http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
우병훈(Byoung Hoon Woo) 연세대학교 신과대학(연합신학대학원) 2017 신학논단 Vol.87 No.-
Luther’s conception of “universal priesthood” played a major role in the history of the Protestant church. His thought, however, was misunderstood in many ways among modern scholarship. This essay aims to show the development of Luther’s doctrine of universal priesthood, and in so doing it will unpack various meanings of the doctrine. In his three major 1520 works, To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, and The Freedom of a Christian, Luther formulated the doctrine through a provocative exegesis of important scriptural verses such as 1 Peter 2:9 and 1 Corinthians 14:29. His view, however, was changed through his experience of a series of historical events; Thomas Müntzer and the “Zwickau prophets” used violence to defend their opinions, and the German Peasants’ War resulted in a great massacre. Then Luther clearly saw the ignorant cruelty of lay people and toned down his previous doctrine on universal priesthood. Luther abandoned or changed the main points of his exegesis of the scriptural verses that he endorsed for the doctrine in 1520. He argued that ministers of the word can be ordained not by lay people but by the national church, that only those who are formally ordained can preach the word of God, and only preachers can judge the sermons of other preachers. It is certain that Luther’s doctrine of universal priesthood was altered in many respects by the end of the 1520’s. In sum, one can get the true meaning and implication of Luther’s doctrine of universal priesthood better through this historical perspective. Luther’s conception of “universal priesthood” played a major role in the history of the Protestant church. His thought, however, was misunderstood in many ways among modern scholarship. This essay aims to show the development of Luther’s doctrine of universal priesthood, and in so doing it will unpack various meanings of the doctrine. In his three major 1520 works, To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, and The Freedom of a Christian, Luther formulated the doctrine through a provocative exegesis of important scriptural verses such as 1 Peter 2:9 and 1 Corinthians 14:29. His view, however, was changed through his experience of a series of historical events; Thomas Müntzer and the “Zwickau prophets” used violence to defend their opinions, and the German Peasants’ War resulted in a great massacre. Then Luther clearly saw the ignorant cruelty of lay people and toned down his previous doctrine on universal priesthood. Luther abandoned or changed the main points of his exegesis of the scriptural verses that he endorsed for the doctrine in 1520. He argued that ministers of the word can be ordained not by lay people but by the national church, that only those who are formally ordained can preach the word of God, and only preachers can judge the sermons of other preachers. It is certain that Luther’s doctrine of universal priesthood was altered in many respects by the end of the 1520’s. In sum, one can get the true meaning and implication of Luther’s doctrine of universal priesthood better through this historical perspective.
우병훈,인희교 한국운동역학회 2000 한국운동역학회지 Vol.10 No.1
The purpose of this study was to analyze kinematics variables on basic information for the improving the skill of balance attitude with understanding principle and development of balance attitude. For this study, national champion skilled 4 female rhythmic sport gymnastics were selected as subjects, and 3-demensional coordinates computation was used to DLT(Direct Linear Transformation) method of Walton(1981). 1. As for each phase performance time, all subjects are mo difference from phase 1 to phase 3, but phase 4 must stop attitude almost 0.433sec like as JEJ, CYR. To phase 5, during right leg gather, performance time act 0.267sec like as JEJ. 2. To displacement of COP, phase 1 is resulted lowest, and in phase 2, phase 3, phase 4 order to be high. And phase 5 is resulted again to be low. 3. To angle displacement of left heel , phase 1 is prepare position, and phase 2 is high, from phase 3 to phase 4 is resulted average 75.0. JEJ is resulted very ideal position to 85.5˚ 4. To angle displacement of right knee, phase 1 is prepare position, and phase 2 is resulted generally knee angle to be small, and phase 3 and phase 4 is resulted maximal extension to knee angle. CEJ is resulted ideal position from phase 2 to phase 5. To angle displacement of left knee, phase 1 is prepare position, and phase 2 is that support left leg and knee deep flexion during rising left leg to horizontal plane, phase 3 is extended maximal angle during maximal extension to knee angle of left support leg, phase 4 is decreased knee angle when right left is maximal rising and then resulted little power of supporting leg. But LNY is resulted very ideal left knee angle. 5. To displacement of hip joint angle, phase 1 is prepare position, and phase 2 is reduce angle during rising right leg to horizontal plane as hop joint is resulted by complex. When knee angle of left support leg is maximal extension to phase 3 and right leg is rising maximal to phase 4, the grater this angle magnitude to hip joint and then physical position straightly resulted. CEJ is that phase 4 is resulted 116.6˚ 6. To right toe velocity, toe velocity is very fast during right leg is down. Phase 1 is prepare position, and phase 2 is fast toe velocity during rising right leg to horizontal plane, phase 3 and phase 4 is resulted stop attitude to slow toe velocity. To summarize above, for fast right foot performance, accurate stop attitude and hip joint little complex, I think that performed very ideal position and effective motion as a lot of flexibility exercise training.
스포츠 에어로빅시 High Kick 동작의 운동학적 분석
우병훈,인희교,이수재 한국운동역학회 2001 한국운동역학회지 Vol.11 No.3
This study serves the purpose of understanding the principles of kicking moves through kinematics analysis on elite sports aerobic athletes making the movement of high kicking. The study also intends to not only help instructors and coaches understand the accurate move of high kick and make a better judgement for athletes but also lay a basic resource for them to rely on. To accomplish all this, the time span of the each phase, the displacement of COG, the velocity of left/right forefoot, the angle displacement of left/right hip joint and the angle displacement of left/right ankle joint have been studied. The conclusions were as follows; 1. It took less time at phase 3(0.40sec) and phase 5(0.40sec) of returning the leg than at phase 2(0.56sec) and phase 4(0.43sec) of kicking up. 2. The displacement of COG was low at phase 1, 3, 5(103.02±5.70, 95.33±2.45, 96.66±3.20 cm) and high at phase 2(111.18±9.97) and phase 4 (111.61±5.62 cm). 3. About the velocity of left/right forefoot, kicking up the right foot was faster than returning it at phase 1-2(1081.63±40.62an/sec) and phase 2-3(992.92±45.68 cm/sec). With the left foot, kicking up was faster than returning at phase 3-4(1116.25±63.46cm/sec) and phase 4-5(1043.63±40.62cm/ sec). 4. The left and right angle displacement of hip joint showed the maximum extension at phase 1(174.4±52.36, 162.6±05.40deg/sec), phase 3 (170.66±5.94, 165.89±4.36deg/sec), phase 5(166.18±4.83, 157.05±3.59deg/sec), phase 2(26.19±5.40deg/sec) showed the minimum angle of the right angle and phase 4(27.67±5.31deg/sec) showed the minimum of the left angle. 5. In the left and right angle displacement of knee joint, the angle displacement on the right knee joint showed the maximum extension at phase 1, 2, 3, 4(169.10±2.96, 169.91±6.20, 153.14±6.32, 162.11deg/sec) and flexion at phase 3(140.45±10.37deg/sec). The left knee joint showed the maximum extension at phase 1, 3, 4, 5(169.15±4.25, 157.99±10.82, 172.14±3.06, 168.72deg/sec) and flexion at phase 2(148.17±9.64deg/sec). 6. The angle displacement on the right ankle joint showed flexion at phase 1, 3, 4, 5(125.15±4.81, 101.66+2.80, 102.88±8.89, 106.27±5.76deg/sec) and the maximum extension at phase 2(152.22±5.18deg/sec) The left ankle joint showed flexion at phase 1, 2, 3, 5(104.90±48.10, 116.06±15.84, 106.55±8.84, 118.79±6.89deg/sec) and showed the maximum extension at phase 4(153.57 ±4.65deg/ sec).