acknowledges truth stands to that which he acknowledges as true, not as to something new, only now
appearing and making its claim, but as to something eternal which has only now become actual; therefore for the first the status is the
decisive thing, for the second the act.
8|16
Faith in the religious sense is one or the other of these two types in the sphere of the unconditioned, that is, the relationship of faith is
here no longer one towards a person conditioned in himself or a fact conditioned in itself and only unconditioned for me, but to one
which in itself is unconditioned. So here the two types of faith face each other. In one the man finds himself in the relationship of
faith, in the other he is converted to it. The man who finds himself in it is primarily the member of a community whose covenant
with the Unconditioned includes and determines him within it; the man who is converted to it is primarily an individual, one who has
become an isolated individual, and the community arises as the joining together of the converted individuals. We must beware
however of simplifying this twofoldness antithetically. This involves, above what has already been said, the consideration of a fact of
supreme importance in the history of faith. The status in which the man finds himself is to be sure that of a contact with a partner it
is nearness; but in everything which grows out of it an ultimate distance persists which is not to be overcome. And on the ot her hand
the act by which man acknowledges truth presumes the distance between a subject and its object; but the relationship which arises
from it with the being indicated by the acknowledged fact can develop into the most intimate nearness, and indeed into the feeling of
union.

The first of the two types of faith has its classic example in the early period of Israel, the people of faith a community of faith which
took its birth as a nation, a nation which took its birth as a community of faith; the second in the early period of Christianity that arose
in the decay of ancient settled Israel and the nations and faith-communities of the Ancient East as a new formation, from the death of a
great son of Israel and the subsequent belief in his resurrection, 9|17 a new formation which first, in prospect of the approaching End,
intended to replace the decaying nations by the Community of God, and afterwards, in view of the newly beginning history, to span
the new nations by the supernation of the Church, the true Israel. Israel on the other hand had arisen from the re-uniting of more or
less disintegrated family-tribes and of their faith-traditions in Biblical language, from the conclusion of a covenant between them
and the conclusion of a covenant between them all and their common God as their covenant-God. This faith in God was itself born if
one may, as I assume, rely at this point upon the Biblical narratives from the tribe-forging and nation-forging migrations which were
experienced as guided by God. The individual finds himself within the objective race-memory of such guidance and of such a
covenant: his faith is a perseverance in trust in the guiding and covenanting Lord, trusting perseverance in the contact with Him. This
type of faith was modified only during the time of the Diaspora permeated by Hellenism, the time when the mission was adapting
itself to those who were sought, but hardly ever has it been changed in its inmost nature. Christianity begins as diaspora and mission.
The mission means in this case not just diffusion; it is the life-breath of the community and accordingly the basis of the new People of
God. The summons of Jesus to turn into the Kingship of God which has come near was transformed into the act of conversion. To
the man needing salvation in the despondent hour, salvation is offered if only he will believe that it has happened and has happened in
this way. This is not a matter of persisting-in but its opposite, the facing-about. To the one to be converted comes the demand and
instruction to believe that which he is not able to believe as a continuation of his former beliefs, but only in a leap. To be sure the inner
precinct of faith is not understood as a mere 10|18 believing that something is true, but as a constitution of existence ; but the fore-
court is the holding true of that which has hitherto been considered not true, indeed quite absurd, and there is no other entrance.

That the faith-principle of acknowledgment and acceptance in the sense of a holding henceforth that so-and so is true is of Greek
origin requires no discussion. It was made possible only through the comprehension reached by Greek thought of an act which
acknowledges the truth. The non-noetic elements, which were combined with. It in the primitive Christian mission, originate
essentially from the Hellenistic atmosphere.

In the comparison of the two types of faith which I have attempted in this book I confine myself principally to the primitive and early
days of Christianity, and for that almost exclusively to the New Testament records on the one hand, and on the other side in the main
to the sayings of the Talmud and the Midrashim, originating from the core of Pharisaism, which was to be sure influenced by
Hellenism but which did not surrender to it; I draw on Hellenistic Judaism only for purposes of clarification. (The after-effects of the
Old Testament always lead on to the problem of its interpretation.) It becomes evident that Jesus and central Pharisaism belong
essentially to one another, just as early Christianity and Hellenistic Judaism do.

When I treat the two types of faith frequently as that of the Jews and that of the Christians I do not mean to imply that Jews in general
and Christians in general believed thus and still believe, but only that the one faith has found its representative actuality among Jews
and the other among Christians. Each of the two has extended its roots into the other camp also, the Jewish into the Christian, but the
Christian also into the Jewish and even into pre-Christian Judaism as it arose from Hellenistic religiosity, which was 11|19 formed,
from the Oriental decay by the late-Greek eidos, a religiosity which penetrated into Judaism before it helped to found Christianity; but
only in early Christianity was this faith fully developed and became in the strict sense the faith of believers. By the Christian type of
faith therefore is meant here a principle which was joined in the early history of Christianity with the genuine Jewish one; but it must
be borne in mind, as I have pointed out, that in the teaching of Jesus himself, as we know it from the early texts of the gospels, the
genuine Jewish principle is manifest. When later on Christians desired to return to the pure teaching of Jesus there of ten sprang up, in
this as in other points also, an as it were unconscious colloquy with genuine Judaism.

The consideration of the difference in the types of faith leads to the consideration of the difference in the contents of their faith, in so
far as they are intrinsically bound up with those. To draw attention to these connections is a fundamental aim of this book. The
apparent digressions also serve this aim.

There is scarcely any need to say that every apologetic tendency is far from my purpose.

For nearly fifty years die New Testament has been a main concern in my studies, and I think I am a good reader who listens
impartially to what is said.

From my youth onwards I have found in Jesus my great brother. That Christianity has regarded and does regard him as God and
Saviour has always appeared to me a fact of the highest importance which, for his sake and my own, I must endeavour to understand.
A small part of the results of this desire to understand is recorded here. My own fraternally open relationship to him has grown ever
stronger and clearer, and to-day I see him more strongly and clearly than ever before.
12|20
I am more than ever certain that a great place belongs to him in Israels history of faith and that this place cannot be described by any
of the usual categories. Under history of faith I understand the history of the human part, as far as known to us, in that which has taken
place between God and man. Under Israels history of faith I understand accordingly the history of Israels part as far as known to us,
in that which has taken place between God and Israel. There is a something in Israels history of faith which is only to be understood
from Israel, just as there is a something in the Christian history of faith which is only to be understood from Christianity. The latter I
have touched only with the unbiased respect of one who hears the Word.

That in this book I have more than once corrected erroneous representations of the Jewish history of faith rests upon the fact that these
have found their way into works of important Christian theologians of our day who are in other respects authoritative for me. Without
sufficient clarification of that which has to be clarified men will continue to speak to each other at cross-purposes.

In particular I have to thank from the point of view of this book four Christian theologians, two living and two dead.

I am obliged to Rudolf Bultmann for fundamental instruction in the field of New Testament exegesis. I do not only remember with
gratitude his works but also a memorandum on John iii which he wrote for me many years ago in answer to a question: this model
colleague action of a German scholar in the highest sense has had a clarifying and stimulating influence upon my understanding of the
passage, which deviates from his (as seen in Chapter XI of this book).

I thank Albert Schweitzer for that which he gave me to know immediately through his person and his life, the 13|21 openness towards
the world and through this the peculiar nearness to Israel, which are possible to the Christian and also to the Christian theologian
(which Schweitzer has never ceased to be). I still treasure in my heart, never to be forgotten, the hours of a walk we took together
through the scenery of Koenigsfeld and through that of the Spirit, and not less the day when we, so to speak hand in hand, opened the
session of a philosophical society in Frankfurt-am-Main with two rather unphilosophical lectures on religious reality. He has expanded
his lecture into the book on the Mysticism of the Apostle Paul. In the dedication, which he sent me twenty years ago, Schweitzer says
that he establishes that Paul has his roots in the Jewish world of thought, not in the Greek; I however can connect the Pauline
doctrine of faith, which I treat in this book, only with a peripheral Judaism, which was actually Hellenistic. On the other hand his
renewed emphatic reference to the meaning of the servant of God in Deutero-Isaiah for Jesus has remained fruitful; already by as early
as 1901 Schweitzer had given me a strong incentive for my studies on this subject.

I retain a thankful memory of Rudolf Otto for his profound understanding of the divine majesty in the Hebrew Bible and for a series of
richly realistic insights in his work on eschatology, the importance of which far outweighs its errors; but even more for the noble
frankness with which he opened to me his believing heart in our peripatetic conversations. The most impressive of these for me was
the first, because first I had to drive a breach through the psychologists wall which he had erected around himself, and then not
merely an important religious individuality was revealed but in the actuality between two men, the Presence.

I give thanks to tie spirit of Leonhard Ragaz for a friendship in which his genuine friendship towards Israel 14|22 was expressed. He
saw the true countenance of Israel, even when the political entanglements had begun to hide it from the world, and he loved Israel. He
looked forward to a future understanding between the nucleal community of Israel and a true community of Jesus, an understanding,
although as yet inconceivable, which would arise on neither a Jewish nor a Christian basis, but rather on that of the common message
of Jesus and the prophets of the turning of man and of the Kingship of God. His ever fresh dialogue with me by word of mouth, by
letter, and in the silent existence, was for him the preparatory dialogue between these two.

To my Jerusalem friends Hugo Bergmann, Isaak Heinemann and Ernst Simon, who have read the manuscripts, I offer thanks for
valuable references.

I wrote this book in Jerusalem during the days of its so-called siege, or rather in the chaos of destruction which broke out within it. I
began it without a plan, purely under the feeling of a commission, and in this way chapter after chapter has come into being. The work
involved has helped me to endure in faith this war, for me the most grievous of the three.
17|24
MARTIN BUBER
Jerusalem-Talbiyeh, January 1950

Niteri, 26 de maio de 2014.
1985 ano da Ascenso do Senhor, ocorrida em 27 de maio de 29.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen