Dr. Sergey Zagraevsky
God is no murderer
The Original was published in Russian: Сергей Заграевский. Бог не убийца. М.: Алев-В, 2001. ISBN 5-94025-014-9. 280 pages.
The following text was translated from the Russian original by the computer program
and has not yet been edited.
So it can be used only for general introduction.
ANNOTATION TO THE BOOK
A new book by a famous artist and Christian theologian Sergei Zagraevsky written, like all previous ones, in a popular and accessible form, but pursues a fundamentally new task: to form on the basis of Christianity modern system of philosophical views, applicable not only in theory but also in practice.
In this regard, the author considers such interest issues as the existence of God, the creation, the origin of man, his earthly destiny and eternal life.
My previous theological book called "Jesus of Nazareth's life and teachings". Dedicated she was, above all, the doctrine of Christ, the followers of which we consider ourselves Christians.
The book received a wide variety of reader responses. It is most gratifying to me that many read began quite differently to perceive Jesus Christ - not as far terrible judge, and as a man, died on the cross for his doctrine of the goodness and love. And Christianity my readers have been seen not as a set of dogmas and rituals, and as a modern spiritual system. In this case, the purpose of the book "Jesus of Nazareth" I can safely assume executed.
Time has passed. Passed the passion on the change of the Millennium and the beginning of the XXI century. Lost an increased interest by the General public to the personality and teachings of Christ so to speak, "was the fashion". No "second coming"or the "end of the world"or "the last judgment" has not happened, and people were going about their everyday business.
Some "vacuum" has come and for me, during this time showed no fundamentally new facts from the biography of Jesus, nor radically new interpretations of his teachings, the debate about the authenticity of the shroud of Turin will be even dozens (or even hundreds) of years, and writing seems to have been about. So I took memoir book "My twentieth century" and walked away from the Christological studies.
However, for a short time. The fact that "we Christians" do not imply the answer to the question: why are we Christians? Just because a suckling baby baptized (not all), and grandmother of the child was taken into the Church?
For modern man, experienced and not prone to exaggerate the strength of tradition, as a rule, this is not enough. He needs a personal understanding of what and in conditions of rapid scientific and technological progress, and computerization of all areas of knowledge, and in terms of the development systems "artificial intelligence", and the terms "genetic engineering" the relevance of Christianity is not decreasing but increasing.
And this was not enough purely theological methods of analysis of the personality and teachings of Christ. Was necessary to form a solid philosophical worldview and show that equivalent spiritual alternatives to Christianity today, mankind does not know.
This I did in the book, we now present to the readers.
As in the previous books, I fundamentally refuse from the use of specific philosophical language. Any person with any level of education, who was interested in the theme of the book, should be able to take it up and read it. Let it with something you do not agree, even if something is not immediately realize it will be an occasion to reflect and form their own worldview.
But in any case cannot be put to the vast majority of readers insurmountable barrier in the form of specialized terms.
Of course, you and about Vladimir Vysotsky to write: "the Human being is modeled Vysotsky not just in the border, but in the bifurcation situations, specifying at the same time and ontological uncertainty of prospects for a resolution of opposition to the Life-Death, and an open horizon of moral choice between true being and transformed forms of existence" (M.A. Mozheiko).
But you can about Kant and Descartes and Augustine, and about Jesus Christ to write the normal and familiar language, without losing any of analyticity or philosophical depth.
The main question of this book is: " who we are, where we come from and where we are going?
To answer this question it is necessary to form on the basis of the Christian system of philosophical views, applicable not only in theory but also in practice.
And the concept of practice and includes such seemingly detached from the realities of life issues as the existence of God, the creation, the origin of man, his earthly destiny and eternal life. These questions are not even centuries, and millennia. All the philosophers, all the theologians of all times and peoples tried to respond to them, and many people in varying degrees of success.
But we live in an era that is unique in its inconsistency and the pluralism of opinions on any issue, and even more serious. And therefore we cannot do without "moral reference point, in which European civilization is Christianity.
Christian theology - a complex and multifaceted science, with two thousand years of history. But today we can look at it with an open mind and try not to loose a lot of "gordievich node via another medieval "Church fathers". Such nodes do not untie us nor anyone else. They can only be cut.
The same can be said for a huge number of stereotypes imprinted in the minds of millions of people in connection with Christianity, and even more so with faith in God.
The examples are not far to seek - the great and mighty Russian language they are met at every step. When all is well, we say "Thank God". But when something goes wrong, we say, "All is not the glory of God", and not even think about it, why because of the small everyday problems we refuse God...
So let's hack "Gordeeva sites.
The Existence Of God
Before doing philosophy, it is necessary to determine the source position. Stress first things to do philosophy, and the definition of "tofiloski" the original position is not philosophical, but in a personal plane.
And since our research is designed for a wide circle of readers, and "personality" of the original position will have to outline very broadly.
Philosophy is not just a form of understanding the world, and not only the "science of Sciences". Philosophy is first of all the world, and to him everyone comes in their own ways, for some time, having lived on earth, much knowing, understanding and feeling. Let's call it "tofiloski worldview".
Naturally, the range of "tofiloski worldviews" mankind is extremely diverse. Generally speaking, how many people, so many worldviews. And opinions on any issue even more.
And all of these opinions is a common sense of an epoch, as billions of people - humanity. Produced some "rules of the hostel, there are some vectors of public opinion, and if it cannot be decomposed into separate components, to analyze and study needs. Are engaged and political scientists, and sociologists, and historians, and philosophers.
In addition, every person has his usual "life-world" (Husserl was defined as "fundamental certainties of everyday consciousness, which are rooted in practice and are fatal prerequisite of scientific knowledge"). And how could we not have gone into philosophical delights, almost everyone of us has a passport, the certificate of any education, clothes, shoes, a set of personal things...
To list all the things that have almost every civilized person, can be very long to reach such trivial things as tables and chairs. And even after all we live in a particular historical era, in the country and the city. And yet each of us have relatives, friends, acquaintances...
But all that can be listed from the sphere of our life, health, education, public relations, civil rights and responsibilities, components of our "daphilosopha" worldview.
Briefly it can be called as: "men among men".
These are our "tofiloski" original position, which agrees almost every sane person.
But the next question - is there in our "life-world" of God, and if Yes, what are its relationships with "people among the people," there will be thousands of different answers, and we have to move from "tofiloski source positions to the actual philosophy.
The vast majority of European philosophers have acknowledged the existence of God. Many called God the "absolute" - in fact, it is one and the same.
To suspect that it was just "reverence" towards the all-seeing eye of the Catholic Church, not God-the absolute was an integral part of the philosophical systems of Plato and Aristotle, and Descartes, Fichte, and Hegel, and Schelling, and Solovyov.
However, for philosophers who built his teachings primarily on the study of individual consciousness (Descartes, Fichte, Husserl), the concept of God was not so necessary, since any individual consciousness, individual, in a logical result, recognizes only itself, but all the rest tend to believe unprovable rational methods.
And it is only one step to postulate that nothing in the world exists except the subject, and the whole world is a product of our consciousness is the only thing that is given without any doubt. This approach is called solipsism (from the Latin "solus ipse" - "only"). In modern language, the world is not real and "virtual".
However, "pure" solipsism - full denial of the objective existence of the world - the history of world philosophy does not know.
If you carefully read the teachings of each of the philosophers, in varying degrees, tend to "subjective idealism", we will see that none of them wanted to bring the idea of the existence of the world in the sensations of the subject to complete solipsism.
By way of solipsism went Descartes, whose radical displacement of the "I" apocryphal, which are broken all ties with the world, became the methodological basis for many subsequent generations of philosophers.
But despite the fact that the Cartesian "I" builds "the undoubted experience of the world based only on camomile itself Descartes believed in the reality of the existence of the world and the human body "never doubted no sane person".
By way of solipsism went and Husserl, who declared the Foundation of scientific knowledge of the pure logic and made the brackets" in his phenomenology as a reasoning and traditional philosophical problems.
It would seem that the study of "single"is excluded from the communication of consciousness would inevitably lead to solipsism, but not the act of thinking of the subject, according to Husserl, is inextricably linked with the subject, objectively existing. And in later works he immersed himself in the study of the sphere of social consciousness, "life world" and "intersubjectivity", in fact, come to heideggerian approval "is impossible to get rid of the world."
Contrary to popular stereotype, solipsism was not
Perhaps, a more or less consistent Sampsistemi are some philosophical characters of the books of the Marquis de Sade, but it's hard to say how they Express the point of view of the author, are more inclined to eclectic materialism.
There is no doubt that on the road to solipsism philosophers stopped insoluble contradiction with "tofiloski source positions, which we call "men among men". Yes, and the sum of a huge number of physical sensations translated the illusion of the real world in the discharge abstract and absurd notions.
But because the outside world is recognized as objectively existing, the question arises about its origins, nature, development paths - and indeed, why things work this way? Is there in the world of harmony, are there universal laws? And if there is, then where are they?
In other words, is there a God?
This question is cared for all and always, and the existence of God was trying to prove to many philosophers. Even in conversation with Woland Berlioz in his novel "Master and Margarita" was mentioned proof of the existence of God, which had five, who then denounced Kant, who then built a sixth proof"...
So what was this evidence?
Orthodox tradition rejects the evidence of God's existence, in principle, considering them harmful to the faith. The Western theological thought worked very hard in this direction, and this need to talk.
Bulgakov Berlioz, most likely meant five of the evidence given by Thomas Aquinas. But in fact such evidence was offered in a variety of theologians and philosophers, and they were much more than five.
It is believed that the first proof was developed by Augustine of Hippo. He argued that a person loves only the good, and all things like as long as they is good. We love all things different, so you need to in our minds was a good standard, and they can only be God - like good absolute and unchanging.
Strangely, though, why Augustine brought his idea to its logical absurdity and did not offer the unit benefit. Why not, if there is a standard?..
However, Thomas Aquinas potential absurdity did not notice and did a proof of Augustine the basis of his theological system, generalizing it on the following basis: we constantly compare things to each other, operate with the concepts of "more" and "less than", and this method of comparison involves the presence of some maximum, absolute God.
It is not clear why Thomas the comparison requires a maximum absolute God. And what if a minimum - "absolute" the devil? And if the poor have a hundred rubles, and the rich man - million, the latter is closer to God? The absurd.
The so-called "ontological" proof (coming from our perceptions of being) invited Anselm of Canterbury, and finalized Rene Descartes.
The essence of the proof is the following: I, the man, being imperfect, but I have the idea of being committed and compelled to think that this idea was suggested to me by a being who possesses all perfections of God. Same with the idea of infinity, which man, as a being finite, could not be imagined without the infinite God.
Can't resist another comment: the idea of a perfect being an average businessman, I am afraid, very different from the Cartesian...
Will not overburden the book cosmological, physico-teleological, and many other evidence. Kant in his work "Critique of pure reason" was subjected to all existing evidence of complete defeat due to the fact that our subjective thoughts in no way should the need for an objective reality. For Kant, there is an insoluble contradiction between the limited experience and infinite output.
However, the tradition of championship Kant stronger fact: actually understood William Occam, who believed that the concept of God as an infinite being cannot be justified by means of rational knowledge.
Moreover Occam understood and the inability to strictly prove the existence of anything in the world except himself. The famous "Occam's razor" - "should not multiply entities beyond necessity" - theoretically leads to solipsism, as extremely necessary is the existence of the subject.
However, to solipsism Occam not reached, because of the possible illusory world and unprovable existence of God has made the following output: information about the world and about God we must draw primarily from the faith. Conclusion sounded quite in the style of Thomas Aquinas, and Ockham, despite his opposition to papal official information received from the Catholic Church the title "invincible doctor".
But if you do not fall in any of the extremes (either solipsism or Thomism), it actually "Occam's razor" is some minimum necessary (but not limiting) set of assumptions, accepted as axioms.
And because strong evidence is not available, then any thinking subject, assuming the objectivity of existence and matter, and God as harmonizing and tselesoobraznaya beginning in nature and man, Willy-nilly, considering all of the above in light of their subjective attitudes.
Actually in the "subjectivity" of the latter statement there is nothing wrong. Even Kant, correspondence arguing with Berkeley, saw the obviousness of the last reality of the existence of things and wrote: "it is Impossible not to recognize the scandal of philosophy and universal mind the need to only take on faith the existence of things outside us".
Now the term "scandal of philosophy" is used quite often, and it implies the absence of any meaningful totality of universal philosophical positions that could be shared by all professionals in this field.
However, Karl Jaspers considered permanent "scandal in philosophy" normal and natural situation, justifying it as follows: "what of the immutable grounds recognized by every person, becomes thus, scientific knowledge, not being more of a philosophy, and refers to specific areas of knowledge.
It's hard to disagree.
However, the question about the source positions continued to stand, and Marxist science in the USSR interpreted it as "the basic question of philosophy".
The Soviet ideological system liked to divide people into "us" and "not ours". Not have passed the Cup and philosophers.
Now the basic question of philosophy is already perceived as an archaism, but all students of the Soviet Union learned about the following: "the Basic question of philosophy - about the primacy of existence and consciousness. One who believes the primary Genesis, is a materialist. One who believes that consciousness is an idealist".
Strictly speaking, the first such division made Hegel, who believed that when the resolution of the opposition between being and thinking philosophy breaks down into two basic forms: realistic and idealistic". Although realism and materialism is not the same, the copyright on the phrase "the basic question of philosophy" should be recognized for Hegel.
But the recognition of the primacy of consciousness in the history of philosophy actually meant the recognition of the existence of God that does not suit the "historical materialists". Regardless of whether they lived in the USSR and elsewhere, "the basic question of philosophy" they will apply the principles of jurisprudence: "that is not proven, that does not exist".
The existence of matter seems to be proved by the totality of our physical sensations, but the existence of God - prove, say, and then we in Soviet schools and universities will study the Law of God! And while it's not proven - teach historical materialism!
Actually this position is nothing more than a vulgar speculation on "everyday" common sense: the fact is that the combination of physical sensations do not have a rigorous proof of the existence of matter. Each of us knows many examples when the physical senses (five senses) are deceptive - delusions, hallucinations, and even simple errors of perception...
About solipsism we have already spoken. Now, if we approach the evidence of the objective existence of the outside world to the same positions as the Marxists came to the existence of God, then there is a "solipsistic output: cannot strictly prove that the collection of physical sensations exist in reality and not only in the perception of the feeling of the subject.
In other words, there is the theoretical probability that the world is objectively not exists and exists solely in our minds. Together with our body, family, apartment, neighbors, street, passers-by, the Earth, the Sun...
And this is solipsism, that is a violation of "tofiloski" initial positions "men among men" and attempt to eliminate "stop the world".
So the circle was closed. Either we try to strictly prove all manifestations of objective reality and inevitably moving into solipsism or something, but still accepted as an axiom. In other words, faith. Somehow, it is believed that the axiom is the destiny of science, and faith - only religion, but actually and in fact, and in another case we are talking about only a certain initial point of reference.
And if you believe in the objective existence of matter, why not take the next step and do not believe in God as the source of its structural feasibility and harmony? After all, the matter, indeed, has a definite structure - atoms, electrons, organic and inorganic materials, cells and blood cells, all this is more or less adequately described in mathematical formulas, fit into the periodic table...
Therefore, if we take for granted millions of different concepts of the material world, step up faith in God turns out to be negligible, and from a logical point of view, unprincipled. If we did 1000000 assumptions, then why not make 1000001-e?
Philosophical thought of humanity to so, at first glance, a simple conclusion was long and painful, coming closer to him, then away.
In fact, on a purely material matters (how many atoms of oxygen and how many hydrogen is a molecule of water is in the center of the Galaxy "black hole", and so on), is joined by another, much more complex - what is man? What is "I"? What is "We"? How we perceive the world? What is the mind? What is civilization and what is its place in the universe? Are we, the people, in a more or less rational structure of the world described by mathematical formulas and spatial-temporal correlations?
And then there is the question of harmony and appropriateness has been questioned. Positively or negatively impact human civilization on nature? And nature on humanity? And on a particular person? The extent applicable to the humanity of the natural mechanisms of self-regulation and self-reproduction? Than man is fundamentally different from millions of other species of living organisms?..
And so on. All questions it is impossible to list, and it is hardly necessary. Let's try to keep to one thing: not falling neither into solipsism, or in vulgar materialism, we assume in the nature of a certain structure and usefulness. Is it possible with the same minimum degree of axiomatically to prevent human and humanity of such expediency? At least potential?
And speaking in the context of this book: can it be justified to prevent the existence of God as the source of structure and expediency, not only in nature and the universe, but in the human and humanity?
Of course, you can try to "clean up" philosophy and of any assumptions, and subjective preferences.
But then, as we have shown, even Marxism with his belief in the objectivity exclusively of matter has no right to exist, and the destiny of any pure philosophical thought remains only solipsism.
Thus, the existence of God-absolute in any interpretation of not more unprovable, as the existence of the surrounding material world. And the words "not more than unprovable" can be formulated differently: "as provable".
Therefore, the assumption of the existence of God is absolutely justified.
But there is another question. To prevent the objective existence of matter require our "tofiloski" the original position. And do we have the following assumption - the existence of God? Maybe "leave" the material world without him?
To answer this question again, remember what we talked about in connection with the "scandal of philosophy": the core of any philosophy is man and the subjective, the personal , dostovernosti in one way or another issue.
And such an important attribute of the human person as moral, and will help us to find the answer to the question, do we have the assumption of the existence of God to the same extent as the assumption of existence of matter.
To deny the existence of morality in humans is impossible. To interpret it can be different, and completely undeniable. This concept is inextricably linked with the person and expresses the totality of the spiritual attitudes of the latter.
However, the concept of "totality of the spiritual attitudes" is very vague, so let's take a more in-depth analysis of what we call morality.
Household goods often used the phrase "immoral", but it is only a metaphor, similar to the more vulgar statements - "headless" or "armless". It is clear that most recent "terms" are statements not of the absence of the person corresponding part of the body, and inability to think logically or repairing household items.
We take as the terminology: if a man is and his morality, and it is from the individual as an integral, as thinking or mentality. And morality should not be confused with morality - morality may be different for different social groups (exists "class morality", and even "thieves morality"), and the concept of "morality" refers only to the concept of "man".
Kant believed that morality is absolute, universal, universally valid, having the form of a universal law "goodwill". It with one hand. On the other hand, Kant believed that the principle of our "goodwill" is the desire of turning maxims (personal "law") in universal law. "Act as if the Maxim of your action should become a universal law of nature".
Combining these two approaches, Kant developed the basic concept of his "metaphysics of morals" is a categorical imperative, identified with the "good will".
In terms of good, Kant could not agree more.
But, unfortunately, many people not only quite sincerely commit evil, but so sincerely (subconsciously) want their "Maxim became a universal law of nature. Similar arguments can be put forward against the Kantian assertion that the practical expression of the categorical imperative are reduced to the sense of duty to man and mankind.
You can give an example: when the children cry because of the Gray Wolf ate little Red riding Hood, they are unlikely subconscious compassion caused by any sense of duty. However, their cries, a phenomenon exclusively of the moral order.
There is another example: the executioners, as a rule, believe that doing their duty, and yet this profession cannot be considered moral.
Therefore, the sense of duty is not a necessary and sufficient practical manifestation of the totality of the spiritual attitudes of mankind, which Kant called the categorical imperative.
So I suggest to use instead of the Kantian categorical imperative the concept of moral imperative and to imply underneath the totality of moral interpretation of Kant (absolute, universal, universally valid, having the form of universal law and the nature of "goodwill").
As for the characteristics of the practical manifestations of the moral imperative, we will use a more modern term - humanism, postulates a Supreme, self-sufficient and self-conscious, a person's importance, priority of his personality.
First of all, let's see what attitudes can be considered to be humanistic.
Perhaps the most comprehensive (though not exhaustive) enumeration of the modern components of the universal understanding of humanity listed in article ISA Mainstream. To the spiritual foundations of education and culture of the future. These components can be called and practical manifestations of the moral imperative, and in this article they called "mainstream" (from the English "main stream" or "main stream"). Quote:
"The ethos of mainstream comprehensively specifies the number of clear and basic norms, values, attitudes, not always formalized or codified.
It includes the following 10 components:
- the value of individual freedom;
- the value of interpersonal and intergroup tolerance;
- inadmissibility or even in displaced situations, as a minimum, naisimpatichneyshie violence and aggression;
- the value of property and material wealth;
- respect for the work;
- respect for life;
non - discrimination of various kinds, the idea of the principle of legal equality of people (this is the sense of "equality" - which is not, of course, the identity of different ethnic and cultural traditions;
reverence before the real altruism and sacrifice.
- a sense of natural values ("spontaneous, "natural") diversity and, consequently, a sense of doubtfulness artificial unificati;
- rethinking the dignity and value of nature, "environmental idea."
Mainstream carries persistent allergic to all ideas of spiritual, cultural, racial, ethnic and other exclusivity"...
End quote. But neither the "mainstream"or the abstract humanism we could not stop, and that we now understand in simple literary example.
In accordance with our definition of morality, character "Odessa stories" Babel Mendel Creek (father Beni Creek), as well as any man, had a certain moral attitudes.
But that's what this says about another character "Odessa stories", "are You twenty-five years. If heaven and earth were fastened rings, you grabbed the ring and pulled the sky to the earth. And dad you have a drayman Mendel Creek. About what he thinks this dad? He thinks about to drink a good glass of vodka, about to give someone in the face, about their horses - and nothing more. You want to live, and he makes you die twenty times a day."
No matter what "moral guidelines" father Mendel Cry deserved condemnation even from his son benny is a professional gangster. This attitude, according to the same laws of humanity, has the right to exist along with its carrier. However, the translation of the "life" of the plane in philosophy it does not stand, and that we now understand in another example.
On the same philosophical seminar I once heard someone say: "I trample under their feet the Kantian categorical imperative". A situation arose, at first sight impossible. Indeed, if a professional philosopher of some fundamental considerations "trampling feet categorical imperative", how to convince him?
But really the question here is, as in the case of acceptance or rejection of the objectivity of the world and the existence of God, only in their original positions.
For clarity, let us consider another example. In the most acute and brought to its logical absurdity form anti-humanistic position occupied many of the heroes of the books of the Marquis de Sade, whose "philosophy" was reduced approximately as follows:
"Look at the morality and ethics - there are no rigorous proofs need to be good people there. Look at the nature of all living beings each other devour. Look at the society - it is criminal, corrupt and selfish. So why should I care about the middle, and generally to do someone some good? In a world of evil no less than good, so I'm going to Rob, rape, kill - I like that better. And if someone likes to help people - well, that's his business. Don't let him get caught on my way"...
But actually we are in such a position in life we see the application of the same principles of humanism, only in respect of one single person - himself.
Hence, the main argument against the position of masters such as the Marquis de Sade and his characters - that someday another victim does not want to be robbed and raped, and will do the same with the maniac-philosopher. Say, today me, tomorrow I will.
It turns out that antihumanism in conflict with yourself - if you build the value of their own personality on the recognition of the values of other individuals, then sooner or later the value of this "Central" person will be questioned by others, and often in the order of self-defense. Inevitably, there is a situation of perpetual war, which greatly increases the likelihood of suffering and death the subject of antihumanist.
We see the contradiction with "tofiloski source positions, which we call "men among men". And allow his character of the Marquis de Sade may only having declared antihumanism and against himself.
And it is a logical absurdity, as solipsism, only lying not in theoretical and in practical terms, and as a result have a much wider range of "everyday" negative consequences from more or less harmless masochism to registration in the mental hospital, and even to suicide.
Therefore, logic, and basic understanding of peace in the household, "neighborly" sense dictates that we call modern humanism. And brought to an absurd limit antihumanism is in line with solipsism is a phenomenon of the same order and the same historical fate, rather unenviable.
But if the situation with the philosophers who try to "trample feet categorical imperative", a more or less clear, the "philosophy of life" drayman (lombego cab) Mendel Scream "live and work", and she, in varying degrees, followed by millions of people.
And may, as we have seen, this problem in theory easily solvable, but its practical aspect cannot be ignored. About the sources and historical perspectives position "about to give someone in the face" we have to talk throughout the book, in parallel with a review of sources and historical perspectives of moral imperative.
And to start this review with the question of what (or rather who) is the source of moral imperative.
Remember the words of Bulgakov's Woland on "the sixth proof of the existence of God", developed by Kant. Apparently, this "sixth proof" meant "moral argument" that, although the existence of God cannot be proved, it can and should be recognized.
"The moral argument" Kant was the following: we have a commitment to excellence and happiness unattainable in this world, so moral considerations require to recognize that the harmony of happiness and perfection can be achieved, provided the immortality of the soul and the existence of God.
Again, the tradition of championship Kant stronger facts: one hundred years before him, this view was expressed by Blaise Pascal, and in a more explicit form.
Due to our limited thought Pascal, we cannot know whether God exists or not, but to choose one of the two versions we can. Get something like a lottery: "I guessed right or not". What version to choose? There is no doubt that God exists, because if you win we get "eternal bliss", and in the case of loss, in fact, nothing to lose.
Thus, we together with Pascal and Kant went on terminology, use of the word "humanism", "harmony of happiness and perfection," "eternal bliss"...
And it is no coincidence.
Pascal and Kant is not simply considered necessary existence of God as a source of harmony and appropriateness. They considered this harmony and expediency it is in the moral aspect, and this is for us the most important. Even such a highly controversial term, as "eternal bliss", in any case implements primarily humanistic installation.
Of course, the moral aspect is not a strict logic. But, speaking about "the main question of philosophy", we saw that when determining the worldview of the original positions of the latter is powerless, and nothing but permanent "scandal"isn't waiting for us.
Therefore, it is necessary to stand on one side.
Based on all said about humanism and antihumanism, I propose to follow the Pascal and Kant, and to accept the existence of God necessary.
Correctly we did or not, trusting moral reasons - will see to the end of the book, but for now we'll take as a given that the Creator of the universe, the source of world harmony and appropriateness is God, and acceptance of God's existence is just as important as the acceptance of the existence of the material world.
And since we have defined the moral imperative as a set of moral attitudes in the interpretation of Kant (absolute, universal, universally valid, having the form of universal law and the nature of "good will"), then take as another reality: God is the source of moral imperative.
No internal contradictions in this position there, so will rely on human intuition. Throughout the book we will continuously "to confide algebra harmony" and if you see the logical inconsistencies with our original positions, observe it directly.
So, with faith in the material world we believe in God the Creator of the universe, the organizer of harmony and appropriateness in the world, the source of the moral imperative.
As we have defined moral imperative postulates a Supreme, self-sufficient and self-conscious, a person's importance, priority of his personality. And the identity of the person, his personal dostovernosti in one way or another the problem is the rod (at least the original position) of any philosophy.
Hence, we can make one fundamental conclusion: the moral imperative, explicitly or implicitly, is the core of any philosophical system (with the exception of solipsism).
In the case of vulgar materialism (Marx, Feuerbach) in the role of God is matter itself, and the role of the moral imperative of socio-economic relations and cultural-historical tradition. But we have already determined that the assumption of the existence of God is as necessary as the assumption of existence of matter, so vulgar materialism for us as unacceptable as solipsism.
Perhaps it is time to move from theory to the study of the practical manifestations of the moral imperative.
First of all it is necessary to formulate the most important for us postulate: equivalent alternatives to religion as the expression of the moral imperative today is not, and the study of philosophical issues in moral aspect sooner or later leads to theology.
Generally speaking, the concept of moral imperative more widely than any religion, even the scale of Christianity, Islam or Buddhism. Theoretically, he doesn't need any registration of religious or moral attitudes.
But if we want to translate our research from the theoretical plane to the practical, we are without religious context will not cover it. Why - explain.
The most versatile is the definition of religion as the understanding of the connection of man with God. This connection is realized in many aspects, but at the moment the most important for us is moral.
Kant believed that the religion of the knowledge of our duties as divine commandments, and not in the form of arbitrary, random for myself regulations of some outside force, but as essential laws of any free will.
Add to all that is said about religion is another word "worldview", and understand that we have the right to speak about religion as the moral basis of personality.
The same we have identified and moral imperative. Making elementary "substitution", we can say the following: based on moral assumptions, the transition from General philosophical context in religious, in theory, possible, and appropriate.
But in practice, we gain important - credibility and accessibility.
The last statement may make me accusations of "populism"and the need to bring our research to the public must stop.
The fact that against the "abstract" humanism is a serious argument made by Boris Diabecon the review on my book "Jesus of Nazareth's life and teachings".
In the book were these words: "the twentieth century no genocides and failed to discredit the ideals of humanism. Let's not confuse humanism with democracy: "democratic values" until they show their performance is not everywhere. The main achievement of humanity can be expressed as follows: the life and personality of each person is sacred and everyone is entitled to their own opinion".
On this Boris Georgievich noted as follows: "In this formula is the source of all pathologies "humanism". Noble declared intention to attempt to protect against force effects dissidents, foreigners and weak, but the creative members of society, it automatically extends the concept of "man" and those who consciously, or obeying a natural inclination to exclude himself from the human race, choosing the path of eternal perdition. While the liberal mind she pats them on the back until you bite him personally, liberal, finger or anything else".
This quote from the review is not antihumanism. It is the realization that in the modern world, far from perfect, any humanist surrounded babaevskii Mendalami Cries, thinking primarily about giving someone in the face". It is not surprising that the object of their "goal setting" is primarily an alien element - humanist broadcasting something obscure about universal values.
Such "worldly" contradiction insoluble in a particular historical period, because of Mandela Cries, as a rule, more than philosophers. And separately, the average wagon the driver is physically stronger than the average philosopher.
But in the future a way out of this situation for humanism and humanists one to Express his doctrine in a public form, is able to penetrate into the hearts of millions. If not Mendeley Cries, their descendants.
This, at least, a historic chance. How real he is, we have yet to speak. But more convincing and public expression of the moral imperative than religious, mankind for several thousand years of civilization invented, and is unlikely to be invented in the near future.
So I'm in this book (as well as in others) refuse to "pseudo-scientific" language.
Therefore, I do not drink those special philosophical terms that can adequately replace common expressions (such as "axiology - the system of values").
So we go from the moral imperative to religion, from philosophy to theology.
The religious worldview of the people belonging to the European civilization, in the last two thousand years is inextricably linked with Christianity. This fact, and from him we will not escape. In the East there are their counterparts, but we will begin by looking at the practical manifestations of the moral imperative from Europe - this will be more clearly and effectively.
Even almost to each of the ten cited in the previous Chapter, the provisions of the "mainstream" AA Pinsk we can find a quote from the New Testament, translating the notion of abstract humanism (General philosophical or moral imperative, not less abstract) in Christian spirituality deeply rooted in the subconscious of millions of people.
Of course, attempts to replace Christianity with something "new" would have been numerous. Remember the slogan of the French revolution "liberty, equality, fraternity" or communism is "from each according to ability, to each according to needs". In reality all it was was another speculation.
The teaching of Jesus Christ was and remained the basic system around which to build their doctrines the vast majority of European philosophers. Break with Christianity began to declare many of them (most famous in this respect, Schopenhauer, Feuerbach, and Marx) with only the first half of the nineteenth century, that is, in comparison with two thousand years of Christianity recently.
What did it - we know. Marxist social utopia in the USSR is not the only example. Sartre and Barthes with their "death of the subject" and "poststructuralism" in the end came to cooperate with the Communist party, and Heidegger, as we know, in the years 1933-1945 was a member of Hitler's NSDAP...
The moral imperative, "cleaned" from Christianity, proved to be fertile ground for political speculations. And the anarchists, and the military "junta", as a rule, also exploiting the concepts of good and justice.
In this regard, revealing the historical fate of the teachings of the philosophers of the so-called "Russian religious Renaissance". They managed to turn an unconscious (or taken for granted) using the Christian understanding of the moral imperative of European philosophers in conscious and structured forms. This is of great importance to the philosophy of NF Fedorov, V.S. Soloviev, S.L., Frank, N.O. Lossky, N.A. Berdyaev...
But their teachings are closely associated with Russian Orthodoxy, was waiting for a tragic fate: they were contemporaries and actual opponents of Lenin and Plekhanov.
The philosophers of the "Russian Renaissance" did not create parties and preached to the victory of socialism in one country, but they relied on a much more ancient and deep-seated tradition of the teachings of Jesus Christ.
And they got what can be called a bitter absurdity: in the early twentieth century when the collision of the teachings of Christ with the teachings of the minor German philosopher first lost, and it took a few "stolen generations"to the story again has put everything in its place.
Like Christianity and Marxism is a doctrine not comparable in importance or scale, and yet the vast majority of "Orthodox" of the Russian people in 1917, followed by Marxists and began enthusiastically to destroy the temples.
That was speculative substitution of Christianity other subconscious manifestation of a moral imperative - the idea of social justice is a fact, but a little explaining. Because such ideas permeated and Christianity! What happened then, in the early twentieth century?
Over this terrible historical lessons we still have to work and work. Now, after many decades of a ban on such research, we have again and again to view the formation of Christian dogma and try to understand why the Russians in 1917 took Marxism as a deliverance not only from the king, but from Orthodoxy.
Not only the Russians in the early thirties of the twentieth century in a similar situation in Germany, and this led to no less tragic consequences. Not only destroyed six million Jews, but also for the German people.
And the current situation poses a moral problem with unprecedented sharpness. The fact that never before in its history, humanity could not (at least theoretically) be destroyed one lucky nuclear maniac.
Yes, nuclear weapons has a huge number of degrees of protection. Yes, nuclear war to provoke a challenge. And still remember the accident at the Chernobyl NPP without any malicious intent, from one failure of circumstances, multiplied by irresponsibility, depopulated whole regions, and the number of genetic faults in subsequent generations unpredictable.
In Chernobyl there was not a catastrophic explosion or full release of nuclear fuel, and the wind carried the radioactive cloud in the direction of populated areas. And if there was still evil intent, and considering the absolute emission fuel, and the "right" direction of the wind?
The potential danger of nuclear destruction, from the sixties of the twentieth century hanging over humanity, cannot be underestimated.
I think it's time to cure sickness "geocentrism" (the raising of humanity to the rank of a single and a priori immortal civilization), which suffered from many philosophers, afford to ignore or to deny the Christian moral principles.
Though, taking the wrong flight
And reverse paths are not acquiring,
Star of heaven in the infinite depth of leaks;
May replace it by another;
Not seen earth damage to one,
That does not strike the ear of the world
Drop her a distant howl,
As in the heights of ether
Her sisters newborn light
And heaven enthusiastic Hello!
Unfortunately, in the same way on any other planets will not notice and the destruction of the Earth.
All ideas about the ascent of humanity to the different scientific and technical heights must be continuously poveritsya "moral tuning fork, or at any time may cause the destruction of our civilization. And it will happen with the same "existential" commonplace, as in the novel "the Plague albert Camus.
Vulgar materialism, in the hands of the Marquis de Sade seemed funny literary toy in the hands of Lenin was an ideological bomb that brought the world to the military dictatorships. Extreme Islamic fundamentalism lead to bombings not only ideological, but also quite real.
What philosophical system will be armed potential nuclear maniac?
So don't play with fire and try to replace Christianity with something "new". Starting from the deadly doctrine of "nuclear deterrence", say: there is a tool "moral restraint", time-tested, and in our book we will work only with him.
Of course, it is not necessary to go to extremes types of statements: "Philosophy must be subservient to theology, but not a slave" (L.P. Karsavin). The use of the terms "servant" and "slave", which usually differ only in the form of wages, to determine the relationship of philosophy and theology, to put it mildly, incorrect.
To put it differently: the Christian religion is the core of any European philosophy, its moral (ultimately, personal) basis, and theology is a science on this basis.
In light of this approach, the question of which of the Sciences - philosophy or theology is more important, as abstract as a question, what color is more important than white or red. On the one hand, the red color from the point of view of physics is part of the white, on the other hand, formally the white color does not exist, as it is composed of the seven colors of the rainbow...
So we will not delve into a discussion about what is more important is the philosophy or theology. Recognize that both Sciences entitled to equal the existence of and refer to their objects of study - the moral imperative and the Christian religion.
First of all we must examine itself the right of European philosophy based on Christian understanding of the moral imperative.
Simply put - is it true what we know about Christ? True if the gospel is historical evidence about it? True if the New Testament? Maybe the Marxists, who announced Christ legend, I must say thank you for what they "corrected age-old delusion of mankind"?
However, the palm of the Marxists in this matter is questionable: the historicity of Jesus Christ is not recognized even Voltaire, and in the early nineteenth century ideas developed Arthur Drews, and David Strauss, but actually it does not change.
And in order to show the validity of Christianity as the spiritual base of the European understanding of the moral imperative, we have to analyze the authenticity of the New Testament and the information contained therein.
Have to start with historical and biographical review - we will place emphasis on a number of fundamental points that we will need to determine the authenticity of the New Testament, and for further theological studies.
First briefly recall the history of the first century, associated with Christianity.
It is believed that Jesus Christ was born at the junction of 1 BC and 1 ad In any case, the chronology is exactly and 25 December 2000 or January 7, 2001 seemingly had to be fulfilled 2000 years since the birth of Jesus.
But let us recall a well known fact: Jesus was born during the Jewish king Herod the Great, who, having heard from the Magi about the birth of Jesus and seeing this as a threat to his Royal power, he ordered to cut all infants in and around Bethlehem (Matt. 2:16).
Herod the Great died in the spring of 750 years from the Foundation of Rome, and the monk Dionysius Small (VI century) the chronology of "Christmas" started from December 25, 753 years (easier to conditionally accept 754, from the Foundation of Rome.
Turning on the chronology of Dionysius, which we still use today, Herod died in 4 BC, Recall the rule of translation: 1 year ad - 754 from the Foundation of Rome, 1 BC - 753:2 BC - 752 etc.
Accordingly, Christ was born not later than the spring of 4 BC. It turns out the calendar paradox - two-thousand-year anniversary of Jesus took place much earlier than 2000. And as for how absurd it sounds, the phrase "Christ is born at least 4 years before the birth of Christ", I do not say.
So, in 2000 we actually celebrated only round date very strange chronology, introduced in 525 year by the monk Dionysius Small.
Let's try to understand what was happening - couldn same Dionysius, the originator of the first meeting of the "Apostolic and Conciliar rules", in fact, one of the creators of "Holy tradition", just to be mistaken with the year of Christ's birth.
To do this, first try to figure out when Jesus was crucified because of his crucifixion know much more than about his birth.
All the evangelists - Matthew, mark, Luke, and John agree that he was crucified on Friday (Matt. 27:62; Mark. 15:42; LK. 23:54; Jn. 19:14). But what specifically?
This Friday occurs on one of the days of the Jewish Passover. The first day of Passover - the 14th of the month "Nisan" (the first month in the Jewish calendar), as in the old Testament: "In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month is the Passover of the Lord" (Lev. 23:5).
All evangelists, but John suggests that the famous last Supper, the last supper of Jesus before the crucifixion, was the first day of Passover: "then came the day of unleavened bread, which was supposed to slay the Paschal lamb" (LK. 22:7). On the same say and mark and Matthew (MK. 14:12; Matt. 26:17). It means that the last Supper took place the 14th of Nisan, and Christ was crucified on the next day, the 15th.
The words of the Evangelist John on the day of the crucifixion: "it was the Friday before the Passover" (Jn. 19:14) contrary to many other testimonies of the evangelists of the Paschal character of the last Supper, so there most likely is philological inaccuracy John could talk about Friday as one of the days of the Passover.
On this subject, perhaps, one could argue, but the inaccuracy of the gospel of John in the middle of the second century drew attention to his disciple Polycarp of Smyrna, and was led to this subject dispute with the Bishop of Rome. Note that Polycarp was not to defend the point of view of his teacher, John, and took the Dating of Matthew, Mark and Luke, which was not personally acquainted. This largely confirms its objectivity.
In the end, thanks to Polycarp Dating of the last Supper, the 14th of Nisan, and the crucifixion of the fifteenth, already in the fourth century became generally accepted and based on it so far calculated the date of the Christian Easter.
relate the Jewish calendar of the Roman (European) and see what year the 15th
of Nisan fell on a Friday. Dionysius did by putting restrictions in the form of
a certain well-known fact that Jesus was crucified when the Procurator of
Judea, Pontius Pilate spoke even Tacitus and Josephus), and Pilate was
Procurator from 26 to
In these years there were only two Friday 15 Nisan - 30 and 34, had to choose one of them.
So, 30 or 34 year?
In early Christian times there was a legend that Pilate for the death of Jesus was summoned to Rome by the Emperor, gave an explanation and was dismissed. It was even said Justin the Philosopher and Tertullian.
But we know that was the Emperor Tiberius, and, of course, he would not have demoted him for someone else's punishment, especially a preacher. Besides, the Roman emperors are extremely hostile to the emergence of new religions and cults.
However, in the middle ages it was customary to provide the bloody rulers harsh, but fair. It is not surprising that the "loyal subject" of Dionysius the Small desire to choose the date of the crucifixion, closer to the dismissal of a "good" Emperor "evil" of the Procurator.
And further including the famous tradition called "the age of Christ."
Pay attention to the most important testimony of the Evangelist Luke: "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was being Governor of Judea... was the word of God came to John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness" (LK. 3:1-2).
Since then, John the Baptist began to baptize people. After some time (what exactly is Luke did not say), and Jesus was baptized, which meant the beginning of his Ministry - preaching activity.
Then Luke says, "Jesus began His Ministry, was about thirty years old..." (LK. 3:23). So, not before the 15th year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius, Jesus was about 30 years.
The previous Emperor, Augustus, died in the 14th year. It turns out that Jesus was about thirty years not earlier than 28 years.
The Ministry of Christ is most fully described by the Evangelist John. Jesus began his preaching for a few days before the Jewish Passover (Jn. 2:12). Then he mentioned three of the feast of the Passover (Jn. 5:1; 6:4; 11:55). Thus, from the first Passover to the last (tragic) three years have passed. Hence the famous "age of Christ" - thirty years before the baptism (Luke), plus three years after (the gospel of John). Thirty-three years.
So, before Dionysius Small (and before us) had a problem: if you select as the date of the crucifixion 30 year Ministry of Christ does not fit in three years, even if he was baptized in the same 28 year when began operations John the Baptist.
And if you choose to 34 year, it happened to a large "reserve", so how could Jesus be baptized and later 28 years. For example, John began to baptize in the 28th year, and Christ was baptized only in 31-m Why not?
and chose the 34 year. According to his calculations, everything was
"normal" - Jesus was born at the junction of 1 B.C. and
And about the fact that Christ was born under Herod the Great, Dionysius could forget. Maybe he didn't know the date of the death of king Herod. Or maybe (most likely), he chose to focus on the testimony of the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius and the date of "dismissal" of Pontius Pilate...
But we do nothing we will not forget, and we will discuss further.
As we know, Jesus was born when Herod the Great, that is not later than 4 BC, Can we determine the "lower limit" the date of his birth?
Little, very little Evangelical about Christmas. Some researchers even try to rely on the testimony of "the star of Bethlehem (Matt. 2:2), attracting highly divergent data on comets, meteor streams and the "parade of planets". But such astronomical phenomena occur almost every year. Have we nothing more can not help?
No, there is another important evidence of Luke: "In that year he went out from Emperor Augustus commanded to make a census of all the earth. This census was the first in the reign of Quirinius of Syria" (LK. 3:1-2).
The census of the Roman Empire were necessary for the efficient collection of taxes, and therefore held periodically, every five years, with each new censor (the so-called consistent with the Rome office). Any census had a legal basis in the form of an Imperial decree.
Thus, evidence of the command in August to conduct a census, we can not help - plus or minus five years, the spread is too large.
But we will help the historical fact that Quirinius (some Roman sources - Quintile) became Governor of Syria in 6 BC, It narrows the range of possible year of Christ's birth to two years: 6-4 BCE
And the year of the crucifixion?
a 34 year, we do not fit in "the age of Christ" - if Jesus was born
in 4 B.C., he was in
It seems that should be taken as the year of the crucifixion 30, but what to do with the evidence of Luke about Jesus ' Ministry began a 28 year - in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius? "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was being Governor of Judea... was the word of God came to John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness" (LK. 3:1-2).
The Ministry of Jesus does not fit in two years. Besides, the "age of Christ" then get thirty-two, and if he is a 28 year was thirty, he was born in 3 BC (don't forget to deduct from age zero year)? And we found that after 4 years BC he could not have been born.
What can you do?
It turns out, just something to read "Lives of the twelve Caesars Suetonius. Tiberius became co-Regent in August during the life of the latter, not 14, and 13 year! Moreover, "answered" Tiberius is for the province, that is, to the Jews, his reign began in the 13th year, and the fifteenth year of the reign was not 28, and 27 year. In the Roman Empire was not yet an established tradition of the transfer of Imperial power by inheritance, and this "joint rule" stressed the continuity of the reign of Tiberius.
Here we have "found" that year, which we lacked. Consider:
27 year Jesus was about thirty years old. Accepted without any "about" - was thirty.
He was crucified after three years, i.e. in 30 year. So at the moment of the crucifixion he was 33 years old - the age of Christ."
Subtract from 30 years thirty-three, consider the "zero" year and get 4 B.C., the birth when Herod the Great. Everything converges.
we can with certainty say, the birth of Jesus Christ: 4 BC, the crucifixion:
In fact we can say more precisely. In the beginning of XIX century astronomical tables was calculated that 15 Nisan 30 years corresponds to 7 April.
Therefore, Jesus could have been born in the second half of 5 BC, and early 4 B.C. In any case, the death on 7 April 30, as they say in the obituaries, "followed by the 34th year of life, although the words "death" and "obituary" for Christ is hardly applicable.
So we have the opportunity to observe another tradition and leave the generally accepted dates of Christmas: Catholic - December 25, Orthodox - 7 January. Because collegiate dictionary, 1997, "legitimized" 4 BC as the most likely date for Jesus ' birth (and more modern encyclopedia is saying), then take the "Orthodox" version.
the most fair and compromise in both historical and theological terms are dates
in the life of Jesus: 7 January 4 BC - April 7,
The exact date of the crucifixion, 07.04.30,, can be regarded as proven historical fact.
In any case, once again count on years: if Jesus was born in the early 4 BC, 1 year he was at the beginning of the 3 BC, 2 years in 2 BC, 3 years - 1 BC - 4 years-1 ad, 5 years at 2, and so on. As we can see, in order to know the age of Christ, in any year of our era, we must add 3 years. In the beginning of 30, he was 33, and in early 1997 - 2000 years.
However, most people still perceive as self-evident and that Christ was born a few years before the birth of Christ, and that anniversary is celebrated at the junction of 2000-2001. How can you not think about the enormous power of tradition...
In order to understand what the old Testament tradition relied Christ in their activities, remember that the Foundation of the Jewish religion was a belief in God is not a specific person, but people in General.
But for many centuries generations of the ancient Jews lived under the rule of the invaders and died, not waiting on God for help in the fight against the occupiers. In the VI century BC Judah was conquered by the Persians. Then the Jews managed to briefly restore state autonomy and to 516 BC even rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. In the IV century B.C. Judea was conquered by Alexander the great, then ruled by the Egyptian Ptolemies, the Syrian Seleucids in the second century BC, was a popular uprising under the leadership of the Maccabees and the short period of independence (140-63 BC), then the Roman occupation, the restoration of autonomy when Herod the Great and deprivation.
During the time Jesus Christ began a continuous series of uprisings
against Roman rule (it is believed that Barabbas, Pilate released to freedom
instead of Jesus, was one of the leaders of the resistance"). In
Not surprisingly, the decline and death of States have created the Jewish people have some spiritual vacuum that could be filled only hope for the future disposal of continuing slavery and humiliation. This led to a very specific result - the expectation of the Messiah.
The prophecies about the coming Savior dedicated to the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the twelve "minor" prophets, written in the VIII-VI centuries BC, However, the prophetic tradition in the West has always been very strong - even in the Psalms of David, which belongs rather to the "literary" part, there are many prophecies. And in the Pentateuch Moses periodically serves as a predictor of the fate of his people.
Prophecies about the Messiah were very specific, even called the tentative dates. The latter was left open to interpretation, but the Messiah, no doubt, was:
to be a Jew (Gen. 22:18; Num. 24:17);
- to be called Jesus (Zech. 3:1);
to come from the lineage of David (ISA. 11:1; Zech. 13:1);
to be the Son of God, conceived by the Virgin from God (PS. 2:7; IP. 7:14);
- to be called the Son of Man (Dan. 7:13-14);
to come to the people (cf. 3:37);
to be born in Bethlehem (Micah. 5:2);
to accept the adoration of the Magi (ISA. 60:3);
- to visit Egypt (Hos. 11:1);
to be relevant to the city of Nazareth (the Court. 13:5; IP. 11:1-2);
- to perform miracles and heal (ISA. 29:18; 61:1-2)
to tell Proverbs (ISA. 77:2);
- to enter Jerusalem on a donkey (Zech. 9:9);
to be sold for thirty pieces of silver (Zech. 11:12);
- to be tortured or to be executed (Is. 53:5; jer. 11:19; Dan. 9:26; PS. 21:17-19);
to rise and rule the world (PS. 2:8);
to bring the world a New Covenant (jer. 31:31-33);
to judge all Nations (ISA. 42:1-4);
- to save the people of Israel (ISA. 25:8).
Jesus walked in the footsteps of his earthly father, Joseph, and the beginning of his preaching activity was a carpenter (MK. 6:3). Despite the "proletarian" profession, he led his descent from king David, that were in Judea quite frequent - the country was small, David had many sons (2 Sam. 3:2-6), and for a thousand years his family has diverged greatly.
Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but grew up and lived for many years in Nazareth (Matt. 2:23), a small city in the Galilee region in Northern Israel. More precisely, the Roman province of Judea.
Surnames in the Eastern part of the Roman Empire was not, therefore, in his native city people used to call by name or occupation. There was also a respectful form of address - the name of the father or the founder of the genus. Jesus, therefore, for "eye" might call a "carpenter" or "carpenter's son", "eye" - "son of Joseph" (in Hebrew - "Ben Joseph"), and in special cases - "son of David".
When you move to another location the name was usually added to the name of his native city. Hence the name, which was written on the sign, nailed to the cross, Jesus of Nazareth (Jn. 19:19).
Generally speaking, the word "Nazarene" has the additional meaning of "people who have dedicated themselves to the Lord" (JUD. 13:5), and the consonance of "Nazareth-Nazareth" was used by the disciples of Jesus in order to emphasize his Messianic identity.
But in fact, the usual Jewish rules Christ was called Jesus of Nazareth (LK. 4:34). In more modern translations - Nazareth or even Nazareth. It all means the same - origin from the town of Nazareth. Therefore, in order not to depend on translators, I suggest that the most indisputable option - Jesus of Nazareth.
He himself was often called by the old Testament tradition of the Son of Man (Matt. 10:23; 16:28; LK. 9:56; 19:10 and others)
It is clear why Jesus began his Ministry (preaching), relatively late, thirty years old. In order to thoroughly study the old Testament in those days required a much longer time than now - interpretation were mostly oral and extremely confusing. And Jesus was not enough to know from the old Testament only the Law of Moses - was required was a clear reference to a great number of prophets and prophecies, he declared himself the Messiah, the Savior of the Jewish people!
Bitter historical irony - that for him and his people did not recognize. Despite the old Testament prophecies that the Messiah would first be executed (Is. 53:5; jer. 11:19 and others), and only then will rise again and rule the world in the beginning of our era the vast majority of Jews have a stereotype of the Messiah as some sort of Archangel slaying a fiery sword of the hated Roman occupiers.
And Jesus was "only" a former carpenter, who died a shameful death. Stress - death, disgrace to the Jews far more than the Romans, for "cursed before God just hanging on the tree" (Deut. 21:23).
And when Jesus of Nazareth April 7, 30, was crucified, the cause for which he went to the cross, there were not many chances for the historic triumph.
So does not cause confusion his requests to God on the night before his arrest in the garden of Gethsemane, "carry past the Cup" (Matt. 26:42; LK. 22:42).
And the tragic meaning of his cry on the cross: "my God, My God! Why hast Thou forsaken Me?" (Matt. 27:46) leaves no doubt - it's almost a verbatim quote from the Psalms (PS. 21:2), which further States: "Far from my salvation the words of my cry. Oh my God! I cry in the daytime and You not hear me at night and I have no peace" (PS. 21:3).
Grounds to doubt that in the future Jesus really were. Students were not enough, and neither talented organizer, or "charismatic" none of them shone.
The first disciple of Peter, except the lack of education (he was a professional fisherman), was still weak. Remember, he three times denied Christ, when the Savior was arrested? (Matt. 26:69-75; MK. 14:66-72; LK. 22:56-61; Jn. 18:15-27).
John, son of Zebedee, who is also the Evangelist, the beloved disciple, has been very strong in the written word on paper, but organizational data is unlikely to have.
James, brother of Christ, or "charisma" of Jesus, nor his knowledge not possessed. It is often confused with the Apostle James, the elder of the sons of Zebedee, but he actually got involved in the "movement" only after the crucifixion of his older brother and has been in the community a place of honor only as "the Lord's brother" (Gal. 1:19; acts. 12:17).
However, after the death of Jesus, Peter and James, his successor. In fact, Christianity was a sect of Judaism, one of the many that existed in Jerusalem at that time.
The founder of this sect, Jesus of Nazareth, had no chance to remain in the memory of his people, neither Christ, nor even one of the "small" of the old Testament prophets type of Zechariah because he himself is nothing written't leave.
Besides, it was then formed hard Judaism, the Jewish nation rallied in the face of mortal danger, not less than in times of Auschwitz. New religious movements and sects nation was divided, were mercilessly persecuted by the Sanhedrin (Jn. 11:48), and subconsciously rejected Patriotic configured part of society.
However, James and Peter firmly believed that preaching should be only in Judea, and only among the Jews. About the failure of their activity says that when in Jerusalem in 62 year started another rebellion against the Romans, Christians, preachers of non-violence, were "traitors and Compromisers", and the crowd of rebels Jacob was killed.
But in the early thirties of the first century on the historical scene appeared to the Apostle Paul.
One of the twelve apostles, Paul is not. Its history is very interesting: people unfamiliar with Jesus, the original active opponent of Christianity who participated in the stoning of Stephen (acts. 7:58), some time later took on Christian ideas and fully dedicated to Christ. The Apostle, by the way, he himself declared.
That Paul was within ten to twenty years to create a powerful Church organization and to spread Christianity on almost the entire territory of the Roman Empire.
It is a remarkable fact that, apart from the Christian Church, a Christian theology. By the early 60-ies of the first century Christianity was already a coherent religious and organizational system.
Despite the declarative negation strict observance of the law of Moses, the image of Jesus Christ in the theology of the Apostle Paul differs little from the old Testament Messiah. The only difference is that, according to Paul, Christ came to save not only the Jews, but all mankind.
Paul was an idealist, but a pragmatist (concept, as we see, is quite compatible at that time), and realized that any complication of the image of Jesus Christ will only hurt the young Church. It was enough to make the approach to Jesus as the Savior, the Messiah, the Anointed of God, ranked in the heavenly hierarchy above the highest of the archangels, "the right hand of God" (in modern terms, right).
According to the teachings of Paul, the first coming of Jesus Christ confirmed that the old Covenant has been fulfilled, the Messiah came, atoned for our "old Testament" sins, suffered for us and ascended into heaven. And not the Law of Moses governs our spiritual world, and faith in Jesus Christ, that is, in fact, that our Savior, Jesus. And we must first perform the covenants of Christ to love one another and do good to others.
By the way, referring to this, he declared the Jewish circumcision is not obligatory for Christians. Practical Apostle understood that to please the Gentiles it was too burdensome and painful, this procedure in adulthood...
Then, in full accordance with the Gospels taught by the Apostle Paul, Christ ascended into heaven, gave us time to believe and to live according to his commandments, and then he will come a second time and will rule the world (1 Cor. 15:23).
Note that Paul managed to convince Christians that the next coming of the Savior could not happen today and not tomorrow, and maybe not in this life or the next generation.
But in this regard, the Apostle Paul had to overcome the resistance of not only the Roman and Jewish authorities, but "senior" fellow Christian, especially Peter and James. The idea of Paul that the Christian doctrine of the goodness and love, together with the Jewish concept of a unified and invisible God will have wide resonance precisely spiritually corrupt pagan world, none of them took. Moreover, the rights for Paul considered the Apostle did not recognize.
Here's what he says on this subject in his letter to the Galatians:
"When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face because he was to be blamed. For before that certain from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing the circumcision. Together with him were false and other Jews, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
But when I saw that they are not acting according to the truth of the Gospel, I said unto Peter at all: if thou, being a Jew, live as a heathen, and not in the Jews ' language, then why the Gentiles are forced to live in the Jews ' language? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles; nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by works of the law (of Moses - SZ), but only by faith in Jesus Christ, and we have believed in Jesus Christ... for by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified.
If, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the Minister of sin? No. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. Through the law I died to the law, to live for God. I Salaspils Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. And I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God : for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain" (Gal. 2:11-21).
As we can see, the position of Paul in this short episode is described quite consistently and logically. His conflict with Peter was more ideological than political or economic, and after much debate, Paul went to preach in Asia Minor (modern Turkey).
The logic and sequence position of the Apostle Paul, no doubt, played a role in the fact that this brilliant organizer by the end of his life, managed to create a Church community in many major cities of the Roman Empire. Moreover, there is a Church legend, Paul persuaded Peter to his right, and the latter became head of the community in Rome.
The latter, however, is very doubtful, although the popes because of the words of Christ: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church" (Matt. 16:18) declared himself the successor of Peter, not Paul, and in the official list of popes in the first place is always worth the Apostle Peter. We will have the opportunity to more carefully analyze the MOF. 16:18.
According to legend, the Apostle Paul in Rome during the Jewish pogroms of the Emperor Nero (64-65,) beheaded. Seems to be true, because crucify him had no right - although he was a Jew, but a Roman citizen. The city of Tarsus in the province of Cilicia, where Paul was born, gave this "saving" status.
Concluding our brief historical and biographical review, say that the Apostle John the Theologian relatively survived the pogroms of the sixties and "escaped" a reference to the island of Patmos, and then settled in Ephesus. He survived all the apostles, and died in another era - at the junction of the I and II centuries.
The proof of the authenticity of the Gospels is not an easy task, as in the original, no gospel, no General Epistle is not reached us. The earliest list of New Testament books, which offers modern science date back to the IV century.
However, as evidence of the authenticity of the Gospels can, paradoxically, lead to numerous contradictions in them.
The Gospels were written by different people for many years after the crucifixion of Jesus, and the contradictions just shows their truthfulness. Of course, in conditions of incomplete knowledge. But if frankly invented " it would be very smoothly, and any conflict would be argued.
Yes and it is unlikely that within a few decades of the first century there were so many literary geniuses of the authors of the books of the New Testament, together vidumavi such a complex character, like Jesus, have agreed among themselves on key theological questions, but described him in our own way, with many chronological and conceptual contradictions.
"Look, Matthew, Luke, mark and John - company idlers gathered at the party, they organize a competition, think of the main character, briefly recite the story forward. The rest depends on the abilities of each. Then four options checked in the workshop. Matthew is quite realistic, but pinched line Messiahship, mark - not bad, but not gracefully, Luke writes best of all, it is impossible not to admit it, John the philosophical bias towards... In General, the seminar and join the others, take a read of coursework, when the guys know what all happened, it's too late, Paul had already traveled to Damascus, Pliny began its investigation on behalf of concerned Emperor, the Legion of writers of the Apocrypha pretend that they, too, know enough... Peter takes too much himself in the head and seriously himself, John threatens that tell it like it really was, Peter and Paul adapts his arrest, John chain in a chain on the island of Patmos, and the poor hallucinations grasshopper sits on the headboard of the bed, remove the locust, stop these tubes, where so much blood... Its starting to chastity: the drunkard, sclerotic... What if in fact this was so?"
This is a quote from the novel by Umberto Eco's "Foucault's Pendulum".
It is unlikely, of course, the position of the hero of the novel, making the above reasoning, enjoys the sympathy of the author. Rather, there is a Cartesian "radical usamanee".
In accordance with the methodology of Descartes, "doubt" and we assume that Jesus Christ is fictional. But the question arises: if fictional, then what?
Not so many options, and I propose to consider each of them.
Suppose Jesus Christ somewhere in the middle of the first century made up of people who had no relationship to the Christian Church, and nowhere in the New Testament is not mentioned.
But, first, a hypothetical "inventor" had to have such extensive contacts in Judea and use of such unquestioned authority that his invention was taken up by a large number of "gullible", and for the shortest possible time (ten to twenty years) based on it was a strong and extensive Church organization. And the "forger"by doing tremendous organizational and propaganda work, managed to stay in the shade and not play any role in life, in fact he created the Church. It's very strange.
Secondly, no one doubts the historicity of Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (approx. 130-202), analysis of Scripture and the originator of the New Testament. Irenaeus, as we know, was a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna (about 80-about 169), and that, in turn, was a disciple of the Apostle John.
We have a chain of witnesses, which stretches from Irenaeus to Jesus Christ - the Apostle John was the beloved disciple of the latter (Jn. 19:26).
Therefore, none of the "outside" could not invent Christ.
Then suppose that Christ, along with the entire "chain of witnesses" invented Irenaeus of Lyons.
But he was not the first Bishop of Lyons, his predecessor was executed during the reign of Emperor Marcus Aurelius, that is, the Christian Church existed long before Irenaeus. Therefore, Irenaeus of Lyons to invent Jesus, Polycarp, John and the other could not.
For the same reason Christ could not invent and Polycarp of Smyrna in the second century the Church had become, and Christians were attacked by lions.
He could think of Christ in 80-90th years of the first century the Apostle John the Theologian. In 111 year the Emperor Trajan answered the request of the writer Pliny the Younger, Governor of Bithynia, what to do with widespread in the province of Christianity. It is unlikely that the Christianity of the Jews in such a short time managed to be widely distributed in Bithynia (North-West Asia Minor).
Strange that John in his hypothetical "falsification of the New Testament" has taken such a significant place to the Apostle Paul. If the Church on the basis of his "inventions" was organized by John himself, and the role of himself in the New Testament he certainly took would be appropriate. Or, at least, would represent himself as a mediator between Christ and Paul. And it so happened that if John invented Christ and on the basis of this invention has created the Christian Church, he would have undermined his authority.
Therefore, if Christ was invented, not John the Theologian in the second half of the first century.
Then say that Jesus Christ and the entire New Testament in the thirties and forties of the first century invented the Apostle Paul, and then he based his fiction over the next ten to twenty years has created the Christian Church and Christian theology.
Another option is Christ who invented some friends Paul and invited the latter to participate in the fraud, and then Paul "pushed" his friend and depicted in the New Testament himself in the main role.
But Paul writes that he had a lot of conversations with people who personally knew Jesus (Peter, James and the other apostles). Describes Paul and the phenomenon he Christ on the road to Damascus (acts. 9:3-6).
So, if there was fraud, "the Apostle of the Gentiles" was aware of all of its subtleties and actively participated in it. He was assisted someone or not is not important. We even may assume that in the course of "fiction" was John the Theologian, UDOVOLSTVIE the role he "took Paul, and continue the "game" after the death of the last.
Chronology hypothetical "fiction" Paul practically coincides with its missionary activities, and here it is difficult to argue. There are stronger arguments in favor of the fact that Paul could not invent Christ and to write on behalf of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the four Gospels.
First, if you invent the founder of the doctrine, it makes sense to classify it as "life" in the mists of time, otherwise the probability of disclosure of fraud increases dramatically - would the inhabitants of Galilee were not outraged, knowing that any Jesus-preacher ten years ago, no? It would be better then Paul used for his own purposes the prophet Isaiah - his main ideas in many ways similar to Christianity, there is even a legend of his martyrdom.
Secondly, it is unlikely that Paul invented the story of the stoning of Stephen (acts. 7:58), representing him in a very unfavorable light. The same applies to his conflict with Peter and other "senior" by the apostles.
Thirdly, if he invented Jesus of Nazareth as his contemporaries, would have declared personal acquaintance with him, and don't tell complex and unconvincing story about the phenomenon he Christ while traveling to Damascus. There were twelve apostles, was seventy other disciples (LK. 10:1) - do not Paul would put myself in their number, even if not in the first row?
Therefore, the Apostle Paul could not invent Christ.
Remains the "hypothesis" of the hero of the novel by Umberto Eco: the falsifiers - Matthew, mark, Luke, and John. And then Paul believed them and was actively involved in the "movement".
But to agree with this "hypothesis" is hindered by the Apostle Peter. In its historicity impossible to doubt, as about the conflict with Peter Paul says in the Epistle to the latter.
Don't know about the falsification of Peter, the first disciple of Christ, could not.
But if Peter was aware of the falsification of the Gospels (or was its organizer), so would he permit the placing themselves in such a negative light? I mean the story with three denials (Matt. 26:69-75; MK. 14:66-72; LK. 22:56-61; Jn. 18:15-27).
And Paul would sooner or later he learned of the fraud (it would have surfaced during his conflict with Peter), and hardly missed an opportunity to use against his opponent so powerful argument. It turns out that the Apostle Peter is an "indicator" of the authenticity of all four Gospels.
Therefore, no one could not falsify the gospel as a whole.
Small additions, substitution and translation manipulation for two thousand years Christianity was made repeatedly, and with such facts, we are within our research will face more than once. But in General true gospel and, therefore, Jesus Christ is historical.
Around the sequence of writing of the Gospels and their authorship disputes are also not going away.
Most "unlucky" gospel of Matthew. Its in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries because of the large number of references to the old Testament, proving the identity of Jesus and the Messiah, began to consider almost the result of collective efforts of the beginning of the second century, that is the latest at the time of writing. If and to recognize the author of a certain Matthew, it does not associate it with the Apostle Matthew and argue that the first gospel was short the gospel of Mark, and professional historians, theologians Matthew and Luke wrote at the base of his gospel, colorful details and references to the old Testament.
In fact, everything is much easier. For the Apostle Matthew in the profession, the publican (Roman collector of taxes and duties), modern scholars do not recognize the ability for deep analysis of the old Testament is absolutely unfair.
Publican were literacy and educated people, because they are not picking up the rulers of the Jews, and the Romans! And the latter knew frames. Caste publicans were closed and privileged, educated in the spirit of devotion to the Roman Emperor and Roman law. Of all the disciples of Jesus at the time of his death, the Apostle Matthew was the most educated, and only he was capable of "hot pursuit" to write his sermons and parables.
Hence, perhaps, and a certain "economic" and "loyalty" slope parables of Jesus in the transfer of Matthew, and some "anti-Semitic" orientation of the first gospel - for example, a friendly cry of Jerusalem crowd: "His blood be on us and on our children" (Matt. 27:25). However, the latter can be interpreted in different ways, and it is doubtful that the crowd screamed such a complex and intelligible words.
But in any case, the publicans did not like people, and people did not like tax collectors - the situation is similar with most tax inspectors observed in our time. Note that among the apostles after the death of Jesus Matthew was once an outcast, and quickly disappeared from the historical scene.
With the authorship Mark,
a disciple of the Apostle Peter) and Luke (disciple of the Apostle Paul) is
more or less clear. It's the middle of the first century. Judging by the fact
that "the acts of the Holy apostles, the continuation of the gospel of
Luke, written in Rome shortly before the Jewish pogroms
("persecution") of the Emperor Nero (
Accordingly, the gospel
of Matthew, which is largely based, and mark, and Luke, could be written at any
time with 30 to
The Apocalypse, the most widely read and widely read part of the Bible that was written after Aronovich persecution in the mid-sixties.
Few disputed, as it has references to the ruling at the time of the Church community, but we often write that the Apocalypse was the first book of the New Testament.
We have seen that the first three Gospels were written earlier. But many generations so badly wanted the first book was just "Revelation" (based on it is still calculated the probable end of the world)that has replaced the desired reality.
John already belongs to another era - the end of the first century.
John the Evangelist, the beloved disciple of Jesus, was the son of a fisherman, had a weak basic Jewish education, but then, apparently, had the opportunity to closely come into contact with Greek philosophy, as in the sixties in exile on the Isle of Patmos, and then living in Ephesus. He began to write his works, being already an old man, and saw the loss of many comrades, and the transformation of a small community in a European Church organization. Accordingly, the fourth gospel style differs from the others.
Speculation about the fact that the fourth gospel and the Apocalypse by different authors, both John, no more than speculation. The Apocalypse, as we said, dates back to the mid sixties, and the gospel of St. John the Theologian wrote no less than twenty or thirty years later. Sufficient time for evolution and style, and worldview.
From all this it follows that the available evidence for the authenticity of the Gospels can be considered sufficient to have the right to base our philosophy on Christianity.
Welcome and "the paradox of Christianity"
We have already talked about the illegality of the use of the philosophy of the principles of jurisprudence: "that is strictly not proven - that doesn't exist." But unfortunately, a similar principle, many modern philosophers (especially the existentialists), convincing us that scientific and philosophical point of view, the concept of good and evil as relative and contingent, as the terms "right" and "left."
If this idea is developed further in the strict logical direction, it inevitably turns out that there is neither good nor evil.
The examples are many. Nuclear power is good or evil? Because it can give and the power to receive, and to destroy humanity...
Even if you follow the simplest definition of goodness as a creative beginning and evil - as destructive, we are still many items and substances cannot be attributed neither to the one nor to the other. For example, the fire: it is possible to cook food, but he can burn the house.
You might say it's not the thing itself, but how to use it. Ultimately, good and evil depends on the people themselves.
This is true, but going from "good" and "evil" things to "good" and "evil" actions, we will never be able to determine.
Simple example. The old man suddenly fell in the middle of the street. Rushed him, lifted, carried on the bench so that it does not lay on the cold asphalt, called an ambulance, and when the ambulance came, was pronounced dead from a heart attack. And as you know, a man with a heart attack in no case can not move anywhere, and in General it is better not to touch. If it is not carried on the bench, and left lying on the pavement, most likely, he would have stayed alive. Question: good or evil deed done passers-by?
Jaroslav Hasek in the book "the adventures of the good soldier švejk" brings this tragic example (albeit used in a comic context): man found on the street freezing dog, took pity and brought it home. And the dog was rabid, thank perconal all in the house, and the baby pulled out of the cradle and killed. Question: is it any good deeds? May be, the rights of one who lives by the saying: "do not do the good - will not receive evil?
Another example: an old man, again, fell on the street. He competently rendered first aid, called an ambulance and, ultimately, saved. And the name of this person was Chikatilo, before he raped and killed his tenth victim, and after discharge from the hospital, went in search of the eleventh...
Such "everyday" examples confirming relativity and ambiguity of good and evil, can be cited. Even the giving of alms to a beggar (and especially the child-beggar), we from the social point of view, doing more harm than good.
And yet we and alms served and fallen passers-by raised, and frozen dogs rescued... Most importantly, we do this primarily intuitively, without thinking about philosophical questions.
So what happens? Why our intuition is at odds with the modern achievements of the "science of science" philosophy, talking about relativity and ambiguity of good and evil?
And the fact that we came again to stem the philosophy and moral imperative. Around it can be built any speculative reasoning, but on a subconscious, intuitive level, it says " help your neighbor! Save a drowning man, not thinking about the fact that he's a good man or bad!
Sometimes, indeed, it turns out that the moral imperative plays a negative rather than a positive role in the world by zoo feed the animals, knowing that the animals are well fed, and that animals from this it can become bad, and then die...
And yet something makes people feed rolls polar bears, and personally I didn't raise his hand to throw at these people rock. Today they feed animals in the zoo, and tomorrow, you see, and hungry stray dog on the street will save.
It is tempting to call for help on probability theory and say, for example, if you raise the fallen man up the street, then with probability 99% will do good, and only 1% of cases is evil. But actually, of course, to calculate these percentages cannot, therefore, a subconscious manifestation of the moral imperative at this or that person still remains the only tool for the understanding of good and evil.
But we have long understood that all philosophy is, ultimately, dependent on specific people, so let's get on with these positions not to go.
So, to state: the good is determined by the thoughts and actions of people, the relevant moral imperative. Accordingly, evil thoughts and deeds, he is inconsistent.
The rod on the rod to be somewhere inside the subject. The degree of approximation to the core of personality and moral imperative can be different, and therefore there are no clearly good and evil deeds, as there is no completely black or completely white. But this does not mean that we cannot use the concept of "black" and "white", though with some approximation, due to the specific situation. It's the same with good and evil.
In this case, if we talk about the moral imperative as the source of all goodness, we have to understand: how does Christianity? Is it adequate expression of the moral imperative?
Simply put, teach Jesus Christ people are good, only good and nothing but good?
At the beginning of the third Millennium essence of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth intuitive almost all. "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth" (Matt. 5:5), "blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God" (Matt. 5:9), "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (Matt. 22:39), "love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you" (Matt. 5:44)... Seemingly obvious things.
But these things have become obvious to most people not so long ago, a maximum of two or three hundred years ago. Prior to this, in the teachings of Christ emphases were placed quite differently. Remember the fires of the Inquisition, the Jesuits, the state claims the Church and these unpleasant facts of life of the middle ages. Unfortunately, they too relied on the sly selected quotations from the Bible.
A typical example is the phrase of Jesus, on which was based the Inquisition: "if a man abide not in Me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; such branches are picked and thrown into the fire and burned" (Jn. 15:6). There is an obvious allegorical, but because of the literal, to the same unfair interpretation of these words, thousands of people were burned at the stake.
Yes, and Mohammed in the seventh century, creating the Koran, it is logical to rely on the old Testament prophets and the teachings of Christ, and religion turned out to be very different...
So, the Christian doctrine it is necessary to understand correctly, and it's not as easy as it might seem at first glance.
Therefore, our methodological approach must come from the challenge, that is, from the necessity of understanding the teachings of Jesus Christ. Stress is not the "Holy fathers" (Aurelius Augustine, John Chrysostom, John of Damascus and many others), not even the Apostle Paul, or evangelists, namely Jesus Christ.
It may seem that the last statement makes the problem intractable, for whom do we have to rely in understanding the teachings of Christ, if not on the testimonies of the apostles, who listened to his words?
But actually no fundamental insolubility is not here, for hearing - does not properly understand. From the witnesses, the latter is usually not required, they must faithfully transmit heard and interpretation - an entirely different goal.
In principle, the witness and the interpreter can be one and the same person (as happened in the case of the Apostle John the theologian), but here our methodology should be the same: review of evidence separately and interpretations separately. As soon as we use the concept of "evidence", you should not go beyond the law, shows that good evidence is facts, and the interpretation may be due to the short-term motives, personality traits interpreter, lack or excess of information and a huge number of other factors.
We already showed that in the good faith of the evangelists, no doubt. So first we will consider the evidence, and then any interpretation. This is our methodology works with the Scriptures, and with its help we will solve the acute problem, which can be called "the fundamental paradox of Christianity".
The fact that in the first three Gospels there are many phrases of Jesus, at first glance, questioning the moral foundations of Christianity is love and goodness.
Here are some examples:
"Think not that I came to bring peace on the earth; not peace I have come to bring, but a sword; for I came to divide a man from his father, and the daughter against her mother, and daughter-in-law with her mother-in-law. And the enemies of man - of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me" (Matt. 10:34-37).
"Fire I have come to cast upon the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! Do you think that I am come to give peace on earth? No, I say to you, but rather division; for from now on five in one house divided... father against son and son against father..." (LK. 12:49-53).
"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple" (LK. 14:26).
"I say unto you, that unto every one which hath shall be given, and everyone him that hath not shall be taken away even what he has, but those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign, bring hither, and slay them before me" (LK. 19:26-27).
"For unto every one that hath shall be given and he shall have abundance : but from him that hath not shall be taken away even what he has, but useless servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matt. 25:29-30).
"Another of the disciples said to Him: o Lord! Let me first go and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, follow Me; and leave the dead to bury their own dead" (Matt. 8:21-22)
These are just some of the many phrases of Christ, simply does not fit with the idea of his teaching as the most adequate expression of the moral imperative is good and only good.
These phrases relate to the mundane, earthly life. They could or not "see"or something to interpret. But the situation is much more complicated, because of the moral imperative in contradiction key Christian concept of redemption in "life after life" (facilitiy): for good - Paradise, for evil is hell.
To illustrate the latter will give a stunning intransigence of the story of Jesus about the beggar Lazarus.
"A certain man was rich... there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table... the poor man Died and was carried by Angels to Abraham's bosom. Died and the rich man, and buried him.
And in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom, and cried and said, father Abraham! Take pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
But Abraham said, son! Remember that you have already received your good in your life, and Lazarus evil; now here he is comforted, and thou art in anguish; and above all, between us and you a great Gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, and thence to us.
Then he said, I pray thee, father, to send him to my father's house, for I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
Abraham said to him: they have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
And he said, Nay, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.
Then Abraham said to him, if Moses and the prophets did not listen, though one rose from the dead, they will not believe" (LK. 16:19-31).
And remember a couple of "good" phrases of Christ to the sinners:
"Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the damnation of hell?" (Matt. 23:33).
"Depart from Me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt. 25:41).
Frank paradoxical discrepancy quoted words of Jesus Christ and his teachings about kindness and love!
Indeed, if sinners waiting for God's punishment of hell is the place of the old principle of evil for evil retribution: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, hell for our sins.
But as Christ said: "Ye have heard that it was said: eye for eye, tooth for tooth. And I say unto you, resist not evil. But whosoever shall smite thee on one cheek, turn to him the other..." (Matt. 5:38-39). Christ said that we should forgive not until seven, but seventy times seven (7 x 70 = 490), that is actually infinite (Matt. 18:22).
And here it turns out that the righteous will be in heaven forever to partake of peace and happiness and the wicked will be so forever tormented in hell without any hope of forgiveness.
"The paradox of Christianity led to theological absurdity. Indeed, if sinners will be eternally endure unimaginable torture, it becomes clear redemptive meaning of the passion of Christ. Intuitive understanding of justice does not accept the fact that the Savior for all the countless sins of mankind suffered on the cross for several hours, and some petty thief for his minor sins eternally tormented in hell...
Of course, from the point of view of theoretical philosophy one minute and a thousand years of suffering almost the same, the cross and the fiery furnace is almost the same, the sins of one thief and all the sins of mankind are almost one and the same. But since we are considering Christianity as an expression of the moral imperative, it is necessary to take into account the intuitive understanding of justice - it too is based on a moral imperative.
Therefore, the redemptive meaning of the passion of Jesus Christ because "the basic paradox of Christianity" becomes bare abstract character, losing its importance for the formation of the worldview of people.
While still a fundamentally incorrect stereotype perception of Christ as a person. Even many historians represent Jesus as the bearer of whether the old Testament, whether Persian-Arabic prophetic tradition. It's kind of a "dervish-the sorcerer threatening in that world to deal with murderers, thieves and corrupt officials, throwing them into the hot oven...
The summary says it all: "the paradox of Christianity has led to the fact that few modern educated people seriously believe in hell, and in heaven.
And there we substituted the doctrine of "life after life" Buddhists, Hindus, Mexican magicians and the like. The increased level of awareness, astral vision, karma, chakras, Yin-Yang, the worldwide energy, meditation, reincarnation... modern people who have access to any information, just makes you dizzy from the abundance of alternatives. Books on chakras, astral and other similar overwhelmed with all the stores, and Newspapers are full of advertisements about the courses of magic, psychic and even shamanism. And everywhere we promise to "other worlds".
It turns out that "they" all logical and relevant, and "us" are still trying to scare the devils in hell.
The concepts of heaven and hell are closely related and the prediction of a catastrophic end of the world ("the second coming"), and here "the paradox of Christianity" brings not only theoretical but also practical "fruit", even more sad.
In the first three Gospels with the predictions of the "second coming" focus of attention " (Matt. chief 24; MK. chief 13; LK. chief 21). They sound out of the mouth of Christ himself, so arguing with them is difficult. Based on them was written and "Revelation".
So, indeed, the New Testament as if it turns out that after we die we are likely to wait the torments of hell. And then another, and "Armageddon" (the end of the world) will come - and do not hide anywhere from hell-fire, even if you by this time have not yet had time to die.
And speculation on this fear, please. I think everybody remembers the last ten years, at least two or three "loud" predictions of global catastrophe, but a dozen more "local".
What a fertile ground for sectarianism!
For example, you have a chance to get into the 144000 chosen the righteous (Rev. 14:1), so zapysuysya in sect type "White brotherhood of Maria Devi Christos", give them all their property and shivering in anticipation of the "last judgment", relying solely on the fact that you will not be 144001-m as a member of the sect and will have time to go to heaven.
However, usually in sects where fewer members, but that "Jehovah's witnesses" almost three million, and everyone else waiting for the imminent end of the world...
Now sectarianism slightly diminished enthusiasm, members usually just operate for the benefit of the sect and its leadership, and earlier because of self-immolation often took place - say, better a few minutes to pomuchitsya in the earthly fire, than to burn for eternity in heaven. However, still sometimes on TV broadcast something like someone had burned himself, somebody somebody blew up...
So - in the sufferings of these unfortunate people indirectly to blame for Jesus of Nazareth?
If we do not solve "the paradox of Christianity", it turns out that is to blame.
Modern attempts of the Orthodox churches to justify the torments of hell and the catastrophic end of the world sound at best casuistically, and at worst naive.
I'm not even talking about such "trifles"as the problem of "private court" immediately after the death of each with "judgement" for all " has the Lord is unable to immediately make the right decision?
Church theologians believe that between these "courts" is "procedural" difference.
For example, regarding "private court" Saint Basil the New (X century), followed by Pavel Florensky write that at the bedside of the deceased on the one hand are the Angels, on the other devils, and "measured" good and evil deeds of the deceased. Then the soul of man must be twenty "ordeals" (something like the circles of hell, where the soul "impose" certain sins, but she "bribes" for his good deeds. Enough good things - get to Paradise, not enough is left in the "circle of hell", where the exhausted good...
About the "doomsday" dominates over "progressive" stereotype perception, leading back from Ephraim the Syrian (IV century): on the throne sits the judge - Jesus Christ, the advocate (the angel) reports to him about the good deeds of a person, the Prosecutor (Satan) - the sins. And then the verdict is final and without appeal.
The fire was understood by different scholars in different ways. Augustine and John Chrysostom interpreted it literally is as unimaginable physical torture. Basil of Caesarea and John Damascene leaned towards his symbolic interpretation as suffering primarily spiritual, though not made this easy.
However, for someone easier, but for someone heavier - almost all of the Church's theologians degree infernal torments different for different degrees of sinfulness, which is linked to the "judicial" stereotypes.
Not linked to any understanding and any "court", and then hell only with Christian kindness and forgiveness (Matt. 5:38-39; 18:22), and any attempt to combine these fundamentally incompatible concepts eventually lead to absurdity.
For example, Metropolitan Macarius in his fundamental work "Orthodox dogmatic theology" wrote:
"God, they say, is good: how to reconcile the eternal torment of sinners with His infinite goodness? God, indeed, infinitely good; but goodness is not only His property, He together and infinitely true, infinitely Holy, infinitely just, and all these, like all of His perfection, correlate with one another in His actions against the creatures... What is unnatural, if such a manifestation of the infinite goodness of God towards sinners, you will be finally the manifestation of the infinite and His truth? He will not cease to be good when the sinners will be tormented in hell; but only in relation to them will not act in his goodness, which, so to speak, already all poured out on them before and have not found anything decent, and the absolute truth".
In other words, a classic Church theology believed that within God there is a "balance of conflicting forces, that is, God leads "double bookkeeping" in respect of goodness and truth.
Actually, this usually is not the goodness, and the dishonesty that God is unacceptable even to "creatures" (this is humiliating for any modern man of the Church the term we will remember more than once).
It is widely known statement of Descartes: "God is not a deceiver." Indeed, any "double accounting" and other tricks from God irrelevant. The goodness of God itself is the truth, and to share their absolutely inappropriate in this case, it turns out that goodness is not true, then God is evil.
And Christ said: "why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone" (MK. 10:18).
Are we after these words will be followed by Metropolitan Macarius to imagine a "good" God, indifferently (and happily) betraying sinners to eternal and inconceivable torments of hell, and then an equally indifferent (or as happily) looking at them?
I don't want to say that Christ was wrong, threatening sinners of hell and the catastrophic end of the world.
But I want to say that we misunderstood. I will try to explain it.
Let's think: Christianity, there are around two thousand years. A lot or a little?
The first thought is not enough. Indeed, our planet there are five or six billion years. Dinosaurs lived about a hundred million years ago, the Neanderthals tens of thousands, and Christ is "only" two thousand...
And actually in the scale of human civilization - a lot. A lot. From the ancient Egyptian pyramids (mid-third Millennium BC) until Christ took slightly longer than from Christ to the present day. And from Moses to Christ, much less - about one thousand three hundred years.
At least a third or even half a "conscious life" humanity has lived under the sign of Christianity.
And still no end of the world or "the second coming", despite the fact that Christ said, "this generation shall Not pass till all these things be fulfilled" (Matt. 24:34), and by John in the revelation described the horrors of as coming very soon.
You can, of course, be interpreted expected John Christ's millennial Kingdom (Rev. 20:3) as beginning with the birth, or the resurrection of the latter (as done in the middle ages). It turned out that the last judgment was to fall on 1000-1030 years. Panic at the beginning of the second Millennium was unimaginable, but nothing happened.
In the XIV century "calculations" were lead by 313 - "edict of Milan" Constantine the Great, predicting the end of the world in 1313, but again nothing happened.
At the end of the twentieth century-Dodgers casuist found in the revelation hints at 2000, but again nothing happened. So, let's wait for the next? By 2030? Or even a thousand years?
And maybe still time to understand what Christ really meant?
Yes, without a rigid opposition of "Paradise good ad evil" Jesus Christ would be hard to "reach out" to millions of poorly educated people the beginning of our era.
Moreover, without a prediction close to the end of the world Jesus could not do - he preached Christ, the Messiah, in keeping with the old Testament canonical tradition! And on the expectation of the Messiah, the great judge, who, with thunder and lightning will come upon the earth, save the righteous and sit "at the right hand of God, built the whole religion of the Jewish people. Even the fact that Jesus was called Paradise "bosom of Abraham" (LK. 16:22), refers to the traditions of the old Testament.
But under the guise of the old Testament the Messiah was born the world is not the triumph of one single nation, and the Christian doctrine of love and kindness.
We have long realized that Jesus Christ was carrying his teachings not only Jews, but all other peoples.
We have long realized that hell is not a large brazier in the center of the Earth, and heaven - not angels on a cloud.
We have long realized that the end of the world if it comes, not necessarily in our lifetime or in the next Millennium.
We learned a lot during these two thousand years, but the habit still continue to perceive stereotypical Christian doctrine of heaven, hell and the end of the world as "believe" in the middle ages.
So, let us finally understand that the old Testament principle of evil for evil retribution (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, hell for sins), allegedly backed by uncompromising sayings of Jesus, or his personality, or his business, or his teachings do not have the slightest relation.
And the proof here is quite simple. Christ himself said, "By their fruits ye shall know them" (Matt. 7:20). That is, to judge a person can only be based on its activity.
"Believe Me that I am in the father and the Father in Me : or else believe Me for the very works. Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on Me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater than these shall he do; because I go unto My Father" (Jn. 14:11-12).
Consider this example: many "confuse" the miracles of Jesus - numerous healings (Matt. 4:24; 8:2; 9:2; MK. 5:41; LK. 17:14 and others), the five loaves of the five thousand (MK. 6:33-44), the resurrection of Lazarus (Jn. 11:1-44), and others.
Soothe the strongest skeptics: let us not forget that Jesus, as the Christ-the Messiah, was simply a "must" to work miracles. This was spoken of by the prophets (ISA. 29:18; 61:1-2), and if Jesus miracles and did not, they would have been invented by his admirers and followers.
Miracles "worked" and the old Testament prophets (3 kings. 17:21; 4 cars. 4:41; IP. 38:6; Dan. 6:16 and others), and the apostles (acts. 3:6; 8:6; 19:11 and others), and the early Christian saints ("saints"). Historiography of the time, it was decided to splash thus cause all the "good" preachers.
And yet by the end of the book we realize that there is nothing "mystical"and especially "unscientific" in the miracles of Jesus were not.
But now we are basically as follows: Christ worked miracles or not, in any case they form the outline of his doctrine of the good, and that's enough. Moreover, the gospel descriptions of Jesus ' miracles are one of the main proofs that Christ brought to mankind the values of goodness and love.
And if we talk about the "practical results" of the earthly Ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, they were many healings, raising of Lazarus (Jn. 11:1-45) and a single case of causing harm to people.
Here is an example. "And they went and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for Him; but there did not accept Him... Seeing that His disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord! Wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, even as Elias did?
But He turned to them, he charged them and said: do not know what spirit you are of; for the Son of Man came not to destroy men's lives but to save them" (LK. 9:53-56).
For comparison, note that the old Testament prophet Elijah destroyed a hundred warriors (4 cars. 1:10-12) just for the fact that they offered him to go with them to the king.
But more typical is an episode from the life of the prophet Elisha (student Elijah), also famous for many miracles and had considerable political influence:
"When he was on the way, some small boys came out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, go up, bald head! go bald! He looked around and saw them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the woods and tore forty-two of them children" (4 kings. 2:23-24).
There is a difference between the lifestyle of Jesus and the largest of the old Testament prophets? I would say, radical.
Even the apostles did not immediately embraced the teachings of Christ as the system of values exclusively goodness and love.
Recall the case when, shortly after the ascension of Jesus, the Apostle Peter actually killed Ananias and Sapphira, utaivshy from the Church money for his sold possessions (acts. 5:1-11). But this unfortunate episode was in the New Testament, the first and the last.
Sometimes referred to another - when the Apostle Paul was blinded sorcerer, but this blinding had the character of a "lesson" and was temporary (acts. 13:11). In his time, was temporarily blinded and Paul himself (acts. 9:8).
Very typical of what the Apostle John, writing in the mid-sixties of the first century sinister "Revelation", in twenty or thirty years came to the fourth gospel, in which nothing is said either about the "last judgment", nor about the torments of hell.
"For God sent not his Son to condemn the world; but that the world was saved through Him" (Jn. 3:18).
"'ll come forth done good, unto the resurrection of life, and done evil to the resurrection of condemnation" (Jn. 5:29).
"Do not think that I will accuse you before the father: your accuser is Moses, in whom ye trust." 5:45).
"The will of him that sent Me, that of what He hath given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day" (Jn. 6:39).
"I have come that they may have life and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep" (Jn. 10:10-11).
"And if any man hear My words and believe not, I judge him not : for I came not to judge the world but to save the world. He who rejects Me and does not receive My words has one who judges him: the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day" (Jn. 12:47-48).
Explain why John and other contemporaries of Christ, not once, but realized allegorical words about the cast of sinners in hell fire".
The fact that "hell" is merely a ravine Gene under the walls of Jerusalem, which at the time of Jesus were thrown urban sewage and which is constantly burning fire, as in many modern landfills. There under king Ahaz idolaters burned his children in the furnace in honor of Moloch (2 Pairs. 28:3), hence in the words of Christ about hell appeared and "the fiery furnace".
And ominous apocalyptic Armageddon (Rev. 16:16) is actually a small valley in Israel, where in 608 BC there was a bloody battle of Egyptian troops with the Jews and was killed king Josiah (4 cars. 23:29; 2 Pairs. 35:24). In the past, it was the last stop of idolatry in the ravine Gene and made it dump (4 cars. 23:24; 2 Pairs. 34:33).
Summing up a brief analysis of contextual interrelated concepts of "hell", "furnace" and "Armageddon", let's ask ourselves: how would we today call perceived sinners throw in a landfill? Allegorical. A word about the fact that sinners would be worse than the Swedes at Poltava? At least figuratively.
So, if you are already a half-century after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ to his beloved disciple John the Theologian reasonably decided not to mention in the fourth gospel all frightening words about the hellish fire, two thousand years later, the more it is possible to interpret heaven and hell only in the symbolic context of spiritual compromise.
Yes, we live in an imperfect world, where victory of goodness and love is very, very far away, and in the time of Christ was still on. Yes, life forces us at every step to make compromises, and Jesus said "Give to Caesar what's Caesar's, and to God what is God" (Matt. 22:21).
But no spiritual, moral compromise with evil should not be! "No one can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one and love the other; or one will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon" (Matt. 6:24).
So, Jesus ' words about the hellish fire and the end of the world in our time are to be interpreted primarily as a passionate and persuasive appeal to the full intransigence in the spiritual plane.
Note that all the largest Christian Church gradually come to similar positions, though with the caveat that heaven and hell is still some specific state of man after death, that is good then it will be very good, and the bad - very bad.
Actually, heaven is the whole range of positive consequences of good and for the individual and for the world. Hell, respectively, the entire range of negative consequences of evil.
This spectra in practice is extremely wide, and we are going to touch them in various aspects, talking about good and evil, the Kingdom of God, righteousness and eternal life.
But this conclusion allows us to resolve "the paradox of Christianity" and to show that the Christian spiritual system consistent expresses a moral imperative.
It remains to estimate the importance of Christian expression of the moral imperative in comparison with any other abstract duty, abstract conscience, good abstract, abstract humanism...
Components you can list many, but it is components. The Christianity they were completely absorbed with only one word - spirituality.
The word in the last decades it has become common, and few people think about its origin. Use it in dozens, if not hundreds, of different contexts. It is sometimes equated with religion, sometimes with intelligence, sometimes with education, sometimes with culture...
In any case, this description of the person, indicating the involvement of a higher and positive values. Speaking in our usual terms, adherence to a moral imperative.
And now I propose to think about the origin of the word "spirituality".
The analogy with the word "soul" is inappropriate in the soul includes the character, and temperament, and abilities, and knowledge, and thinking, and much more - even what Descartes called the "God damn minds."
In short, is the soul of all people, but not all can be called spiritual people. Some biologists and psychologists believe that the soul is there and in animals (in any case, her likeness), but to give a dog or tiger spirituality - until then, thank God, nobody has thought.
The words of Ecclesiastes: "Who knows the spirit of man rises whether upward, and the spirit of animals beast, whether it goeth downward to the earth" (the EC. 3:21) is an example of confused concepts of spirit and soul, and it is solely on the conscience of the translators. However, the word "soul" in the ancient Greek philosophers too often translated into English as "spirit".
The word "spirit" has other meanings, it means ethereal and mystical creature, and even the breath (take a breath)... So let's clarify that we are talking about the concept of "spirit" only in the sense of "spirituality".
So where did this notion of spirituality, infinitely capacious, and includes almost all possible aspects of the expression of the moral imperative?
Let us on this question was answered... the apostles.
"You are not in the flesh but in the spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you" (ROM. 8:9).
"The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God" (ROM. 8:16).
"I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, proves to me my conscience in the Holy Spirit" (ROM. 9:1).
"The natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God, because it is foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because these things must be spiritually judged" (1 Cor. 2:14).
"And all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them; and the rock was Christ" (1 Cor. 10:3-4).
"No one speaking by the Spirit of God will say Jesus is anathema; and no man can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).
"The spirits of prophets are obedient to the prophets, because God is not a God of confusion but of peace" (1 Cor. 14:32-33).
"The Lord is that Spirit : and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Cor. 3:17).
"The fruit of the spirit: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance" (Gal. 5:22).
"In recent times appears rater coming after their own ungodly lusts. These be they who separate themselves from the unity of the faith, sensual, having not the spirit" (Jude. 18-19).
As seen in these quotes contains virtually the entire conceptual apparatus associated with the fact that we (often unconsciously) call spirituality.
The apostles Paul and Judas (brother of Jesus) was used, based on essentially blurred, but intuitively clear Evangelical concept of the Holy spirit.
And in the Gospels somewhere so called God the Father (Matt. 1:18), some where the Holy Spirit is the messenger of God (Matt. 4:1), even in the form of a dove (LK. 3:22). But in most cases the Holy Spirit (Spirit of truth) is what we call spirituality (LK. 4:1; 11:13; Jn. 3:34; 15:26; 16:13 and others). And Catholic Epistles we have already quoted.
So, considerations based on copyright law, require to admit that the word "spirituality" comes from the Holy spirit, that is, belongs exclusively to Christianity. The words "spirituality" and "Spirit" are cognate and in most European languages.
This confirms the position of Christianity as a comprehensive system of spiritual values, to fully and adequately expressing moral imperative.
We covered a lot of material, but actually it was only a preparatory stage - definition of the original philosophical positions for further research.
So, our initial positions are as follows:
First, we acknowledge the existence of God as a source of harmony, expediency and moral imperative. It is as provable as the provable existence of the material world, and from the moral point of view to consider a world without God illegal.
Secondly, we found: equivalent alternatives to the Christian religion as the expression of the moral imperative today is not, and the study of philosophical issues from the moral point of view inevitably leads to theology.
From this it follows that in order to understand who we are, where we come from and where we are going, you need to do Christian theology.
Let's first of all let us formulate the basic question of theology".
It may seem that the main question of theology is the existence of God. But it is not the concept of "theology" means its recognition.
Actually this question is somewhat different: the existence of any God we recognize? Good or evil? Single, dual, triple or multiple? Knowable or unknowable? Current or idle?..
In parallel with these indigenous issues we will address and "local"associated with Christian dogma. But the solution to these problems is also necessary, as we are speaking about Christianity, has not yet determined what it is.
In addition, we have not yet answered the question posed in the beginning of the book: why is Russia in the early twentieth century Marxism won Christianity?
All that we managed to understand at the moment - objective prerequisites for this was not. Christianity was and remains the most adequate expression of the moral imperative, and speculative ideas of social justice put forward by Marx and his followers, themselves serious spiritual competition doctrine of Christ be not could.
So, in effect a set of other factors, and we still have him going to work.
Evil and theodicy
Most philosophers believed the question which we will talk, side, and not as principal, as the ratio of existence and consciousness, the knowability of the world and others. But in fact, without his decisions questioned the existence of God, and for him and all what we have said is right on the existence of a moral imperative, Christianity, humanism...
The name of this issue given the composition of Leibniz ' Theodicy". This word is translated from Latin as "justification of God", and the formulation of the problem consists in the following.
The moral imperative dictates faith in God as in the good, wise and Almighty power that created the world. But how to explain that, along with good on the ground there and evil, with hardly less? Why did God allow the existence of evil (or the devil, or Satan can be called whatever you like)?
Consciously - then God is not good, in fact - the originator of evil?
Or God can overcome evil, then he is not omnipotent, and the devil is as strong as God?
And if the creation of the world as a whole physical and moral initially suggested the presence of evil, wouldn't it be better if God was all this world to create?
Opinions on this subject were many. Let's start with the most "materialistic": Spinoza, Schopenhauer and Spencer with some other variations considered morally indifferent God's power and thus seems to be successfully resolved the matter in the same formal manner, of which we have already said: for God (and ultimately, for us) neither good nor evil does not exist.
The question seems to be removed (together with the moral imperative), but it's actually not.
Here's a simple example: we, walking through a meadow, don't think about that at each step we break the grass and crush bugs. And in the case of theodicy Spinoza and Schopenhauer in the role of these insects are we, the people are the victims of ruthless elements, natural instincts and other large-scale manifestations of divine indifference.
It turns out that moral indifference of God turns into evil, and this is at odds with the premise of theodicy - we believe in God as in the good, good power...
Therefore, we will consider the illegality and the inconsistency of this approach further confirmation of the correctness of our understanding of the moral imperative and will move on to the second variant of the solution of the question of theodicy - dualism.
It will need to stay in more detail.
Some of the early religious and philosophical directions, like a number of contemporary Eastern religions, Gnosticism, Manichaeism, Zoroastrianism), addressed the question of theodicy as: good and evil, God and the devil are two completely equivalent of the world's beginning.
The approach is effective and logical - so, God is in evil is not to blame and fighting for good in every way, just no way to win. Results in two separate, unrelated and even opposing God - one good, the other evil. This is exactly what is called dualism.
And to prove the inconsistency of a dualistic approach will try "on the contrary".
In any case, this approach results in two almost equal strength -- God and the devil. Hence, any human being tempted by the devil to agree.
For example, what did Faust in the book of Goethe.
The story of "Faust" is well known. Signed a drop of blood the Treaty of Alliance with the devil, the second youth Faust, "organized" Mephistopheles his tragic romance with Gretchen, wandering on Walpurgis night and the Sabbath, Emperor in the victory over the enemies, try to build an "ideal" city, the death of Faust and his ascension to heaven, despite the fact that he had "tarnished" his contract with the devil.
It's all upside the works of Goethe. But it is crucial for us the second plan, and this need to talk more.
In any case, the task of Mephistopheles was to seduce Faust in the way of learning and development, to force him to "exalt the individual moment". Faust knew, but for the opportunity to continue an active life, and even having an assistant devil, took the risk. And, apparently, won - thanks to Mephistopheles extended his life, learned a lot, but in the end still got to heaven.
But let's remember what a serious and decent man Faust appears in the beginning of the book, when on a walk to suit him and the peasants and thank you for your dedication during the epidemic. And not only in this episode - all the actions and words of Faust appears independent thinking and great force of personality.
And what he is after a contract with Mephistopheles?
In the first part of the book there is a feeling that Faust does not know what to do with inherited his second life. Mephistopheles, in order to force him to exalt the individual moment", "Woo" him poor innocent girl Gretchen. Love is not forced Faust collapse in the way of learning, but led to the tragedy: he became an unwitting killer Gretchen, her baby, mother and brother Valentine.
But Faust is at least capable of feelings about that, and in the second part of the book before us is quite soulless and faceless people.
By Mephistopheles he has enormous possibilities, but he almost never uses. An example is his "romance" with caused by the Mephistopheles spirit of Helen. The spirit soon disappears, but Faust from this, as they say, is neither heat nor cold.
The city on the dried area of the sea, which he in the end decided to build, absolutely ephemeral and useless. Poor blind Faust walks on the beach and thinks that is built around the "garden city", but actually it is several imps dig his grave.
Note that in the framework of his book Goethe intuitively allowed "the paradox of Christianity - God took the soul of Faust at the sky, having forgiven him, and a contract with Mephistopheles, and numerous deaths, the perpetrator of which he became.
And yet state: after the Pact with the devil nor knowledge, nor the activities of Faust any purpose, much less the results were not. Specifically, the results were, but nothing but evil, others are not brought. And the conclusion of the book is clear - this unenviable fate awaits any, entered into a contract with the devil.
By definition, the devil is evil, respectively, all of his actions can be both for individuals and for humanity to be evil.
But in a pragmatic twentieth century in the contract Faust with Mephistopheles appeared another aspect, not so harmless as a fly on the Sabbath on Walpurgis night.
I thought elephants and odd, and odd,
And I still fell asleep.
And there was me, my hell,
And sat astride the chair.
And told me the devil: "Well, old fellow?
Well, what we decided?
Sign the Union, and let's go in the stirrups,
And erred a bit!
And you can lie, and you can wander,
And friends to bring the herd!
And that will then pay -
So it's, you must understand, then!
But you know how sweet sin
This sometimes bitter gray hairs.
And that happiness is not that one for all,
But that all as one!
And you will realize that there is no court above you,
No curse of the past years,
As with all you say - Yes!
And together with all " no!
And you will be wolves in the land produce,
And to teach them how to wag his tail!
And what will then pay
So it's, you must understand, then!
And what is soul? - Last year's snow!
And who knows, maybe you will carry it!
In our atomic age, in our stone age
At the price of conscience - snout!
And who needs it - it is "good",
If all the road - in the ashes...
So come on, take it, old man, pen,
And here sign in the corner".
Then the devil touched the little finger nail,
And pulled me a bottle.
And I asked him: "This blood"?
"Ink", he replied...
This is a poem by Alexander Galich, written in the sixties of the twentieth century, has become almost axiomatic. Reading it, it is natural to ask whether we are living in the beginning of the third Millennium, to sign an Alliance with the devil, that is, lie, fornicate, and bring friends for money and power?
Dualism says is right. In fact, if the devil actually equivalent to God, suggests the following "logical" move: he is not worse than God? Therefore, worse than evil good?
And this inevitably leads to the following conclusion: evil is not evil, but a special form of the good. Not to kill is good, and to kill is good. And the moral imperative, and it is a moral imperative.
But if imperatives two (or more, as in the case of polytheism), this is not a moral imperative, as continuous moral choice between ravnokonechnymi and usually contradictory options. And this situation in itself is evil.
The moral imperative one, and God is one.
The last statement may seem questionable. It turns out that monotheism, in contrast to dualism, restricts the freedom of the will and replaces it with uncontested moral imperative - something like a commandment to think so and to act so.
Perhaps the idea of limiting the freedom of the will by the moral imperative of readers could be formed before, so this should especially talk.
It is often assumed (especially in the humanitarian intelligentsia)that the presence of a rigid moral (that is, the freedom of our will from the moral imperative) guarantees unrestricted freedom of will in all other respects. Including in the social and physiological. So to say, "the body is weak, but the spirit of cheerful". And the prohibition to cross the street at a red light, our "true freedom" does not limit, we just give Caesar what's Caesar's...
The examples are many, and, perhaps, the most striking medieval philosopher Boethius, who, while in prison and awaiting execution, he wrote his seminal work "the Consolation of philosophy". It turns out that as a philosopher Boethius was free, and as a citizen is not.
In principle, this approach is understandable and consistent. But I am somewhat concerned over this "double accounting" of free will. Erected an insurmountable barrier between morality and other aspects of life, the moral imperative becomes otherworldly nature, becomes abstract and ceases to be public.
And in the latter case, as we have said, in the modern world, far from perfect, any humanist is surrounded babaevskii Mendalami Cries. Yes and boetia in the end still executed, and this fact is a tragedy, regardless of whether there was or not a philosopher spiritually free in the moment when the axe of the executioner fell on his neck.
At the time this conclusion we are forced to move from the moral imperative to religion, from philosophy to theology. And now we have the right for the same reasons to assert that there should be no "double accounting" of freedom - for boetia one, for Mendel Cry another. Freedom for all is one.
But then what is freedom?
Philosophical textbooks, reference books and encyclopedias often define freedom as the activities and behavior in the absence of any external goal setting.
This in theory, but in practice the absence of any external goal setting does not happen. Any activity, any behavior caused by many external factors (congenital to random), which, essentially, and are therefore goal setting.
For example, in Russian folk tales knight at a crossroad in my life makes his choice ("to the left you go, the horse will lose, right go - he will disappear"), also based on a number of factors. It usually feel sorry for the horse, and the notion of (standard medieval chivalry) is a typical external goal setting. But it's hard to deny that the knight is free to choose and, after analyzing a number of factors, he deliberately goes wherever he sees fit.
This and many other possible examples bring the requirement of "no external goal setting" to its logical absurdity: freedom is just a coincidence. If the knight wondered where to go, and did not analyze any of the factors of choice, then he would be completely free...
But we are talking about free will, and no volitional act in this case, no. In the logical limit is reduced to chance only a kind of abstract freedom, and freedom of will implies recognition.
The element of chance, of course, cannot be excluded. First, the knight at a crossroad in my life might throw a dice, where to go. Secondly, the famous paradox of the French philosopher Buridan (donkey, being equidistant between two equal haystacks, will not be able to make an informed choice between them will die from hunger) no element of chance is also unsolvable.
There is the other extreme: determinist, including Marx, understood freedom as a conscious need. But actually this position replaces the selection prior to the act (judgment, intention, action), in the very act. This is a typical speculative approach, as necessary, which takes a conscious act, you should not need the act. It can be done, and may not be done.
And if freedom is not an accident and not a perceived need, there's this: freedom is the opportunity for informed choice, taking into consideration both the necessity and randomness.
It is a conscious choice, in accordance with the nature and level select (reject) options implemented by the Agency.
We do not accidentally made a reservation in accordance with the nature and level". Without it we will not be able to resolve the following paradox: for example, people in prison, therefore, he is not free. But he is given the choice of single or shared camera, therefore, he is free. He can't get out of jail, so he is not free. But he can move the camera in any direction, therefore, he is free. And so on.
A similar example we have already discussed, referring to Boazii. Yes, and freedom of thought and freedom of imagination in any prisoner nobody can take away.
Thus, any situation has many different aspects and pocitace", and is crushing on forever. Let's call it situational levels and state: freedom of the will as a conscious choice options may be exercised (or not exercised) at the same time on any situational levels.
"Everyday" example: selecting a costume due to material prosperity and plans for the day, and the choice of the tie due to the choice of costume. At both levels are different (and in varying degrees available) acts of choice, but they both implement the Agency.
Our definition of freedom as informed choice is suitable even for such acts relating exclusively to our consciousness as thought and imagination.
Thinking and imagining, we also choose from a variety of options, and, as a rule, consciously, because it lies solely in the sphere of consciousness. But the possibilities and our thinking, and even our imagination are limited (they are determined by age, education, life experience and many other factors), so they can be considered as situational levels, where, in comparison with everyday life, just more choices.
And then it all happens, as in the example with a suit and tie: the choice at the situational level "imagination" leads (but not dictate) the choice on the situational level of "thought", then this chain can be made via the "solution" to the level of "action", and each of these levels has an infinite number of "sub-levels".
The basis of all this freedom, we have no reason to believe that higher situational level - moral - people deprived of freedom of will as the possibility of conscious choice.
The moral imperative is a requirement, but not coercion. In society there is a variety of factors, both objective and subjective, due to which the person is not acting in accordance with moral imperative, but on the contrary.
This is the freedom of conscious moral choice between good and evil. This freedom cannot be called more or less limited than any, the strict understanding on other situational levels.
Now we can return to dualism, which actually equates evil and moral imperative, and ultimately leads not to the choice between good and evil, and to choose between two "dopami against each other.
To show the inconsistency of the dualistic approach, let us recall once again our definition of free will that is fair to all situational levels, down to the left or the right path to go strolling through the Park: the true freedom of the will is able to make an informed choice, due to the specific situation.
If we talk about the highest moral level, the freedom of the true is the freedom to consciously choose good and evil, to the best of their abilities evaluating positive and negative consequences of their choices.
And dualism leads to the freedom of the imaginary - the choice between the two conflicting "dopami".
Imaginary freedom of will means the deprivation of a person to freely and consciously choose truly good, actually replacing the conscious freedom of choice as a coincidence.
However, it is possible not only randomness but also self-deception, and "split personality", the latter in its extreme expression is within the competence of psychiatrists. The person should not be bifurcated, and is a key to our psychological comfort, and just the normal state of health.
"Every Kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand" (Matt. 12:25).
As always, there are many intermediate options - as many gradations of black and white. But as in the determination of a particular grayscale color need to understand what is black and white, and in any moral choice must consciously orientirovatI for good, and not to engage in self-deception.
So, for a particular individual unity - good, split - evil. The true moral freedom, provided a moral imperative, unity of personality does not violate, imaginary (dualistic) breaks.
Now, speaking about that can bring the freedom of a particular person to others, we can designate critical humanistic aspect of the problem: today's realities suggest that people, in principle, can choose not only good, but also evil. But in terms of the moral imperative by the informed choice probability evil is reduced.
In other words, if the offender knows that commits a crime, there is a chance that at some point the moral imperative from his crimes will hold.
But if the offender, killing and plundering, believes that he is doing good work (and this happens in case of acceptance of dualism), this chance is not likely the crime is greatly increased.
Therefore, the dualistic point of view comes into conflict with the moral imperative, and we have to abandon it.
Everything said about the dualism fully applies to polytheism (paganism). In moral terms is indifferent, whom to serve is to Apollo, Ares, Athena, Aphrodite, Dionysus or Hermes. They are all equal children of the thunder of Zeus.
It is monotheism. Strict Christian monotheism. But then we need to continue addressing the issue of theodicy.
Let us consider the position of the author of the term "theodicy" - Leibniz, supported by modern Church theology.
Leibniz quite reasonably believed that God was free to create the world or not to do. But God, by definition, always makes everything better, so he created this world as the best of all possible worlds.
Why in this world are evil and suffering - Leibniz seems also explains that nothing can be equal in perfection to God, then the suffering of individuals lead quite permissible imperfections of this world. But since everything in this world is subordinated to the purpose for which it was created, then our suffering is also necessary for certain great General purpose, known only to God.
Very similar is the position of the official Orthodoxy. In the "Epistle of the Eastern patriarchs of the Orthodox faith says: "I Believe that everything that exists, visible and invisible, is controlled by Divine Providence; however, evil as evil, God only sees and allows, but does not trades about him, because He had not made it. But the incident has already evil goes to something useful by the Supreme Goodness, which itself does not create evil, but only sends it to the best extent possible".
We see that the Orthodox "divine Providence" has a clear parallel with leibnizstr "the subjection of the world to some great purpose known only to God", and "foreseen and allowed evil" - with "allowable imperfections of the world."
All this seems to be logical, and this at first glance may seem philosophically and theologically sound. Intuitively open its failure has been, strangely enough, not a philosopher or theologian, and writer - Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky.
One of the brothers Karamazov, Ivan tells his brother Alyosha:
"This poor little girl five years, these educated parents were subjected to various tortures. He was beaten, whipped, kicked her feet... Finally came to the highest refinement: in the cold, in the cold, locked it on all night in okogie place, and that she never asked the night - for it was covered all of her face in the feces and forced to eat the feces, and this mother, her mother made!.. Do you understand it, when the little creature, still not able to comprehend that it is done, beat their old place in the dark and cold, his tiny fist in the torn breast and crying its bloody, gentle, meek tears to "dear God"to protect him - do you understand what this nonsense is so needed and created! Without it, they say, and to stay could not have people on the ground, because it did not know good and evil. Why learn a damned good and evil, when it is the cost? But the whole world of knowledge is not worth while these tears baby to "dear God". I'm not talking about suffering large, the Apple has been eaten, and to hell with them, and let them all fuck took, but these, these..."
On Ivan says: "...From Supreme harmony is absolutely refuse. Not worth the tears of at least one tortured child who beat his fist into his chest and prayed in a stinking hovel unredeemed tears to his "dear God!" It is not necessary because his tears left unredeemed. They must be redeemed, otherwise there can be harmony. But what, what do you redeem them? Is it possible? Surely the fact that they will be avenged? But why would I want vengeance on them, why me hell for the torturers, that there may be hell to fix when they have tortured? And what harmony, if hell: I just want to hug you want, I don't want to suffer more."
And now Ivan turns to Alyosha: "Tell me straight, I call you " answer: imagine that you were the one who erected the building of human destiny with a goal in the final to bring happiness to people, to give them, finally, peace and quiet, but it is necessary and inevitably would need to torture just one tiny sozdaniya, the baby biting his fist into his chest, and unavenged tears him to start this building, did you be the architect on those conditions?.."
As we can see, emotionally Ivan Karamazov was fit to bring God to the court and put him in the dock together with their parents-sadists. Yes and without any emotions, it turns out that on any dock next to every murderer, rapist, robber as an accomplice sitting God not only permitted, but directed all this.
And if the moral imperative is the "Kingdom of God", which are inconceivable, immeasurable and, worst of all, the necessary human suffering?
In order to understand how did this contradiction, let us ask ourselves the question: how Ivan Karamazov perceived God?
We still have to say that the efforts of the medieval Church the concept of God, Christ, and the king had come together. In the meantime, just think about it: if we even Jesus Christ, our intercessor before God, atoned for on the cross for our sins, often present themselves as ruthlessly punishing the sovereign, then what can we say about God?
God became the absolute dictator of all of our thoughts and actions, and Orthodox theologians (and Leibniz) tried to solve the problem of theodicy, starting from this premise - "the divine".
And since God is evil "only anticipates and allows, but does not trades about it, the solution turned out to be internally inconsistent: either God is not absolutely omnipotent, or he allows evil" consciously, indirectly the culprit.
However, Ivan Karamazov built his angry rebuke, also based on the premise of absolute dictatorship of God, and with him everything was logical: the dictator not only dictates subjects what to do, but also gives them some responsibility. However, as any absolute ruler.
As an analogy, while Stalin and Hitler were alive, he was considered the inspirers and organizers of all victories, and when he died, it was at fault in absolutely everything. Even in what were not to blame.
Of course, it is unacceptable to compare God with bloody dictators, but according to the logic of Church theology, it was. There is some hypothetical future is bright, the way it is known exclusively all-knowing and all-seeing leader, and to achieve this bright future you have to sacrifice the interests of individual citizens, including minors.
And, in fact, the question of good and evil is replaced by the question - to what extent you can use the "human material"with which the mysterious future construction?
Stalin killed millions of people - the measure exceeded. God has made a mockery of young children - a measure exceeded. And kill not millions, but hundreds of thousands, or prevent the suffering of children older than seven years - it measures the excess or not?
Come from the other side. Ivan Karamazov brother asks the question, would he build a "Kingdom of God", if for the happiness of all people and of Supreme harmony was necessary to torture just one child?
Alesha said no, and he was absolutely right.
But nowadays, many pragmatic-minded people feel the desire to say "Yes". Indeed, only one child's torment, but a blessed the whole of humanity, a billion people!
Unfortunately, then there is the next reasonable question - but if you have to grind down the two children? Too?
Then asked a similar question on. And torturing three children? Too? And four?.. And twenty?.. And fifty?.. And four hundred?.. And a thousand?.. And a million?.. A hundred million, and not only children?..
Where is she, this measure is whether it is and whether it can generally be applied?
Someone will understand the second question, someone may need five or ten times to understand: no, and no again. People are not material and not a mechanism, and we do not calculate the maximum permissible load on the car springs.
The main achievement of Christianity and modern humanism) in understanding moral imperative States: the sacred and inviolable every human life. Otherwise, we will conduct the arithmetic disputes, and maniacs will kill children, because we have arithmetic, in the Criminal code of the other, and the third maniacs.
These were our original position, and we have won another moral proof.
So the dictator God?
Let us formulate this question in greater detail. Although we talked about free will as the possibility of conscious choice, but not touched on one important aspect: while we have the opportunity any choice? Not does on countless situational levels for us this choice is Almighty and all-seeing dictator - God?
No, does not, and this can be prove by contradiction".
Imagine that humans have no free will, our freedom is imaginary and for us, directly or indirectly, God works.
Then people inevitably turns into "human material" a higher mechanism - history, society or any higher power. And the material is nothing sacred is present, and any politician (and any maniac) for their own purposes could destroy any number of people.
We come to a contradiction with the moral imperative dictating the sacredness of human life. Then the person has true free will, what we wanted to prove.
So, every man has freedom of will, limited on many situational levels of moral imperative, "local" morality of certain social groups, state laws, material well-being and the infinite multitude of other factors.
And it eliminates the guilt of God in those sins, crimes and deeds that people do freely is making a conscious choice between good and evil in favor of the latter.
Let's call this evil "social" is solely dependent upon the people.
In fairness, we note that both Orthodox and Catholic Church Agency people recognize, but are in irreconcilable contradiction with "God's Providence".
We managed to solve this issue is consistent, although for this and had to abandon the perception of God as an omnipotent dictator. In fact, from the Church's understanding of "the divine".
However, let us not doubt the omnipotence of God. To rule the world without direct intervention, and without petty regulation - by means of the laws of nature and laws of morality. In the last Chapter we will have an opportunity about this in detail to talk about.
But the question of theodicy, we managed to solve it.
However, so far only partially only in the area bounded by social relations.
There are still many situations when a person suffers directly from the forces of nature: first, an irresistible force of nature (hurricanes, tsunamis, floods and so on), and secondly, social untied internal diseases (cancer and many others), and thirdly, just accidents.
Let's call it evil "natural", but to his analysis, we are not ready yet, and will be ready soon. We have not yet understood the nature and causes of social evil, and without it we cannot approach a much more complex understanding of evil "natural".
And "social" evil in varying degrees commits (or is tempted to do) each of us is sinless because people, as you know, there is no (ROM. 3:10). Therefore, it is necessary to understand how it happened and how to deal with it.
Theologians serving the largest Christian Church, referring to the so-called "original sin". The disobedience of Adam and eve (Gen. 3:6) raised to the rank of "separation from God", and our free will is declared leads only to evil. However, the saints have a chance to reunite with God, while sinners, of course not.
We knowingly took the words "original sin" in quotation marks is actually the name of the "original" is not entirely correct, but we'll discuss this when we analyze the well-known stereotype information of "original sin" to sexual relations of Adam and eve.
Now we are talking about freedom of choice, first appeared in our ancestors did exactly this freedom has resulted in their numerous progeny of evil?
Of course, if there is an alternative "to disobey, disobey no", means that you have freedom of choice. Could disobey, he could not disobey...
Yes, disobeyed, but disobedience in itself is not evil. Sin - perhaps, Yes, but the sins are different.
About what is sin and what is not, we will have the opportunity to speak, and so far only state that it did no harm to the disobedience of Adam and eve do not have (unless, of course, entirely based on biblical texts and nothing to think).
And even more disobedience may not be a compelling reason to consider our freedom "separation from God", thereby placing us in a row with Satan ("broken angel") and creating a stereotype of man as a "loathsome vessel of sin."
Besides, God made, and "provoked" is disobedience.
We will not refer to the well-known joke: well be there sins and crimes of billions of people - but it Adam and eve, God just might and stricter ban, and knowing their curious nature, something the tree of knowledge of good and evil fence...
Without any jokes, "original sin," God was consciously made. 'll prove it.
To eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of God forbade under pain of immediate death (Gen. 2:17), but after disobedience God has not been so strictly punish neither eve nor Adam. Moreover, they personally did not even curse, but a perfectly peaceful "expelled" from Paradise to populate the Earth. Characteristically, the generations of Adam on Earth begins not with the curse and blessing (Gen. 5:2).
Given that some time later God, according to the old Testament, the sins of organized humanity, "the flood" and spared only the righteous Noah (Gen. 6:7), such softness in respect of Adam and eve suggests that their disobedience to God was conceived deliberately admitted and, most likely, was "test of freedom".
Moreover, personally I am inclined to believe that Adam and eve finding the strength to disobey, this test is passed, and only after that God sent them to populate the Earth.
Note, that Jesus Christ is the "original sin", apparently did not recognize. Remember:
"And passing by he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked Him, Rabbi! Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, neither hath this man sinned, neither he nor his parents" (Jn. 9:1-3).
Speaking of "original sin", religious scholars usually refer to the words of the Apostle Paul: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, because all sinned" (ROM. 5:12).
And although the Apostle gave this as an example, not asking to seriously analyze the sin of Adam (by the way, forgetting about eve), yet, let's try to understand what Paul meant by "death passed upon all men".
Not withstand any criticism, the most modern version of Church officialdom that God threatened Adam is not physical, but spiritual death, and Adam, after disobedience died spiritually.
Actually after the knowledge of good and evil Adam, likely acquired divine essence ("And the Lord said unto God, behold, Adam has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil" - Gen. 3:22). To interpret the word of God "has become like one of Us" can be different, and we will have the opportunity to pay attention to them. But about the spiritual death of Adam, it just does not go is with the divine essence is incompatible, as if the latter were not interpreted.
Other "stereotypical" version, followed by Augustine and John Chrysostom: Adam before the fall was immortal in the physical sense, but then ceased to be.
But, first, God forbid everyone to live as much as was given to Adam (930 years), and most importantly, Adam was not physically immortal and before the fall - or else God would not feared that he, after partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge "take also of the tree of life, and eat, and wouldn't want to live forever" (Gen. 3:22).
But if Adam's sin did not lead to spiritual or physical death, what is meant by the Apostle Paul, saying that one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin?
For this we need to understand what life is to us, unlike Adam, Christ came to bring. Read "Romans" on: "So that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (ROM. 5:21).
So, I mean death is not in physical or spiritual plane, and death without hope of resurrection and the afterlife". About these basic concepts of Christianity, we have to talk separately - they are infinitely important for each of us.
As for the "original sin", we realized that Adam and eve have to say thank you and not to curse them. They took on the heaviest burden of the knowledge of good and evil (in fact, became the first native of the moral imperative) and paved the way for us.
And if to consider, that the disobedience of Adam and eve had led mankind to evil, God deliberately made this disobedience, as consciously made and evil, which contradicts our solution to the problem of theodicy.
Hence, the humanity of evil led not "original sin".
To evil (remember, while we are talking about evil "social", which in one degree or another, voluntarily or involuntarily, but makes each of us) of mankind in a different way, and for this we have to recall another well-known episode from the Bible is one of the temptations of Christ.
In Matthew it is the third temptation, Luke - second.
"The devil takes Him to a very high mountain, and sheweth Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, and said to Him: all these will I give Thee, if falling down, worship me" (Matt. 4:8-9).
"And, taking Him up into an high mountain, the devil showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, and the devil said to him: to Thee will I give power over all these kingdoms and the glory of them : for that is delivered unto me; and I, whom you want, give it; if Thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be Thine" (Luke. 4:6-7).
It would seem - take, conquer, and plant the good, fight evil and build the Kingdom of God in every country, city, home and family. But Jesus refused, and the arguments - "the Lord thy God, worship, and Him only shalt thou serve" (Matt. 4:10).
However, even if it were not for this temptation is all the same Christ, and did not think of any way of seizing power and forcibly bringing people to goodness and love. Nowhere in the Gospels do not, and could not be.
Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah were many, but Jesus most fully followed one from the book of the prophet Isaiah:
"Lord! Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord?
For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant and as a root out of dry ground; he hath no form or Majesty; and we beheld Him, and There is no form that would attract us to Him.
He was despised and rejected before men; a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, and we hid his face from Him; He was despised, and we did It.
But He took upon himself our infirmities and our sorrows; and we thought He was stricken, smitten and afflicted of God.
But He was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed.
We have all gone astray like sheep, have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
He was wounded, but were afflicted and did not open his mouth; like a sheep He was led to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its Shearer is silent, so He did not open His mouth... For He was cut off out of the land of the living; for the transgression of My people was he stricken.
But it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He hath put Him to grief...
He will see offspring durable, and the Lord's purpose will be fulfilled by His hand" (ISA. 53:1-10).
And if Jesus walked the path predicted by Isaiah, and did not seize state power and to punish evil with the help of the police and the army - why we follow Ivan Karamazov expect from him or from God, to heaven descended lightning and struck the torturers small child?
Apparently, Jesus knew (and let's us)that while the torturers still desire them to be - they are not afraid of prison, no executions, no hell, no lightning that showed convincingly legendary incinerate cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:24), whose inhabitants are massively indulged in homosexuality, and rape saradush travelers. Well, let's say, was on the Ground after Nashestvie divine fire a few hundred less aggressive libertine, but not extinct are they?
And in order to understand why is happening around us evil, and why each of us feels a certain temptation to do, will ask another question relating to the temptation of Christ:
- What right had the devil to offer Christ all the kingdoms of the earth?
Theoretically, from the side of the devil, of course, was possible attempt of deception.
But, first, it is very unlikely, because Jesus is the Son of God and Messiah, of course, was not the "fire"order something to offer him, not having a real right.
And secondly (and this is important): the temptation would have been no temptation. The fact of the matter is that the devil had full right to offer Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth, and Christ found the strength to refuse them. If we were talking about the deception, and to refuse would be no reason for it.
So who is this devil?
Turns out - something like Supreme ruler of the earthly kingdoms (we will use the more modern term - state). Christ was called "the Prince of this world" (Jn. 14:30).
And to avoid the primitive ideas of volando or mephistophelean Lord, from the evil hands of presidents, Ministers, oligarchs, generals and other "powers that be", let's move on to understanding the fundamental essence of the devil: it States themselves.
At first glance, this seems paradoxical, but other adequate options for the interpretation of the words of the devil, that he committed the earthly Kingdom (LK. 4:6), no. Yes and it seems paradoxical only at first glance.
Remember the "business card" of any state social injustice, oppression, money, political intrigue, military, police, corruption, bureaucratic tyranny, war...
There are tears of one innocent "Karamazov" baby for that long to move the state border for several miles, killing millions of people. And if the death of the soldier remains at least in the statistical calculations, many thousands of dead babies, no one believes. And if they believe it is only because the baby sooner or later grow up to be able to pick up a gun and go kill too...
And that all this is God?
No, the devil, even if it is a crusade or any "Holy" war! It is precisely those cases when for some "noble" (also unlikely), the goals should be to kill many innocent people and their blood to erect something short-lived and ephemeral. Empire, as we know, don't live long. Anyway, none of them managed to live for two thousand years - as long as Christianity has lived and die, thank God, is not going to.
And money is a powerful tool of state power? Much blood was shed for them, that the only people not ready for them to give, who not only bring...
Will not once again denounce the imperfection of modern States. Each of us has experienced it many times myself.
The question is, objectively whether this imperfection, and whether it somewhere and sometime become in perfection without losing the current economic and political attributes of statehood? Whether it is possible (at least theoretically) completely honest, fair, decent and humane system of government?
Many people say - Yes, possible. Remember the "Utopia" of Thomas more, let us recall the theory of Marx-Engels (before over it "worked" Lenin and Stalin), remember the "theocracy" Vladimir Solovyov...
And in order to show that in fact this system of government is impossible, have to go completely the other side. As in the case of Ivan Karamazov, we will come to the aid literature. Specifically one episode from the book "White Fang" by Jack London.
As we remember, in the beginning of the book for two travelers being chased by hungry wolves. One of the travelers wolves eat quickly, and the other is fighting to end.
And now, when a person has almost no strength left and the wolves approached quite close, he was surprised to see that their faces have no malice, no fangs. Henry counted about twenty wolves, looking at him with hungry eyes, or simply sleeping on the snow. They reminded him of the children who gathered around the table and are just waiting for permission to pounce on a treat.
Right idyll, except for the fact that wolves are "quench his hunger as he does not just satisfy the hunger of elk meat and the hare."
These are the "relationship". Who will say that they do not present the honesty, integrity, naturalness, justice and even "humanity"? After all, if the wolves do not eat the traveler, then you will die of hunger. Or die of their children - the cubs. What "humane" from the point of view of the wolf to tear small traveler (someone else), or let die cub (its)? Where's the evil?
Evil is here, and very serious, although it is on the surface and not "lies". The fact that the wolf pack problem of good and evil is solved by the method of complete elimination of problems from consideration - the wolf just don't know what it is, and therefore behaves completely organic, natural and attractive.
"Basic instincts" ingeniously simple - preservation and procreation. Sometimes called the third "basic instinct" - relationships with their own kind, but actually it is a consequence of the first two. The pack easier to hunt, herd easier to defend, and for procreation also need a partner.
Every wolf from birth instinctively understands that out of the pack - biting and tear all who see (preferably weaker and not alone), and the inside of the pack - keep the hierarchy and not Grises with parent without full confidence in victory, not "tear" and you. And don't forget that in order to one day win the opportunity to "multiply", you need the strength and health.
It seems to be good, but when projecting the model of a wolf pack on the usual forms of human social organization (family, tribe, various national and state education), things are not so smooth.
Since we are widely involved examples from the literature (solely because of their clarity), remember the story of Rudyard Kipling's "Mowgli" is a typical case of giving an animal of honesty and integrity "of the human person.
In this tale occurs a characteristic paradox. Remember how "nice" predators wished each other "happy hunting"?
We have a child read this book and have never thought about hunting whom? And now let's think - not on us do you? At least for rabbits or deer, so they are in Kipling too animated, too, sorry...
Have you noticed - "joined" the moral imperative, and immediately it became clear that the wolf pack is not so great? Not only in relations with the external environment, but also inside the pack. Remember the sacred phrase "Akela has missed"? And it is, indeed, from the point of view of the wolves is about to tear small leader and "elect" in its place new...
It turns out that the wolf pack is a useful and needed by the community, ensuring the preservation and continuation of the species in accordance with "natural selection", but not peace and happiness of each individual wolf, much more than other animals - potential victims.
"If you each other presale and eat, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another" (Gal. 5:15). Probably no coincidence that the Apostle Paul used the words "bite" and "eat".
So why did Jesus Christ refused to manage the earthly States? Is it because, as he understood that any "Kingdom based on the tears of innocents", which was so earnestly said Ivan Karamazov, in the best case scenario is a modified model of a wolf pack?
Yes, it is true, and is confirmed by the fact that Christ is believed to control the States means to serve God and the devil (Matt. 4:10; Jn. 14:30).
Therefore, I propose to talk about good and evil in human society only in the context of countering moral imperative (humanistic, Christian spirituality) with basic natural instincts". Now we come to this theological way, but in the last Chapter we will have an opportunity to consider this issue and in the philosophical aspect.
In the meantime, let us remember the words of Christ: "the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing" (Jn. 6:63).
And the words of the Apostle Paul:
"I say then, walk in the spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh, for the flesh desires against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh: and they oppose each other, so that ye cannot do the things that I would like...
Works of the flesh, they are: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, heresies, hatred, murders, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who so the Kingdom of God shall inherit.
The fruit of the spirit: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance" (Gal. 5:16-22).
Thus, in accordance with the New Testament, our spirit lives by the same laws, and the flesh of others.
Paul because of the limited scientific knowledge of that time could not say one word on how exactly the laws of living flesh, and lists: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness...
And we, armed with the achievements of modern science, we can specify: the flesh of our lives in accordance with the "basic instincts," inherited "by inheritance from our ancestors, that is, from monkeys. And if we talk in social terms, rather in accordance with the "sample" wolf pack, like monkeys in a natural jungle occupy the very highest step (they are hunted by many predators).
And the identification of any king or President (even the most intelligent and talented) with the conductor of the divine goodness is the same as giving Kipling similar qualities wolf Akela. Besides great Akela sooner or later miss, and who then comes to his place? Unknown.
Thus, any talk about "good" wolf pack, and about the "ideal" state is nothing more than wishful thinking.
In modern conditions the government has to "play" with the citizens, to organize the campaign, to advertise certain politicians, etc. But now in any, even the most democratic, the state of man is a cog in the overall mechanism. Absolutely quiet and commonplace these screws when necessary, lubricated when necessary, discarded.
The development of civilization softens extremes such as "do not kill - do not eat", but there is war, and plagues...
This is the objective essence of the state - the subordination of the interests of the individual interests of society. In the constitutions of most democratic countries now declared the priority of the individual over society, but it is rather a propaganda move, than a reflection of the real situation.
That is why, from the point of view of Christ and his teachings, any state lives under the laws of the wolf pack and, therefore, is evil.
"Caesar what belongs to Caesar"
So, good thoughts and actions dictated by the moral imperative, evil thoughts and actions dictated by basic natural instincts".
The reality, of course, is always somewhere in the middle. In addition, there are many situations when a moral imperative does not contradict the "basic instincts" - for example, the protection of humanity from nuclear weapons, or creating a family. But we have already said that for the perception of one or another shade of gray it is necessary to understand, what is white and what is black.
So sorry to state that today, in a social system prevails evil, which we have called "social". In the vast majority of States it is almost completely built and the economy, and politics. And the very notion of the state as "repressive apparatus" is a reflection of the first "social" evil.
Christ said to his brothers (not spiritual, and family, not yet accepted his teachings): "You the world cannot hate you; but Me it hateth, because I testify that the works thereof are evil" (Jn. 7:7).
Hence the methodology of our further research: the division (of course, to the extent possible) moral and socio-economic elements, focus primarily on the first and making the second aside. Let's call this methodology, similar to MT. 22:21, "Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what is God". For the sake of brevity: "Caesar what belongs to Caesar".
I may be accused of socialty. But, starting to work on the methodology of "Caesar what belongs to Caesar", dares to ask a methodological question: in what sense we consider socialnet in moral or social?
Morally I really modern (and even more medieval or ancient) society does not accept, at least for the fact that in a world where he rules, the prophets are condemned to be crucified, and "Karamazov" babies suffering.
"Not love'the world, neither the things that are in the world; he who loves the world, the love of the father;
For all that is in the world: the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father but is from the world" (1 Jn. 1:14-15).
Many philosophers and theologians of the NINETEENTH and twentieth centuries, in varying degrees, affected by Communist ideas, tried to "play" with the modern society with the aim of identifying some light social perspectives of humanity.
But now we can say frankly that the society in its present form, and even more than two thousand years ago evil. And will not build illusions. While the determinants of social relationships are money and power over their own kind (actually, it turns the endless spiral: more money - more power - more money and so on), the society will be evil.
Is the opposite situation - "flirting" of society (usually represented by the state) with the spirituality for the purposes of setting a moral imperative to their service.
But we have adopted a strict monotheism - one God, and the moral imperative one. Thus, the use of the name of God, and the moral imperative without a moral purpose is a substitution of concepts, popularly often called a lie. Probably not in vain in the mosaic Decalogue on a par with murder and perjury appeared commandment: "thou shalt Not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" (ex. 20:7).
But uncompromising moral stance - "you cannot serve God and mammon" (Matt. 6:24) - does not mean uncompromising social position.
The fact that the imposition of the brackets is not excluded from consideration. On the contrary - identify in each human and universal social element, we ease the task of understanding and, ultimately, adaptation.
And to adapt to one degree or another you - "wolf" the essence of modern society can destroy only rooting spirituality, and until that happens from this entity nowhere, unfortunately, will not go away.
Moreover, while the people live "animal" nature, statehood is necessary to maintain some order in the world, otherwise Christ was not going to compromise with authority (Matt. 22:21 is just the case). But it is very significant that the word "Caesar what belongs to Caesar" in the minds of the Russian people took the form of Proverbs to live with wolves - wolf-howl"...
Therefore, we formulate our position regarding the ratio of "social" evil and moral imperative as follows: today the world is ruled by evil, but shoots good punch and actively take root. And it's safe to say that the day will come when evil will cease to rule the world.
This position corresponds with the teaching of Christ, who refused to control kingdoms, but not refused to address global social problems, declaring the opportunity to build on Earth the Kingdom of God (Matt. 6:33; LK. 12:31; 17:20; Jn. 3:3). And this is not an empty Declaration.
After all, if Jesus offered the Kingdom of the earth, not God, the devil, it follows that none of the earthly kingdoms (empires, republics, etc) unable to build the Kingdom of God is not on its territory, much less to someone else.
On the other hand, we realized that there is no need after Ivan Karamazov to expect from Jesus or God the Father, to heaven descended lightning and struck the torturers small child, so as long as the criminals still desire them to be, they are not afraid of prison, nor hell, nor lightning. Time medieval theatrical productions with the intervention of God in the final ("Deux ex machine") has passed.
Then, analyzing the possibility of building on the Land of the Kingdom of God, we come to the only remaining option, corresponding to our General philosophical approach: able to build the Kingdom of God only each of us.
And the victory over evil is not the state of human society, where everyone will be like in a hypothetical communism, "to work according to their abilities and receive according to his needs". Yes and no any state of society. Simply no man will be tempted to do evil.
What state of society when this will be - we can only guess. But it is clear that if the people will continue to kill, torture and deceive each other, and the state must oversee to kill, tormented and deceived only those who "need" - what kind of Kingdom of God?
No sooner is useless to talk about the absolute extinction of the state. I, like the vast majority of modern people do not imagine the social system without legislative, Executive and judicial powers, money, police and even the army. Indeed, even if all States make peace and open borders - what if aliens attack? I may be Christian, but if, God forbid, will begin a "war of the worlds" - really I will not take up arms and go to defend our civilization?
And the money - if they do not, then that will govern the economic relations? Love? How else is on the cards, as in the socialist distribution system? Or everyone will just tie? And if someone turns a little more, surely no one would envy him and not try to take away?..
Let's be realistic: the Christian concept not yet linked with the harsh routine of Economics and politics. But, as we have shown in us, and if even a few generations in the psychology of the people that will link all - God forbid.
"Being asked by the Pharisees when the Kingdom of God comes, he answered them: never will come the Kingdom of God is conspicuous way, and say, behold, it is here, or, lo, it is there. For behold, the Kingdom of God is within you" (LK. 17:20-21).
Therefore, the task of Christianity is not utopian (happiness of mankind, or one single country, but very real - to make it easier and a specific person, and the people around him.
Clearly, if people really took the Christian doctrine, that he is unlikely to want to lock my five year daughter at night in the street toilet and coat her face, feces, as in the story of Ivan Karamazov.
Thus, the eradication of evil is ousting Christianity's "spiritual" basis (the love of power, violence, money), but the inevitable consequence is the improvement of society and reducing the total amount of evil and suffering in the world. In that order, but not the reverse. Not the "top"and "bottom".
So you can talk, I'm sorry if God in tears tortured child, but this does not absolve us from the obligation to fight to keep these tears became less.
Just for that, and fought, and was crucified Jesus of Nazareth.
And since "Karamazov" five-year child, ignorant of theology, is unlikely to become easier because once he suffered for Christ, then our task is that this child has become easier thanks to those who call themselves Christians.
That means we need to fight for good, and just as Jesus Christ - the good and the personal example, for evil (the devil) has a fundamentally different moral nature than good (from God). Therefore, evil to produce good unable.
The state has its own methods of struggle (not for good, but for what it considers to be good), in Christianity - their own. Face, as usual, is erased. Without the Criminal code, of course, also impossible, and without the army and the police have not yet obtained. Moreover, as we have yet to speak, and sometimes "force" resistance to evil can hardly be called a sin.
But "force" the resistance can be solved only momentary "tactical" problem, and the global strategic guide for each of us can only be a Christian understanding of goodness and love, fully and adequately expressing moral imperative, given by God to mankind.
I propose to consider from the point of view of methodology Caesar what belongs to Caesar" several important practical problems associated with society, and with the moral imperative. Solely as an example of universal application of our methodology.
Immediately reveals the absurdity of such notions as "humane state" or "good government".
And it's not that the goodness of a ruler (usually "everyday" - personally, nobody was killed, and exemplary family man) to manage the state has nothing. Concepts like the ones mentioned above, absurd in themselves, their language, the "state" and "humanity", "good" and "ruler" incompatible by definition.
Any state and any ruler, if they want to survive, have to be ruthless and pragmatic - it is dictated by the ruthless modern society. The detail of the system (in this case, any state institution) depends primarily on the system, and the variances can only be within tolerances, issued by the same system. If the deviation exceeds the allowable, the item is replaced with another, more suitable. It is the law of any of the known societies.
Since we are talking about the variances, let us examine the causes of crime.
Genetic, anthropological tendency to crimes (theory of Lombroso) - private factors not always. Addressing this issue in the framework of the methodology Caesar what belongs to Caesar", we make a more General conclusion: any mentally sane person is prone to crimes only to the extent in which it "base instincts prevail over moral imperative.
We can assume that it depends on the will of God, but then we desafuero our solution of the question of theodicy - God is an indirect perpetrator of crimes. There is a more simple reason - social: child "disadvantaged" parents are usually in an unsafe environment and growing, and all his life dictates install, simply does not fit with Christianity and humanism. Hence the "reproduction" of the crime.
You can remember the position of the Church theologians, bringing the crime of distant action of "original sin", and to note that our explanation is much more simple and satisfactory, and at the same time does not affect the fundamentals of the Christian faith. On the contrary purifying our faith from accusations of God in the infinite "reproduction" of sins and crimes.
And if so, will leave the analysis of specific causes of crime (as well as poverty and social oppression) Karl Marx - indeed, if he had not undertaken to develop a spiritual utopia, it would have remained in the memory of posterity largest specialist in the field of socio-economic analysis. But, unfortunately, to separate the "caesarean" from "God" he could not. Or did not want.
There is another question - scientific-technical progress. Good or evil brings people change carts and carriages to cars and aircraft?
It would seem that this question is not out of the context of our study. But actually the methodology Caesar what belongs to Caesar" can be applied here, and for this we need to start with a more "human" question: good or evil be considered a professional activity? And in General work?
You can say that "labor" issues belong to the same society, which to this day is organized by type of wolf packs and, accordingly, is evil.
But labor labor strife. Not because there is a "spiritual" work (e.g., creativity), but because fundamentally important not labor itself, and its result. We have already quoted the words of Christ: "By their fruits ye shall know them" (Matt. 7:20).
Therefore, we must analyze not work as the process and work as a result. Here is an example: the creators of the atomic bomb it was impossible to deny the creative impulse, but the result of their work objectively brought to mankind more harm than good. Using their scientific achievements in peaceful purposes illustrates the ambiguity of good and evil, but if we want to "isolate" the moral components of both, our methodology says: atomic bomb - more harm than good, no matter what excuses "peaceful atom".
We now run the risk of going deeper into the subject of "good" and "evil" things and it stuck, because the volume of Dostoevsky can be hard to hit, and not moral, but it is physically. Remember: in the beginning of the book we have moved from "good" and "evil" things to "good" and "evil" actions, exclusively in the context of the moral imperative.
But in moral terms for us the purpose of the work is no less important than its result. So good is the work, the goals of which are dictated by the moral imperative, and evil - when in work goals are pursued enrichment, violence and achievements of the government.
Note that professionalism is usually defined as the ability to get a result in accordance with the selected order. So good work is not any, and professional, for purposes relevant to the moral imperative.
And incompetence in this case can lead to the well-known saying: "wanted as better, and it turned out as always".
It turns out that two workers of the same skill in the same machine can for the same cost to work with a completely different purpose (one - to earn money and to drink, and the second to the details is well served by the people), and their work will be as different moral evaluation. Yes, and the percentage of defects in the second case will be less.
Paradoxically, we are not in contradiction even with the theory of Marx - he interpreted monotonous work with machines as the cause of the hatred of the proletariat to these machines and to the owners of the means of production, which assigns the result of labor. The peasantry, according to Marx, less "revolutionary", as the hatred of "the earth is the nurse" is the exception rather than the rule.
But if Marx's theory led to the conclusion that acts of evil - violent revolution - unskilled labor, hated people, separated from the means of production, then we are on the same provisions do the opposite conclusion - for an act of goodness is more suitable skilled labor of the owner, interested in the results.
It is in theory. As practice shows, that all ideas of social equality are broken down primarily by the realities of unskilled labor, which even in an ideal society (for example, in a hypothetical communism) someone will still have to perform.
Indeed, occupations, such as plumber or plumber, to die so far, not going. Moreover, the Declaration spiritual (rather than civil) equality of the philosopher and the porter in the modern world leads only to the fact that the latter stops qualitatively sweep the street. From here, far to the Leninist thesis "every cook can govern the state", which, as we know, nothing good has resulted.
But we already talked about the fact that the goal of Christianity is not utopian, but absolutely real.
Therefore, we must understand that while there is unskilled labour, any conversation about genuine social equality utopian, and the guarantee of equality will never go out of civil context in the spiritual.
Therefore, we must recognize the positive role of scientific and technological progress, leading to the increase in the share of skilled labor and the transformation of the proletarians and peasants in educated engineers. Creativity in the industrial sector, by and large, not less spiritual and deserves no less respect than in the so-called "non-productive".
It may be objected: unskilled labor is a "safe haven" for those creative people who are unable to earn their creativity to life. Example - a whole generation of leaders of the Soviet underground of the sixties and eighties.
Without delving into the moral and social aspects of market relations in art, we can only say: Woe to the society, which forces the creative intelligentsia to earn a living by working in the boiler. And rather than this ugly phenomenon will cease, the better.
Where unskilled labor, there is a "social evil. Where "social" is evil, there is unskilled labor. The circle is closed.
Hence, mechanization, automation, robotics, computerization - the good and not evil. And the fact that the computers are in the library, and in the control centers of ballistic missiles is another example of subsidiarity results and scientific-technical progress in comparison with the purposes for which these results are achieved and used. The "reference point" is again the man and his system of values.
Therefore, to deny the scientific-technical progress because of the danger of nuclear war is as absurd as to reduce the crime to withhold from the townsfolk axes, kitchen knives, as well as all other household "sharp" items.
Until people are willing to kill each other, they will find something to do.
Negative consequences of the scientific-technical progress is usually called global environmental disorder on the planet. But look: progress whether to blame?
To come to the understanding that we can, again, only by a specific person, his life and health.
Life and health are closely related, and concepts of humanism cover not only the first but also the second. Health is a form of assistance to the person. It is dictated by the moral imperative, and in Christianity this is confirmed by the multitude of the sick, healed by Jesus and the apostles.
Objectively speaking, any state interested in these issues "because"as the disabled, the sick and the disabled in the "pure" model of the state wolf pack is doomed. And what of the modern state in varying degrees, preventing their death is an undeniable progress and is an example of deep rooting moral imperative.
Health at the state level, pension security in old age is also positive examples. A positive trend is almost universal abolition of torture and the death penalty (at least in the civilized world). Even such a purely political institution of democracy can be considered a great achievement of the moral imperative, as it enhances the role of personality in social "mechanisms".
Slowly, with periodic "kickbacks" in the side of the fascist dictatorships, but still lends itself to the society the influence of the moral imperative, putting on the identity of the person, his freedom, life and health.
If the development of human society applies the word "progress", it is precisely in this.
Therefore the environment, is closely associated with the health of the people is the most important task and society, and state, and human rights. And the negative impact of anthropogenic factor on the global ecology - the example of insufficient attention to this problem and the reluctance of merchants (or officials) to spend money on the introduction of scientific developments in this area.
Again we came to the conclusion that in unscrupulous hands of the achievements of scientific-technical progress can lead to disaster.
However, the history knows many examples of bad faith and spiritual values, up to the Christian religion. The Inquisition and the Jesuits we have already recalled.
But good or evil, according to our methodology, is art?
First thought - the Christian religion and art are irreconcilable enmity. This stereotype is under a dogmatic basis - Orthodox faith believes the word "art" is derived from the word "art"that is a kind of diabolical temptation.
Pavel Florensky in the book "the Pillar and ground of the truth", for example, writes: "it is a mysterious and seductive smile all persons Leonardo da Vinci, expressing skepticism, falling away from God and Samobor human "know", there are actually the smile of confusion and disorientation: themselves lost, and this is especially evident in "Mona Lisa". In essence, it is the smile of sin, seduction and charm, a smile prodigal and corrupted, no positive expressing (that's the mystique of it), but some kind of internal embarrassment, some internal bustle of the spirit, but - and proscannot".
He was echoed by Archimandrite Raphael (Karelin) in the book "Christianity and modernism":
"Human art, literature and poetry is in large part the nature of human passions, only very subtle, evil manifests itself under the guise of good, and gross vices opetition and are attractive. Passion for worldly art, full integration into the worldly perspective separates, separates man from all eternity. People who are in captivity to his dreams and dreams, lives in a false, self-made world, where there are demonic forces".
Not going after Pavel Florensky and Rafail Karelin search "demonic forces" in the works of Michelangelo or to accuse van Gogh in "full involvement in worldly perspective". With a strong desire to see the diabolical machinations and "Moonlight Sonata"and "War and peace"...
Better ask the question: in the middle ages art was almost exclusively ecclesiastical. More than a thousand years... How does the Church tolerate such a diabolical art?
I will most likely answer that the art at that time did not exist at all. Street actors do not count, and icons obeyed the canons and art were not. The icon is not a work of art, and "the image, elevate the thoughts and feelings of the faithful to his subject".
There is another question: why the Church in General need such complexity?
Not only is the Church for many centuries compelled to explain the difference between an icon and a work of art and, accordingly, to convince people that properly consecrated work of a country "painter" of the nineteenth century has the same divine power and Holiness, as a masterpiece of Theophanes the Greek.
It may seem that the Christian Church went on clear and blatant violation of the second commandment of the Holy: "you must Not make for yourself any graven image that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Do not worship them nor serve them..." (ex. 20:4).
A violation of the second commandment of the Holy, as it is known, is called idolatry. Why did violate the commandment? Wouldn icons in the first Millennium, and the problem would be a no. Jewish synagogues and Muslim mosques are perfectly happy without icons...
Have to make another excursion "to the roots".
The Apostle Paul, spreading in the Roman Empire, Christianity struggled not only with paganism, but with a very "free" Roman mores. And he, Jesus himself, in moral terms, were followers of the ascetic Jewish tradition, Moses is introduced.
Will not try to refute the traditional Jewish asceticism and remember hundreds of wives of king Solomon - he lived a thousand years before Jesus Christ was a different time, and in Judea of the first century B.C. one of the reasons hit the country misfortunes believed the sins of Solomon.
Major role in shaping the ascetic tradition played a fiery denunciation of the old Testament prophets VI-IV centuries BC - Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and others.
Israeli asceticism end of the pre-Christian era and was economic and political framework. The country was occupied by Rome, constantly fought for independence, and this situation was not conducive to the accumulation of a large number of wives and concubines, and especially to the sumptuous feasts and celebrations. And the vast majority of Jews did not have the financial possibilities - Jew was poor and robbed the province.
So, the Apostle Paul, along with Christian teachings and Jewish asceticism led a relentless ideological war with the Roman mores.
Art came "under fire" of Christian preaching. Not surprising - continued the Greek tradition of Ovid and Horace sang the praises of sexual perversion, feasts, pagan gods and stuff like that. Fat beauty of the frescoes, of course, provoked not only the apostles, but a large part of the Roman intelligentsia. And still the art of ancient Rome, especially the fine is considered to be decadent, and not even just remember, that it is in Roman art first appeared scope and perspective, and architecture - arches and vaults.
War Christian ideology with the Roman art ended with the victory, when Christianity survived two centuries of persecution, received a powerful supporter in the person of Constantine the Great in the early fourth century was the "state religion" of the Roman Empire. Manners were (at least outwardly) is much more austere, and more importantly, the art has become pronounced "Christian" in nature.
What official Church considers the first iconographer Evangelist Luke - Frank is a legend, not supported by any facts or evidence.
Teacher Luke, the Apostle Paul, and already have enough problems with the Orthodox Jews, and he hardly was once again irritate violation of the law of Moses (the second commandment of the Holy), in addition he talked about the unjust people: "And the glory of the incorruptible God changed in the way..." (ROM. 1:23).
Theoretically, of course, you can assume that the Evangelist Luke suddenly demanded to the Holy sacrifice of Apollo" and he decided to give up the second Sacred commandment on its own initiative, but it is more than doubtful for professional writer and theologian in the first century A.D.
In fact, the formation of Christian art was gradual and natural.
Although the sign of the cross was used already in the third century spoke Tertullian), the cross became the official symbol of Christianity only when Constantine the Great and ancient symbols were fish and bread, which Christ fed the multitudes in Galilee.
Why were we chosen fish is the fact that the first letters of the Greek word "atios" ("fish") was the monogram of Jesus Christ (J. C.). These characters in a purely utilitarian purposes of this secret society was depicted on the walls of the famous catacomb churches. Most likely, this "Masonic signs and started Christian art.
In the II-III centuries of the Christian symbols were gradually penetrate into the official Roman art. So, to have survived the images of "the good shepherd" - the encrypted image of the Savior (Jn. 10:11), made entirely in the Roman style.
At the same time passed and the transformation of artistic forms. Muscular, handsome and fat beauties classic ("pagan") Roman style lost on Christian images place clumsy "icon" man.
Most critics consider "Christianization" art is a consequence of the destruction of Rome in the fifth century. How to teach in schools and colleges, the classical tradition in art were lost due to physical destruction of the artists.
This is another outdated stereotype. Rome never to the base is not destroyed, the population of polls is not exterminated, the secrets of Roman art were not catastrophically lost, and just art has become another.
And emperors of Constantinople formally call themselves Roman, and the rulers of the "barbarian" kingdoms in the West inherited from the times of Constantine the Great already formed Christian art and do not promote the image of naked beauties or the chanting of the verses of homosexual love.
But the gods used to depict - and in the Christian era continued to represent only a fresh and new. And not only God, Jesus Christ and the Holy saints of well - known portraits of emperors and statesmen, and executed in the same "icon" style. You could say - Romanesque, but the critics somehow believe that the Romanesque style appeared only at the end of the first Millennium, and before that was nothing but early Christian iconography.
Actually, even the arch of Constantine the Great in Rome depicts big men brand in the Romanesque style. Formally speaking, in the icon. The same can be said about the frescoes 321 year in residence Crispus, son of Constantine, and the sarcophagus of Junius bass (359 year), and about a portrait of a politician-philosopher boetia (early sixth century), and about the helmet of the king of the Lombards about the same time.
By the way, another argument against the "loss of skill": Constantine the Great or king of the Lombards could find any artists and depicted in their Imperial symbols perfectly composed, powerful and muscular men.
But once again, art has become another.
In order to understand why it's different, at least remember some of the teachings of Jesus Christ, which was based spiritual awareness of early Christian ideas:
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:3);
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" (Matt. 5:8);
"Verily I say unto you, except ye be converted and become like children, you shall not enter the Kingdom of heaven; so whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child is the greatest in the Kingdom of heaven..." (Matt. 18:3-4).
It is known that the desire for goodness and spiritual purity in the minds of the vast majority of people associated with childhood. Children's drawings every seen (I mean pictures of mentally normal children). And not only now, and in the middle ages, the children drew.
Apparently, so spiritually pure people and is perceived as a large-headed, narrow-shouldered, megapode - as if drawn by children. And the children, in turn, draw these fellows, because you yourself are such - swollen-headed, narrow-shouldered...
In parallel with our main study, we made an interesting conclusion: in the icon... children.
This is an example of how art operates Christian subconscious, and it is very important to understand whether or not art is an expression of the moral imperative.
Now we can say with certainty why the masters of the middle ages, with the sight of a huge number of perfectly preserved masterpieces of ancient Greek and Roman art, not take them for samples. Christian subconscious way.
The child, as we know, instinctively afraid of muscular men and ashamed of the naked body (with rare exceptions such as hereditary nudists, and there are instincts just suppressed). Why, well reviewed Freud. For us, unprincipled - why, it is important that similar feelings experienced at the beginning of the first Millennium "good Christian", looking at the life around the pagan Roman Empire.
That's no longer in the IV-V centuries depict Venus de Milo and the Apollo Belvedere, and not portrayed throughout the middle ages. And only in the Renaissance, when the society, in turn, "tired" from the hypocrisy of the papacy and the Inquisition (for reasons we will discuss later), the installation of the Christian subconscious were forced (too Freudian term) units "enlightened antiquity."
So, in the middle of the first Millennium art under the influence of the "Christianization" of manners took new forms, but no lump sum, a radical change, especially about the death of art or his full transformation into any other phenomenon, can not speak.
Early Christian art and its integral part, icons - first, absolutely adequate expression of the Christian subconscious, and secondly, an organic continuation of the ancient Greek and Roman traditions.
But why in the IV-V centuries victorious Christian Church violated the second commandment Holy, and not tried to "undo" the fine arts? And right to left as "secular" - as it is in the Church in the form of icons allowed...
It is possible that the bishops simply was not up to art - I had to save Christianity from the barbarians. But this version is very doubtful we will consider the history of the early Christian theological currents (monarhianstva, Arianism, Donatism, Pelagian, Monophysitism). What are the spears were broken for some delicate questions!
And with icons - a clear violation of the commandments, and nothing. Until VIII century, no dispute, no debate!
In fairness, we note that there was another argument in favor of icons. According to the old Testament, God, in spite of the second commandment, commanded Moses to carve two cherubim of the ark (ex. 25:19). But this argument is not used - did not seem the case.
Seven hundred years no one seemed not to notice the flagrant violation not some vague hint of St. John the Evangelist or Apostle Paul, and the second commandment of the Holy!
And the explanation is very simple: the Christian Church, despite all the declarations, could not live without art.
If the icons were just one of the tenets of the Church is really for so many centuries, there would want to spend on this topic of global debate and brand icons as heresy?
No, the icons, and not just the canonical (there were no strict rules images of saints), but the real art is advantageously distinguished the Christian Church from the Jews and did the perception of Christianity more understandable to the Gentiles.
By the way, it is likely that art has played a significant role in the General circulation of the barbarians to Christianity in IV-V centuries. Barbara could read something bad, the Scriptures for them was tricky, but the picture looked...
Here is a more typical example of how the Church was to be art, and how she was saved from the "external enemy" - iconoclasm.
Prophet Muhammad in the early seventh century. fought not with Christ, and with the Christian Church. Among other things it is because of the veneration of icons accused the Church of idolatry. And when the Islamic caliphs conquered the middle East, and conquered a great part of the Christian world, their charges has become difficult to ignore.
Constantinople, Emperor Leo III the Isaurian was to solve the problem globally, starting in 726, the relentless struggle against the icons of the so - called iconoclasm. The struggle was continued by his son Constantine V, then Leo IV...
We will see that in Byzantium on theological questions the word of the Emperor almost always been "the ultimate truth". But with the icons was a unique case - the Church came together and stood up to death! The veneration defended Constantinople Patriarch Germanus, the Patriarch took the Pope, in this struggle became famous John Damascene.
Emperors began the persecution of the iconodules. Did not work: throughout the Empire, so that there were bloody riots, the Church of Greece has raised a popular uprising, a significant part of the Italian Empire's territories placed under the rule of the Lombards, not wanting to put up with iconoclasm...
The Cathedral, held close to Constantinople in 754, under the pressure of Constantine declared that "to restore the images of the saints through the material of paints and colors are useless, idle, and even impious and diabolical".
The 7th Ecumenical (2nd Nicene) Church 787, using the death of Leo IV and sympathy icons of his widow Irene, the newly established veneration of icons.
Further, depending on the personality of the Emperor, the struggle went on with varying success, and the situation was for the Church losing: how easy is the state organization to fight against the state?
But the Church survived! In 842, the Council of Constantinople was finally installed the veneration of this argument: "the Honoring of icons and worship them refers not to the substance of the icon, not the wood or the paint, and to him who is depicted on the icon, therefore, has no character of idolatry."
The arguments, of course, weak.
First, the icons represent not only God, Christ and the Angels, but also in houses and trees and people and animals, and even the devils in hell. With the icon of "the last judgment", for example, it turns out that we worship, but Jesus, many who, while not all deserve.
Secondly, this argument does not apply to "secular" art, and it remained behind the Church dogmatics.
Thirdly, the second commandment Holy, yet so clearly prohibited to portray whatever it is that even God commanded Moses to carve the cherubim (ex. 25:19) looks very convincing counterargument, and so the Council's resolution - and even more so.
Actually there are far more serious theological arguments in favor of and iconography, and any other art form. We will talk about this in one of the following chapters. But the reasoning of the Cathedral 842 year, may not stand up to serious criticism, saved the icons, and with it the Romanesque and Gothic art. Yes and Rebirth, probably, in case of victory of iconoclasm would be quite different.
And most importantly, we realized that would not say the official theology, the Church considered art as its principal component, so more important than any of the canons, and I even key type "Trinity"), which is not allowed on this occasion, no discussion, and when in the eighth century the Church has the right to art tried to take - she defended it.
Hardly can then be considered to be legitimate the position of the Orthodox Church, identifying the cognate origin of the words "art" and "art" with alleged diabolical essence.
Art has played a huge role in the formation of Christianity, and, respectively, and moral imperative.
This historical review could bring to our days and to see that the Christian religion and art phenomena of the same level in the same order, and in the course of history only changed places in the consciousness of humanity.
History clearly shows that art and the Christian religion are closely connected with the ways of society, but they live by their own laws, and no state can these laws affect willed order. The system of spiritual values and religion, and art is above all social changes and upheavals, it has no control over nor rulers, nor the government.
And today, after the collapse of the Communist utopia, art and the Christian religion is no competitors in the spiritual world of people belonging to the European civilization.
Let's not forget about the close relationship of art with this concept of aesthetics. In the most prosaic sense of the word domestic.
For example, every child knows that it is impossible to litter on the streets. Why not? What about this "says" moral imperative, if the garbage on the street doesn't hurt anyone, hurt anyone not a health hazard? The same can be said about shabby facades and covered the walls in the hallways...
But in this case the moral imperative "says the voice of aesthetics, and it is difficult not to listen. And the formation of aesthetic taste without art is impossible, and this is only a small addition to the great moral force that carries the art.
Of course, not every piece of art belongs to the system of values expressed by a moral imperative. But with Christianity, and in fact the same situation - and the largest Church, and an enormous number of sects interpret it in their own way, not always in good faith, and often for selfish purposes.
Thus, one of the most important problems of mankind on the path of understanding the moral imperative of the purification and of the Christian religion, and art from the speculative, opportunistic and selfish layers.
From the above we can conclude: art, along with the Christian religion, corresponds to the development of humanity, given the moral imperative, and it is good and not evil.
In the book "Jesus of Nazareth's life and teachings" after a much more detailed historical review I argued more: the Christian religion and art today are the most significant evidence of the existence of God.
In principle, now we come to the same thing, only a few other way. After all, if we assume that the moral imperative was given to people by God, proving the validity and effectiveness of the practical manifestations of the moral imperative can be considered evidence of the existence of God.
Of course, the evidence is weak, because philosophy is not mathematics, and the amount of private does not necessarily equal the total. And we have "components" that's three.
First: the Christian religion and art are good.
Second, an intuitive understanding of good people due to the action of moral imperative.
Third: the moral imperative comes from God.
And I still think that we of these "terms" have the right to draw another conclusion: evidence of the existence of God are not only the Christian religion and art, but also the presence of people have an intuitive understanding of the good.
We managed within the local research to solve an important problem, and this again suggests that things in philosophy no.
Let's try to position our methodology Caesar what belongs to Caesar" to consider the so-called "national question".
It may seem that national self-awareness refers to the moral imperative, as belonging to a particular nation often not detected at a conscious level. Is a kind of subconscious "we", and used not only in "everyday" context "today we won in football, but in the context of quite spiritual: "our culture, our art, even our faith"... Remember Pushkin: "Hurrah! We are broken! Bend the Swedes!"
But despite immortal Pushkin's lines, will regret to state that we are not dealing with the moral imperative, and impressed on the subconscious of the strongest social stereotype.
We give the proof here it is not so simple.
The whole history of mankind proves that nationality is closely associated with the state, and Vice versa - state is associated with ethnicity. The self-awareness of oneself as a person belonging to a particular nation, gradually merges with the self-awareness of oneself as a citizen of a particular country.
Proof - mass liberation of third world countries and the collapse of colonial empires in the twentieth century.
It all seems to be good. For example, the legally elected President of the "state forming" the nation is usually better knows the needs of his subjects, than "sent" the Governor-General (although this is not an axiom). It seems to be acceptable and culturally - promotion of national cultural and historical traditions, the study of their native language (although it is not an axiom). In any case, based on General assumptions, the self-determination of Nations, most likely, the process is positive.
But does this positive process to the moral imperative? Let us formulate the question more concrete: shall reign on the earth peace and quiet in the hypothetical case of complete self-determination of all Nations?
But such a hypothesis is simply incorrect: without exception, all of the nation to self-determination" can't, because there will always be groups of national minorities, for whom the national majority of the right to self-determination does not recognize. In the end, a nation can declare themselves and the inhabitants of one region, and the inhabitants of one city, and this will always be confirmed in ethnic, cultural and linguistic traditions...
Split the nation can, and logical limit it. And if so, without the "hot spots" on a national basis, world will not.
Now remember the childhood and cry in the yard: "Our beat! "Our" here is used in a different context, but it's also intuitive community! And if tomorrow this "scream" will be distributed on a national scale - is the same subconscious force will not stir up millions of people and not lead them to kill their own kind?
It may be objected: in each country, enough of the Nazis, fascists and extremists, and such cries are heard very often. But because people do not take the axes (or more modern weapons) and not going to kill...
Someone is not, and someone is coming. This is a first. And secondly, what prevents most people are willing to respond to any such cry?
As a "brake" is a moral imperative. And he is the "brake" not only massacres and wars based on ethnic hatred. He opposes any destructive tendencies, until robberies and murders.
Hence, the contradiction of the moral imperative of national self-awareness is just as justified as the contradiction of the moral imperative with any subconscious manifestations of evil.
Therefore, to the moral imperative of national self-awareness is not true, moreover, contradicts it.
Our methodology Caesar what belongs to Caesar" treats this situation as follows: national self-awareness is potentially a source of not good, but evil. Someone moral imperative from the evil hold, and someone, unfortunately, no.
The question arises: national culture? And the national art? Is it possible that they are evil?
Of course, no. But here we are dealing with quite another situation when "national" is not as self-awareness, and as a material. Language, tradition, geographical features... If English works on the factory Buryat folk crafts, this does not mean that he necessarily feels the Buryats. Although Boris Pasternak and Osip Mandelstam - the great Russian poets, they felt themselves to belong to the Jewish nation.
And if ever national self-awareness of the people will sink into oblivion together with other manifestations of "social" evil, national cultural traditions are unlikely to disappear, although it will mutate.
Nothing wrong in the denial of national self-awareness there is no history of mankind suggests that Nations come and go, and their culture remains. There are lots of examples - Ancient Egypt, Assyria, Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome... Can we call these Nations disappeared? In social terms, but in spiritual - no.
There are more sad example contained in the title of the book Fenimore Cooper's "Last of the Mohicans". Indeed, many peoples goes into oblivion, and after them there's not a "Museum" of culture. But whose fault is it - not whether those "national most", which absorbed and then physically destroyed "minority", not allowing them to develop? Again we come to the "social" evil...
As additional confirmation of our position, and comfort all unknown missing peoples remember the words of the Apostle Paul: "...is being Renewed in knowledge after the image of him that Created him : where there is neither Greek nor Jew, neither circumcision nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free, but all in all Christ" (Col. 3:11).
I can ask the subconscious "we" takes not only a national form. For example - "we Europeans", "we men", "we, the Orthodox," "we, Christians," "we, earthlings", and even "we, the inhabitants of the Universe"? Surely this does not apply to the moral imperative?
Yes, and this does not apply to the moral imperative, for which there is only one "we" - "we, the United moral imperative". And all the other "we" - a variety of subconscious stereotypes. Both positive and neutral, and negative.
Thus, we examined the notion of "social evil, and a number of local issues related to compliance of certain plants society's moral imperative.
Having spent a lot of time on the issue of theodicy, we also realized that the free will of people eliminates the guilt of God in their sins and trespasses.
But we haven't talked about the evil nature - hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, accidents and illnesses. To the latter also include mental illness, depriving people of the opportunity to realize their criminal actions, and here we see the entwinement of "social" and "natural" evil.
Moreover, analyzing evil "social", we all sooner or later will reach its "natural" roots - after all, wolves, and human society is also created by God.
Yes, and why God gave civilized mankind moral imperative, would not eradicate our "animal" nature, and gave them to coexist, not quite peacefully?
So, until the end of the question of theodicy is not decided. After all, if the creation of the world as a whole physical and moral initially suggested the presence of evil, then wouldn't it be better to God all this world is not to create?
And may we showed that our suffering is not the fault of God, but through the fault of society or nature, but to solve the main question - why did God created nature, and society as a potential source of evil is the us so far. We were at the level of "microcosm" of man, and the question just asked, refers to the "macrocosm", and it we are not yet ready.
In our study the causes and forms of "social" evil main "tuning fork" moral imperative was Christianity, and in those subconscious forms in which it is rooted in the people belonging to the European civilization.
Not so many people who delves into the problems of theology. Something understood by the mind, something intuitively feels, and that's usually enough. Still we have in this book could do without the theological subtleties.
But now we have the transition from philosophy to the practical ("metaphysics of morals") to the theoretical philosophy (understanding the structure of the universe and in this universe). And since the main tool of this understanding, as before, will remain Christian theology, then, before this tool to work, it must "adjust" to the solution of theoretical questions.
It would seem, why Christian theology "configure"?
And then that his theoretical (conceptual) part differs significantly from the practical (rooted in the subconscious of many generations), and this situation is a source of tremendous amounts of abuse and speculation. And while we do not Dene what is meant by the words "Christianity" and "Christian religion", to move forward we will not be able.
As you remember, similar to "configure" we had to do, analyzing "the paradox of Christianity, calling into question the very right of the teachings of Christ to be called the most complete and adequate expression of the moral imperative. We then are faced with many layers of medieval stereotypes (for example, of hell as a fiery brazier and heaven as angels on a cloud), and the transition to a clear understanding, expressing Christianity only as the teachings of kindness and love, took a lot of time.
However, we time not spent in vain - not deciding this issue, we would not be able to develop a methodology Caesar what belongs to Caesar". And since we managed to do it, let's try to apply this methodology to Christianity.
Let's ask ourselves: fully corresponds to whether the moral imperative of Christianity is the core of any European philosophy?
Remember: analyzing "the paradox of Christianity", we did exactly what separated the moral imperatives from the old Testament principles of evil for evil retribution (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, hell, sin), effectively applying the methodology Caesar what belongs to Caesar", was not yet developed.
This "setting" we've done well and I can confidently say, Christianity, understood as the doctrine of Christ and in the Holy Scriptures, the moral imperative corresponds completely.
But since the writing of the New Testament has been almost two thousand years, during which happened multiple division of the Christian churches and the formation of the so-called "sacred tradition".
And if Christianity is the teachings of Jesus Christ exists as an objective reality from the moment when he gave us Christ, the Christian religion is the philosophy of people - largely depends on the subjective attitudes of the people themselves.
Therefore, in the same way the Christian religion (I emphasize - not Christianity, but formed on the basis of his religious worldview) depends on the society and history and Economics, and policy.
And in this case, the answer to the question of whether or not there today corresponds to the moral imperative of the Christian religion, will be negative.
And should such a disappointing conclusion of the additional question: what religion are we talking about?
About the Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant? Lutheranism or Calvinism? Maybe about Socinians or Adventism? If there are hundreds of different options, which expresses the moral imperative with all (or at least maximum) completeness and adequacy?
Trying to answer this question directly, listing all sorts of interpretations of Christianity and analyzing them, we will have to consider many thousands of volumes of theological works and it is unlikely that you will succeed.
The approach, in accordance with our methodology Caesar what belongs to Caesar"must be fundamentally different: to identify those Christian religious concepts, which are formed exclusively on the basis of the moral imperative, and to single out" the rest of them, seeing them as layers "social" evil hindering integration, understanding, and often peaceful coexistence of Orthodox and Catholics, Catholics and Protestants, Protestants and Baptists, Baptists and Jehovah's witnesses, Jehovah's witnesses and seventh-day Adventists"...
The "tuning" of Christian theology we will start with a question that any Church - Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant - ready at any moment to give the detailed answer. So the question is:
The base of the Church dogmatics is the Trinity of three divine persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is an independent personality, and each of them has their "responsibilities". However, the latter are not strictly separated, and in one way or another "action" includes all persons, though in different degrees.
So, tied if this approach with a rigorous monotheism, without which the Christian religion inevitably becomes vague moral system? And the first commandment Holy, the sound is clear - God is one (ex. 20:2).
The Church confidently say - linked.
Going deeper into the Nicene-Constantinople (in the old Russian interpretation of the Nicene - Constantinople Symbol of faith. This is the most concise expression of Church dogma, and this "Character" recognize and Catholics, and Orthodox (except for the addition of the "filioque" - the procession of the Holy spirit "and from the Son"). "Character" in ancient Greek means "gathering together" or "expression", so this approach is quite justified.
"I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, begotten, begotten of the Father logically before all ages; light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, through Whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy spirit and the virgin Mary, and became man. Crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried. And resurrected on the third day according to the Scriptures. And mossedegh to heaven, and Sidama at the right hand of the Father. And shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. Whose Kingdom will have no end.
And in the Holy spirit, the Lord, the giver of life. Who proceedeth from the Father; Who with the father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.
In one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. Resurrection of the dead, and the life of the century. Amen."
Orthodox creed written in old Slavonic language of the XV-XVI centuries, and in modern English Church it does not translate, as well as prayers. However, writes thus not through the "izhitsa" and "Yat", a modern alphabet.
Out of respect for the readers, I still think it is necessary to translate the "Symbol" in modern English, while not giving any comments:
"I believe in one God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, the Father, born before all time, light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not created, consubstantial with the Father. They all was created. For us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate of the Holy spirit and the virgin Mary, and became man. Crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. And resurrected on the third day according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of the Father. And come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. His Kingdom will have no end.
And in the Holy spirit, the Lord, Creator of life, from the Father outgoing. He, who spoke through the prophets, together with the Father and the Son worship and glory.
And in one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. Believe in the resurrection of the dead and the afterlife.
So be it."
Key wording, which give the appearance of solving the problem of polytheism, are the words about "God the Son": "From the Father, born before all time...born, uncreated, consubstantial with the Father".
So, "God the Son" is born - in the son. But because he is God, then nesotvoren. Consubstantial to God there is no accusation dvubozhii, once the nature of God and God the Son are one.
If we consider all three positions - "born nesotvoren, consubstantial" - separately, then, indeed, appears to resolve the problem of polytheism. But only an appearance, and as soon as we begin to consider these provisions are complex, there is a lot of controversy.
If "God the Son" is born, then he created. How can I give birth, not made?
The Nicene-Constantinople formulation could not be applied to "God the Son", and to ordinary people, born from women. All mother bear and give birth, do people physically, but not all spiritually. In principle, the physical creation of son mother, too, can be challenged and attributed to the "competence" of God, or at least genetics.
But if "God the Son" born of God, "before all time"when there were no women, no genes, then nobody, except God, created to be.
And "consubstantial with the Father"?
When the old Testament God created man "in his image and likeness", it's more or less clear. But if you understand "consubstantial" literally, that Christ was not God himself took his form and came to Earth himself prayed and talked to myself (as taught in the beginning of the III century Sabellius is one of the founders of the religions called "monarhianstvo").
If not, then, "consubstantial" cannot be taken literally, that is, Christ was an independent person. This Church does not dispute. But, then, if he too is God, God with us two (and with the Holy Spirit - three), and we are polytheists (i.e. pagans).
There is only one version of the concept of "consubstantial": Christ is the image and likeness of God. We are also known (Gen. 1:26). So, "consubstantial" Jesus first of all we, the people, and we still will have the ability to re-verify.
And if we talk about the "third person of the Trinity, the situation is even more strange.
Despite the fact that the Holy Spirit is considered to be composed in the same relationship with God as "God the Son", not "born"and "comes", "Symbol" does not contain any language about his uncreated and consubstantial - he just announced the third God ("the Lord the giver of life", "together is worshiped and glorified"), without any reservations. Seems it should be understood of course, that what is the second hypostasis of the Trinity, so is the third.
But to imply you anything, and yet what we see in the official creed is nothing like polytheism. In relation to "God the Son" is hidden, and in relation to the Holy spirit - Frank.
In the Nicene-Constantinople creed, there are other controversial moments. For example, Christ was incarnate from the Holy spirit and the virgin Mary, and after a few words we read about the Holy Spirit coming from God. It turns out that the Holy Spirit was something like a mediator at birth "God the Son".
How such a strange phrase, in principle, of course. In the Gospels, the concept of the Holy spirit, as we remember very many meanings, but according to Matthew, Mary got pregnant from "the Holy Ghost" (Matt. 1:18). We will have the opportunity to ensure that the Apostle Matthew was not familiar with the concept of "Trinity", and its wording in the Nicene creed simply moved from the "Apostolic".
The so-called "Apostolic creed was formed at the end of the second century, that is, to the apostles, nothing had. However, give it a whole - it is short and, unlike the Nicene-Constantinople, a relatively simple and logical.
"I believe in God the Father Almighty;
and in Christ Jesus His Son, our Lord, born of the Holy spirit and the virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried, the third day was resurrected from the dead, ascended into heaven, sat down at the right hand of the Father, whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead;
and in the Holy spirit, the Holy Church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the flesh".
The last words of this "Character" we still remember, when we
talk about "the afterlife" - facilitie. Now let's just say that
neither Apostolic nor the Nicene creed is nothing about the origin of the Holy
spirit is not mentioned, and in
We could talk about the enormous power of tradition, which for sixteen hundred years the Church has not corrected these "editorial" error.
But the creed is not a simple prayer. In it, each word is of great importance. And if we found so many inconsistencies already in an extremely precise and polished "Symbol", the multi-volume "Holy tradition" number of contradictions increases by many orders of magnitude.
In order to understand these contradictions mere coincidence or unfair layers "social" evil, you must seek the origins of the Christian religion.
We have already said that, despite the declarative negation strict observance of the law of Moses, the image of Jesus Christ in the theology of the Apostle Paul differs little from the old Testament Messiah. Church theologians this is not to argue and believe that a fundamentally new interpretation of the nature of Jesus Christ was given at the end of the first century the Apostle John the Theologian.
We have almost completely quote the introduction to the gospel of John, initiating all subsequent ecclesiastical interpretation of the nature of Jesus Christ. Recall that this gospel was written in twenty-thirty years after the death of the Apostle Paul when the Church was already a large and diversified organization. So, read:
"In the beginning was the word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
There was a man sent from God whose name was John (the Baptist - SZ). He came for a witness, to testify about the Light, that all might believe through him. He was not that light, but was sent to bear witness about the Light.
Was the true Light, Which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto his own, and His own received him not. And for those who received Him, who believed in His name, he gave power to become children of God, are not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but were born of God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten from the Father.
John bare witness of Him, and crying out, saying: This was He of Whom I said, he who cometh after me has surpassed me because he was before me. And from His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace, for the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. God no one has ever seen; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the father, He hath declared him" (Jn. 1:1-18).
This passage has become a major theological basis for justification of view of Jesus Christ as "God the Son". I emphasize - not for the dogma of the Trinity, but only for the transition from the Evangelical concept of "Son of God" dogmatic "God the Son", which then turned into "second person of the Trinity".
But in order to see how was the transition and how it was justified, you will need a relatively detailed historical overview.
And in the late I - early II century sect of Christianity became a separate religion Imperial scale, and faced a problem: how to explain the masses of pagans who worship the Christians? God - Yes, but what? Besides, the Jews, or not?
This question was to ask any infidel is not idle - if I must not pray to Zeus and Apollo, to whom? Jewish Jehovah? And then what's the difference between Christianity and Judaism?
In order to understand the explanation about the Messiah need to know the old Testament. He was in Judea not everyone knew...
Therefore, in the second century, to distinguish it from Judaism, Christians needed their "own" God. Then began Jesus to call God.
Questions why monotheism were two gods, in the beginning of the second century have not yet been asked. Christianity was primarily a religion of the poor, and educated people among the poor then met few. And yet the theological justification of the divine nature of Christ, sooner or later, should have been required.
So, Jesus Christ in the beginning of the second century had to declare God and not to incur charges dvubozhii.
The task was not just difficult, but theoretically intractable.
"Cancel" God and put on his seat of Christ no one could - too it was contrary to the Gospels, not to mention the old Testament. But, as you know, if you think of something you want, it will be thought no matter what.
Justin (Justin) Philosopher (approx. 100-165), came up with the following: referring to the familiar passages from the gospel of John, "the Word was God" (Jn. 1:1) and "the Word became flesh" (Jn. 1:14), he interpreted them literally and declared Jesus Christ "God's word", which gained flesh and came to Earth.
The tension of this approach at that time was not evident, because Justin, based on ancient Greek philosophy, identified the expression "the Word was God" is often used by the Greek term "Logos".
Generally speaking, the "logos" means "word", but Socrates "Logos" means "true word" (logic, source and criterion of objective knowledge), Heraclitus is reasonable nature of nature, the Stoics : self-organizing principle, independent from God, Plato's mind, calculation, reasoning, proof, language, and Aristotle - the true essence of each thing.
Contrary to popular belief that Philo of Alexandria had a great influence on early Christian dogmatics, his interpretation of "Logos" is very different from that which gave Justin.
In Philo the Logos did not exist separately from God, and was himself intelligible world "idea of ideas". In fact, the "Logos" was one of the manifestations of God, which Cardston any person.
And Justin "Logos" has come to mean the divine mind, which gained flesh and came to Earth in the person of Jesus Christ.
And there was this synthesis of Christian theology and Greek philosophy - the identification of Jesus with the Logos.
And since the "Logos" in Greek, as we have seen, was considered something of a higher mind, this identification in the context of Christian doctrine actually meant the recognition of Jesus as God. Rather, "God The Son".
Like "Son of God" and "God the Son" - sounds almost identical, but actually received a key difference and formed the basis of the dogma of the Trinity", which appeared two hundred years after the death of Justin Philosopher.
Now, referring to the fact that "the Word was God" (Jn. 1:1) and "the Word became flesh" (Jn. 1:14), Justin announced Jesus Christ "God the Son" Is "Logos".
The fact that in the second century this was in line with the political objectives of the Church, which had been necessary to "your" God, we get it. But is it alright for the identification of Christ with the Logos from the point of view of theology, which, in theory, should be based on Scripture, and not to resolve political issues?
Remember the beginning of the book of Genesis: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. The earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the abyss, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the water. And God said: let there be light. And there was light" (Gen. 1:1-3).
We see that God created the world by the word, and the first words of God were: "let there be light" (Gen. 1:3).
And now look at the quoted beginning of the gospel of John.
John calls Jesus "the word" indirectly and once (Jn. 1:14), and "light" directly and repeatedly (Jn. 1:7-9; 3:19; 12:46). Besides, John has used the term "word" in contexts completely excluding the identity of "words" and Christ:
"He who rejects Me and does not receive My words has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day" (Jn. 12:48).
"You are already clean through the word which I have taught you" (Jn. 15:3).
"I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and Kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was (in the link - SZ) on the island that is called Patmos, for the Word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ" (Rev. 1:9).
Many professional philosophers II-III centuries, absorbed by Christianity as a "fashion" idea, could not help but try to build on its base "full" philosophical system.
For these purposes, in Christianity "insertion" many teachings. Used the concept of Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, and many other philosophical and religious systems, but on the first place on "popularity" was the ancient Greek philosophy.
Gnosticism is the common name of these "synthetic" philosophical systems.
The immediate forerunner of Gnosticism was a contemporary of Christ Philo of Alexandria, with its synthesis of Judaism and Greek philosophy, and in the second century Gnostics were called a variety of philosophers, "adopting" the Scriptures. The most famous of them Valentinus and Basilides, who lived in the first half of the second century.
What the Gnostics were not invented! And "demiurge"and "Archon"and "365 astral angels", and "panspermia", and "Sophia with her husband Desired", and "Pleroma", and "Achamoth" - all this eclecticism found a place in their teachings, the Central figure of which "opportunistic" reasons was Jesus Christ.
Jesus declared that the Ghost, the "fragrance of the Holy spirit", then "new EON"... the World of the Gnostics was the illusion, the trial, the punishment consisted of three levels, from 365 spheres, then 30 "eons"...
In short, the Gnostics believed that Christianity itself is too simple and axiomatic, and if it is not colour specific philosophical terms and not to give all concepts catchy and eye-catching name, serious people will not perceive.
This view was widely held.
From the Gnostic concepts infiltrated into the Church dogmatics and durable it rooted, the most famous "Logos" ("word of God") and "Sophia" ("God's wisdom"). The first was destined predecessor "Trinity" and one of the Central dogmas of the Church officialdom, and the second was "the banner of the Russian religious Renaissance."
"Logos" and "Sophia" is closely intertwined, and the spectra of their "competence" is almost completely coincide - the Gnostics made the Greek word "Sophia" (wisdom) the proper name and gave "Sofia", the person is female, a wide range of "authority."
In the Scriptures about the wisdom of God has said repeatedly (Prov. 8:22; LK. 11:49; 1 Cor. 1:24; apocryphal book the Wisdom of Solomon), but no personal issues she had. However, as the word of God.
But the ancient Greek pagan tradition of deification of all phenomena of nature (dawn - EOS, death - Tanat, war - Ares, love is Aphrodite and so on) have borne fruit. The same thing happened with the "Logos", only he was identified with Christ.
However, Sofia has long been identified with the mother of God - the Gnostics and their followers missed the "feminine" in the world.
About "Sofia" is often mentioned when we were talking about the creation of the world, as, undoubtedly, the Creator of wisdom was difficult to refuse. It turned out that "Sophia" - something like "matrix", by which God created the world, and "Logos" - the specific content of this "matrix".
In the first Millennium "Sofia" is also used as an analogue of the Holy spirit, and as a symbol of the Christian Church, and as the personification of the state and of all medieval notions of "order" on Earth. Not surprisingly, the greatest of the Byzantine and Russian churches - St. Sophia of Constantinople, Kiev and Novgorod were devoted to the "God of wisdom".
However, in Russia the cult of "Sophia" has existed for a relatively short time and even in pre-Mongol times was replaced by the cult of the virgin. Gradually the Church from "Sophia-the wisdom of God" refused, as it was found much more convenient to assume the role of "Keeper of the Holy spirit", which in Scripture is mentioned much more often and, in contrast to the "Sophia", in a personal context.
Now the vast majority of people identify the "Sophia-divine wisdom" with St. Sophia, the mother of great Faith, Hope and charity. The Gnostic "Logo" lucky - thanks to the dogma of the Trinity, he remained in the Church dogmatics.
However, and "Sophia" completely forgotten was not.
Most philosophers "Russian religious Renaissance" was fond of Gnosticism as a synthesis of Christianity and the "real" philosophy. For example, Vladimir Soloviev turned in their teaching, along with the canonical Christian concepts and some of the Gnostic, first of all, "Sophia". His footsteps went and Pavel Florensky and Sergei Bulgakov, and brothers troubetzkoy.
And now sophiology" is a direction, a very "fashionable" in Russian philosophy.
Anyway, when you read modern philosophical works, where mixed concepts of God, Christ, "Trinity", "absolute", "Logo", "Sophia", "Nirvana", "Shambala", "karma", magic, the occult and other things - first of all recall the Gnostics, nedootsenivaet the enormous potential of Christianity to answer the spiritual needs of not only the most serious people, but professional philosophers.
Now that we understand the fundamental difference between Christianity and Gnosticism, it is necessary to state that the Church theology II-III centuries gone the way of Gnosticism. In this same way and went all subsequent Patristics (the study of the so-called "Church fathers") - from Athanasius of Alexandria to John of Damascus.
As we shall soon see, all attempts at least a partial return to the teachings of Christ and the apostles were declared heresies and ruthlessly pursued.
Unfortunately, it is quite logical that the founder and the first representative of the patristic Church thinks of Justin Philosopher who declared that Christ "Logo" and in fact was gnostica.
In Soviet times, this has led to a curious "syndrome Philo of Alexandria, a philosopher, synthesized the old Testament and Greek philosophy, Marxist ideologues believed predecessor... Christianity. To discredit the teachings of Christ were required to identify its "sources", and thanks Ustinovka "Logo" was found "useful" parallel with Philo.
Like Christianity, and Philo was based on the old Testament, and in both exercises use similar terminology, so that such a parallel look convincing.
Actually Philo was a contemporary of Christ, did not live in Judea, and in Alexandria, so it is unlikely that Christ in any way relied on his doctrine was enough and the old Testament prophets. Yes and all the philosophical and theological standards to Christianity the teachings of Philo nothing had.
Philo of Alexandria was the predecessor is not Christianity, and Gnosticism, on the road which went Patristics.
For example, "Logos" became the Central dogma the doctrine of Tertullian, who believed that the coming of Jesus to Earth in one form or another existed, but in unity with God the Father, as "the word". After birth, he became "a word pronounced.
In the books Tertullian was present and the Holy Spirit, which gave occasion to some Church theologians to declare him the father of the dogma of the Trinity. But actually his teaching to "the Trinity" nothing had, and the dogma appeared in more than a hundred years after his death.
About the Holy Spirit of Tertullian, indeed, he wrote, but only as a Christian spirituality - divine power, "alternates" of Christ on Earth after his crucifixion. This was discussed in the Gospels (Jn. 20:22), so that Tertullian was simply stating a well known fact.
This representative of the early Church fathers, like Origen, it is necessary to emphasize here. The thing is that, whatever we treated Gnostic "Logo", the divine nature of Christ has many confirmations and in the Gospels, and in the Epistle.
Origen tried to do it, and not without success. He, unlike Justin and Tertullian, was not talking about the identity of the Logos with Christ and operated the terms of the potential and actual energy. Before his birth, Christ was a potential internal energy of God, therefore he existed eternally. And then he came into the world, and has become an important energy.
It is believed that Origen laid the Foundation for the doctrine of the Trinity as "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost divine hypostasis. But actually he analyzed the relationship primarily of God and Christ, as a result of recognizing God in the absolute sense, only the Father. Christ, according to Origen, is the second God. The Holy Spirit, in turn, came from "God the Son" and treats him like "God the Son" to God not being God.
To summarize the above, then all logical Origen: Christ is born of God, created and left us with the Christian doctrine of the Holy Spirit.
But remained slippery question - as in monotheism were two gods, and to ward off accusations of paganism, Origen called all the other people are also gods. And Jesus ' soul, and the souls of all people existed from eternity, before the creation of the world (the so-called doctrine of "pre-existence of souls"). Remember the Psalm: "I have said ye are gods and sons of God - all of you" (PS. 81:6).
Thus, Origen began with the recognition that Jesus is God, and graduated from the recognition of the gods of us all.
In the III century Church dogma does not extend beyond the analysis of the Scriptures, and it was the main argument in the philosophical and theological disputes.
But there was one exception - the deification of Jesus of Nazareth. We took up position on this issue three philosophers and theologians - Justin, Tertullian and Origen. But was the fourth Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons.
The latter believed that the theory of the origin of Christ as a "Logo" is not necessary and even harmful, because they complicate the understanding of the believers of the Christian religion. Putting at the corner of the simplicity of Christianity, the masses of the Gentiles, but at the same time not abandoning "own" the Christian God, Irenaeus said that faith is sufficient that there is a God and "God the Son". Charges dvubozhii Irenaeus was not disturbed.
This position has found considerable response among "ordinary" priests engaged in missionary activity and not unicasa in theological subtleties.
But there were many priests who do not agree with Irenaeus and nominated precious slogan, something like "you need to hold onto the monarchy". In other words, they understood that the Church will sooner or later face charges of paganism, and therefore must adhere to the absolute and unquestionable monotheism.
"Keep the monarchy" could be two ways.
The so-called "Monarchianism-modalists" (from the word "mode" is a way of manifesting) saw in Jesus the God who took human form, walked the Earth and was crucified.
For it appeared Sabellius, Bishop Ptolemaidsky, who lived in the early third century. About him we know almost nothing, but the "costs" of its teachings, the Church is still exactly Sabellius (not Tertullian or Origen) first introduced in the relationship of God and "God the Son" third "person"of the Holy spirit, and declared them all "consubstantial".
But it did not save the Savelli, and he was posthumously named a heretic Cathedrals 261 and 262 years, since the "consubstantial" in the sense meant the complete unity of the one divine person in different forms. Hence, by Savelli implied that Christ, praying to God, praying to himself, and talking to God, talking to himself. It was quite strange.
In addition, the doctrine of "modalists" is very reminiscent of Docetism, an early heresy of the second century (from the Greek "dokes" - "to seem").
We have not paid Docetism enough attention because he did not have a clear line clear leader, and broke up into a number of local flows, many of which were included in Gnosticism. Briefly the essence of Docetism can be expressed as the negation of the physical existence of Jesus. He came to us some spirit, talked, povisel on the cross and flew back to heaven. In short, not Christ, and the hallucination of Matthew, John, Peter and others.
In such a mass hypnosis, even in the second century could not believe, and Docetism few people seriously.
But back to the monarhianstvo. The so-called "Monarchianism-dinamisty" believed that Jesus Christ is the man of the earth, which operated the divine power. Hence the name "dinamisty" - from "Dynamo", which translates from Greek as "force".
It is believed that the first "Monarchianism-dinamistami" were legendary Theodotos Tanner and Theodotos banker, who lived at the junction of the second and third centuries. And in the middle of the third century is headed for a Christological Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch.
Last, having a good relationship with Synovia, Queen of Palmyra and Syria (vassal of Rome made Christianity already in the third century the state religion of the local (Syrian) scale, even combined the office of Bishop with a high post in the Syrian government. However, the opponents of Paul of Samosata claimed that he was conceited, considered himself a great man, and even in some of the hymns in honor of the Savior put your name. However, in tiresomely it was difficult to refuse.
But the Church was needed Christ as "God the Son", and the teachings of Paul of Samosata in 269 at the Council of Antioch condemned as heresy.
As we began to consider the most famous early Christian heresy, note that in the II-III centuries for them yet no one was burned. Christianity periodically hit by persecution, and the role of the Inquisition were the Roman emperors, killing all the Christians in a row. Theological debates often took place in the famous catacombs, were quiet and the cultural, and the heretical bishops demoted rare - a new candidate for such a dangerous position was difficult to find.
While, however, Paul of Samosata after conviction at the Cathedral of 269 demoted and power was expelled from the Bishop's house, and all because of persecution at this time subsided, the rulers of Syria consistently favored Christianity, and the place was warm.
So, to the beginning of the fourth century monarhianstvo practically ceased to exist, and to the flourishing of the Church under Constantine the Great Christian dogmatics came with a relatively simple, albeit blurred understanding of Christ as "God the Son".
Both the "official" point of view of Irenaeus and Justin - enjoyed almost equal rights.
Replaced monarhianstvo half a century later came the most widespread heresy of all times and Nations - Arianism, but age is radically changed - the Emperor was Constantine the Great.
In 318, amid the General euphoria of the victory of Christianity, the Alexandrian priest Arius entered into a dispute with his Bishop Alexander. In a short time in their argument to include not only the whole Church, but a large part of the population of the Empire.
Arias was based on "dynamic" monarhianstvo Paul of Samosata, but with a fundamental difference concerning the identity of Christ and the "Logo".
Paul of Samosata completely denied the Gnostic idea of Justin Philosopher and radical thought that the identification of Christ and the "Logo" is absurd. According to Paul, Jesus Christ - man, and "Logos" - the divine substance, given to him by God.
Arius so far not went and followed the line of Justin, with the only difference that claimed that "God the Son" is not eternal, not eternal - he and the son. And even if he is born, as it "Logo", "before all time", before his birth, he still did not exist.
Opponent of Arius, Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, was defended by one of the provisions of Origen, became the official position of the Church: "God the Son"born "before all time", if only because of the eternal and beginningless - how to determine the beginning, if there was no countdown?
From the point of view of modern understanding of eternity such dispute does not make sense, as both events, "the birth of God the Son" and "the beginning of all time, infinitely removed and the opponents are trying to determine what happened before. Which of the two infinitely large numbers anymore? In our time no need to be a mathematician to understand that such a question is incorrect.
But if we reject the theological and mathematical delights, intuitively Arians understood: since we are talking about the relationship between "father-son"means "God the Son" in any case appeared later God the Father and, as said Arius, "there was a time when it was not."
Perhaps, intuitively the same understanding and opponents of Arius, but further development of this idea has led to very undesirable for the Church to conclusions about the divine nature of Christ.
In recognition of the position of Arius, in any case receive two divine persons: God the eternal and original, "God the Son" is "less than" the eternal and not the original. So, no casuistry could not disguise the fact that there were two different gods, and to avoid accusations of paganism had to assume the point of view of a convict in 269 Paul of Samosata, and recognize that Christ is man.
Arius so far not dared to go, and coined the term "podobosuschnost Son to the Father" - a cross between divine and human nature of Christ. However, the masses and the "ordinary" priests Arian doctrine still was perceived closer to what Christ is a human like everyone else.
The most implacable opponent of Arius was Athanasius, the successor of Alexander the post of Bishop of Alexandria, later called the Great. This is also the nickname received his disciple and follower of Basil of Caesarea. There was another "great" enemy of Arianism - spiritual writer Macarius of Egypt.
Note that of the theologians of all previous and subsequent time the title "the great" was awarded the only teacher of Thomas Aquinas, albert von Bolshtedt, and then primarily because he was lucky with the student. "Great" popes were only two Leo I and Gregory I, the great patriarchs were not. More "magnified" a few very ascetic monks, and that's all.
It turns out that three of the four "great" theologians have distinguished themselves in the struggle against Arianism, and this shows the extent of the latter.
Note that in the polemic of Athanasius of Arieh last triumphed view of Origen, sway public opinion, paradoxically, to the position of Athanasius. As we remember, Origen said that Jesus is God, but we are all gods.
Against the Aria is played beautifully, because Arius, denying unoriginate Christ, and denied the doctrine of Origen. The latter admitted without beginning ("pre-existence"), the souls of all people, including Christ, and people always wanted to stay a little gods. Very impressive, and most importantly, promptly said Basil of Caesarea: "God became man so that man might become God".
In relation to the position of the Church was soon changed when in the middle of the fourth century it was necessary to appeal to the masses, Athanasius and Basil all were called gods, and when defeated Arianism, this was quickly forgotten, and people already at Aurelie Augustin, just fifty years, was "vile vessels of sin" and "creatures".
And let the "creature" is just the Church's interpretation of
the concept of "created being, anyway, for anyone that term is derogatory.
Open the dictionary Ozhegov " : "Creature.
But digress from Church terminology (although it is also very revealing) and I must say that even now, we at all desire can not figure out who was right-in fact, Arius and Athanasius.
The fact that their dispute quickly turned into a purely scholastic dispute, and it took Aria is the only chance to win an appeal to common sense. Ultimately, as we said, they were both wrong, comparing the events of infinity - "the beginning of eternity" and "the birth of the Son from the Father".
Not surprisingly, the debate about whether there should Arianism heresy or Canon, lasted for at least three centuries amid essentially insoluble theological problems arose also a lot of political problems.
And politically, it looked as follows.
When Emperor Constantine the Great in 324 after his victory over Licinius took over the Eastern part of the Roman Empire, he was faced with a complete confusion in the minds of bishops and primarily ordered to stop the "empty arguments". The debate did not stop. Then Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea 325, and personally presided.
The Cathedral was won by the opponents of Arius, and the latter, along with several bishops were excommunicated and exiled. Was adopted the Nicene creed, which is about the "Son, Father born", said: "the uncreated, consubstantial with the Father". Therefore, Christ was officially recognized "God the Son".
The winners were called by the word "omousiane" ("omous" in Greek means "consubstantial"). Interestingly, the position of Arius was called "omiusianstvo" ("omus" - "podobosuschnost"). How many human lives were broken because of one letter...
But homoousian winning at the Nicene Council, had a lot of tests. Their main tenet of "the Son consubstantial with the Father" did not stand up to any criticism: he was still in the year 269 proposed at the Council condemned monarhianina Paul of Samosata, but was rejected for the apparent inconsistency as two individual, God, and "God the Son"may be "consubstantial" enough to be one God?
Moreover, the term "consubstantial" enjoyed "the opposite" monarhianin - "modalist" Sabellius. And in his understanding of "consubstantial Father and Son", as we know, meant just one person that was no less absurd - it means that Christ, praying to God, praying to myself...
It is not surprising that after three years Arians managed to win the favour of Constantine the Great. In 328, Arius and his associates were returned from exile, and in 335 at the Cathedral in Dash deprived of the Episcopal dignity, and sent into exile already Athanasius.
Arius of Alexandria died in 336, After the death of Constantine in 337 omousiane led by Athanasius returned from exile and received the Episcopal chair, but not for long: the Arian Eusebius, Patriarch of Constantinople, 339, Athanasius again "demoted". The latter went to Rome, to Pope Julius, who acquitted him on the Cathedral 340,
In order not to bore the reader with details of political intrigue that
both sides wove around emperors, except to say that Athanasius was again
Athanasius of Alexandria died in 373, but his case was continued by Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus, surnamed the Theologian.
Marsianam (supporters of "consubstantiality of the Son to the Father") was required to shift attention from stress Arians personality of Jesus on the scholastic "God the Son". We saw that it was very hard, he wanted a "fresh idea", and in her late thirties IV century put forward Athanasius, and in the sixties-seventies developed Basil and Gregory.
This idea is the Declaration of God the Holy spirit - was in the forties and fifties of the IV century trump card in the political game of two omousianskih Church groups.
One of them was headed Macedonius I, Patriarch of Constantinople. The other belonged to Paul I, Patriarch of Constantinople, Julius I, Pope and bishops, theologians Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus.
And Macedonia, and Paul were omousianami and active fighters against
Arianism, but that their relationship is no better. Paul was the Patriarch of
337 to 339,, then with 341 to
Can you imagine the heat of political struggle in the Church?
Policy Paul had a theological justification for the struggle against the policy of Macedonia. Theologian Athanasius gave it, and it was the Holy Spirit, transformed into "the third person of the Trinity".
Macedonia considers the construction of the spirit in the rank of third God unnecessary and redundant. Athanasius, Basil and Gregory took advantage of this and moved into the mainstream debate pure scholasticism, which, as a professional theologians, was stronger.
Of these leaders omousianstva until the early eighties he lived only Gregory Nazianzen. He succeeded in becoming a 379, Patriarch of Constantinople, to win over the Emperor Theodosius the Great, and in 381 approve the dogma of the Trinity at the second Ecumenical (Constantinople) Cathedral.
Characteristically, about the procession of the Holy spirit in the Nicene creed of 325 nothing was said, and the words about "the Holy spirit, the Lord, the giver of life. Who proceedeth from the Father; Who with the father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets" are the addition of the Council of Constantinople of 381, which did not do unfurled. Presiding at the Council Gregory Nazianzen avoid unnecessary conflict with the followers of the former Patriarch of Macedonia and not put emphasis on controversial issues.
What a blatant polytheism in the result, we have said, analyzing the Nicene-Constantinople creed.
However, the "Trinity" suit and the Emperor, and the majority of bishops at that time, I only at the time) she was in dogmatic terms of stabilizing compromise, and politically - worked on the image of the Christian Church.
First, Athanasius, Basil and Gregory, developed and defended the dogma of the Trinity, was erected by the Holy Spirit, symbolizing the Christian religion at the head of the Church, the cult , along with Jesus Christ.
Secondly, they brought Christian theology to the very effective "Trinity" form.
The number "three" fascinated by the ancient world no less than "seven". In the Bible you can find a lot of threefold praise the Lord, and the threefold repetition of the phrase gives an instinctive balance in any utterance. Remember faith, hope, love. And if we talk about folk traditions - and the three heroes and fairy kings always had three sons, and anecdotes of our time before the final acute premise often repeated three times...
No wonder why the three. The triangle is known, defines the plane is the simplest geometric shape, the shape of pyramids, the three pillars on which stands the Earth, and so on and so on and so forth. By the way, the last said too, three times.
Thus, the dogma of the Trinity has become a powerful psychological factor. When Father was "consubstantial", except the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the Church theology has become a spectacular complete system, completely self-contained and detached from any reality.
The third God, the Holy Spirit, was very comfortable and for the state, and property claims of the Church, which declared itself its a "Keeper", and it has become a decisive political factor.
That "Trinity" was based on the teachings of Monarchians-"modalista" Savelli, nobody cared.
What can you say about the "Trinity" in the theological aspect?
About Jesus Christ we have already spoken, and will speak again. No firm basis in Scripture proclaiming him "the second hypostasis" is not.
About the Holy spirit we see a huge range of opinions of the evangelists, to the extent that it left us Christ, Dunav (Jn. 20:22). But it is important for us that the Holy Spirit as a separate God never appears.
Some so-called God himself (Matt. 1:18), in some places the Holy Spirit acts as the messenger of God (Matt. 4:1), sometimes in the form of a dove (LK. 3:22), but in most cases it spirituality or Christian teaching (LK. 4:1; 11:13; Jn. 3:34; 15:26; 16:13 and others)
The Holy Spirit in the New Testament attaches enormous importance, up to what Jesus says: "And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but he who blasphemes against the Holy spirit will not be forgiven" (LK. 12:10).
From these words of Jesus can make a huge number of far-reaching conclusions. For example, it turns out that Christ was even ready to forgive the rejection of Christianity - his teachings, if people are willing to live in accordance with Christian spiritual precepts...
But again, all of the above to the dogma of the Trinity has nothing. On the contrary - Christ in the phrase "encapsulates" the son of Man and the Holy spirit, that is, their dogmatic "consubstantial" speech cannot be.
Often quoted phrase of Jesus: "make Disciples of all Nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy spirit" (Matt. 28:19) about the nature and relationship of the latter says nothing and for our study is useless. It is referenced by the defenders of the Trinity, and totally in vain - nothing but a simple transfer of already known concepts, not here.
Opponents of the "Trinity" branded the sentence as a sham that is the other extreme. To be baptized in the name of God, Christ and Christianity - and beautiful sounds, and in fact normal. The dogma of the Trinity" includes much more than a simple enumeration of the names of the Father, the Son and the Holy spirit, and here we have no "consubstantial"or "nestorenko".
Usually in defense of the dogma of the Trinity" is a quotation from the first Epistle of the Apostle John the theologian. But we are going to prove that this Message is a little fake.
Who is the "author" is hard to say, but the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament extant, dated to the fourth century. And this is the height of the struggle against Arianism.
Is it any wonder that some of the "interested" copyists inserted in the first General Epistle of the Apostle John's words: "For there are three that bear record in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit; and These three are one" (1 Jn. 5:7). This is almost verbatim the dogma of the Trinity. Mention all three persons, and consubstantial.
The Authenticity Of 1 John. 5:7 was questioned by the Protestants in the nineteenth century, but cited the arguments associated only with no words about the "Trinity" in some manuscripts and their isolation from the General context of the surrounding phrases. However, in modern German translations of the Bible (and they made together Catholic and Protestant churches) these words are missing.
But Germany, of course, for the Russian Orthodox Church is not an order, so here is another argument against the authenticity of 1 John. 5:7.
The phrase "the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit" unknown forger stuck, but to explainwhat "the Word", I forgot! At the beginning of the Message slips "Word of life" (1 Jn. 1:1), but it is impossible to understand about Christ or not.
And in the gospel of John, as we have seen, Christ is not directly interpreted as "the Word." Moreover, the first Epistle of John dates back to the late sixties, and the fourth gospel was written at least twenty years later.
All this "the author of the forgery" did not consider, for him, after heated debates IV century the identity of Christ and "Logo" seemed natural and well-known fact.
And the Apostle John the Theologian, not knowing what falsification of three hundred years exposed to his message, ibid writes: "Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ?" (1 Jn. 2:22). So, actually, John and his Message was presented Jesus as the Messiah (Savior) in accordance with the old Testament and about the "Trinity" did not say anything.
Let's see, wrote anything on the subject of "Trinity" the Apostle Paul.
"Trinitarian" Orthodox tradition holds that place "Romans", which says about God: "For from Him and through him and to Him. To him be the glory forever. Amen" (ROM. 11:36).
Where is the dogma of the Trinity"? We see nothing but triple the glorification of God. We have already talked about this psychological factor is the impact of triple.
We note only that in Church publications can be traced unfair tendency to interpret any threefold repetition in the Bible (for example, "Holy, Holy, Holy" - Rev. 4:8) as evidence of the dogma of the Trinity.
Actually the Trinitarian and three times is completely different concepts, and we must not confuse cause and effect. We analyzed when the appearance of the dogma of the Trinity, spoke about his origin from the fascinating numbers "three". The triangle would have continued to be the most stable and harmonious geometrical figure, regardless, would have developed in the fourth century dogma or not.
"Old Testament Trinity", despite dedicated to her masterpieces iconography (including Andrei Rublev), and does not stand up to scrutiny.
Usually in her defense provides the following quote: "And the Lord said unto God, behold, Adam has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil" (Gen. 3:22).
Based on the words "one of Us", the Church theologians suggest that the world was created not by God, and "Trinity", and the result seems to be logical that in this episode, God speaks about himself in the plural.
But logically it is up to the moment when Adam did not become "like one of Us". Obtained is not three gods, but four (or even many billions if you count Adam's offspring).
Actually, most likely, the use of the plural "us" in relation to God - the subtleties of the solemn style of the Hebrew language. The same applies to the words of God: "let us Make man" (Gen. 1:26).
Perhaps because God has set to protect the Paradise of the Cherubim (Gen. 3:24), the word "Us" refers to the so-called "heavenly Host".
The latter, of course, nothing like the improbable juxtaposition legends. So far we have no means of knowing how many hierarchical levels, Archangels, Angels... But the "Trinity" in any case nothing to do with it.
In the absence of more meaningful references "Trinity" is the phenomenon of Abraham God and two Angels (Gen. 18:2).
Indeed, at first, Abraham saw "three men". On the basis of this is built all dogmatics "old Testament Trinity"and the icons of these "three men" is commonly depicted eat food under the tree (Gen. 18:8).
But then the Lord departed, leaving the two Angels (Gen.. 18:33; 19:1). Not "God the Son" and not the Holy spirit, namely, the Angels, and in the future it has been repeatedly pointed out.
Moreover, the last few later almost raped in Sodom (Gen. 19:5). Agree, if Angels were Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, then the situation would look at least strange, and the maximum is undermining the foundations of faith.
And finally, remember that the word "Trinity" is nowhere in Scripture does not occur.
We saw that the dogma of the Trinity is no compelling reason in the Bible has not.
Considering its formation on publicly available historical material, we realized that it was created solely as an instrument of political struggle of the fourth century.
And although at that time "Trinity" was a compromise, who arranged the Emperor and the majority of bishops, in accordance with our methodology to Caesar what's Caesar's," we must conclude that the doctrine of the "Trinity" is not an expression of the moral imperative, and the juxtaposition of "social" evil in the doctrine of Christ - Christianity.
Look confirmed whether our conclusion historical facts. Good or evil has brought Christians this dogma?
To answer this question don't have far to go from early Christianity.
The fact that the creators of the dogma of the Trinity, limited to questions of the divine essence of Christ and his descent from God, forgot about the fact that Christ still born from the earth women, walked, ate, drank, slept, tired and suffering (Jn. 4:6; 19:28; 11:33; LK. 22:44; 4:2; Matt. 14:4; MK. 3:5 and others)
Discussions on this subject were, but had the character of a Supplement to the much more ambitious disputes about "the Trinity".
And at the junction of the fourth and fifth centuries of the Church's theologians had to develop another dogma to answer the question, what is the relationship between Christ's divine nature, "legitimized" by the dogma of the Trinity, and the human, which still have not been able to "cancel".
In the late twenties V century, this question has been instrumental in the next outbreak of the struggle for power in the Church.
The major religious centers at that time there were four: Rome (which is on the outskirts of the Empire and shaken by the attacks of the barbarians), Constantinople (the capital), Antioch and Alexandria (two huge prosperous cities in the provinces of Syria and Egypt). Jerusalem, the fifth (and technically first) Church center, and never recovered after the collapse of the I-II centuries.
In the 419 on the relation in Christ the divine and human nature came into the discussion Nestorius, the head of the theological school of Antioch and Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria.
Nestorius claimed that the virgin Mary as a man could give birth only human and therefore should not be called Theotokos, and Christological, and his divine essence of Christ is received directly from God immediately after birth.
Cyril of Alexandria believed that divine power descended upon Christ in the womb, and accused Nestorius in the repetition of heresy monarhianina Paul of Samosata: if Christ was born a man, they remained, regardless of when you received the divine force.
As we remember, it was Paul of Samosata was the forerunner of Arianism, and, indeed, in the end it turned out that the doctrine of Nestorius close and clear barbarians-Arians, of which at this time almost exclusively composed the garrison of Constantinople.
Nestorius could take this and be in 428 Patriarch of Constantinople.
But the Patriarch Nestorius had been long - up to 431 BC, when Cyril of Alexandria, bowing to his side most of the monks, raised in the capital of the rebellion against Nestorius (though still relatively bloodless). Force applied by the Emperor Theodosius II, a supporter of Nestorius did not help, and in 431 at the 3rd Ecumenical (Ephesus), Cathedral of the latter was deposed.
We will not deal in terms of "divine child" (Canon) and "children of God" (heresy). Nestorius spoke first, Kirill accused him that he had spoken second. The Council of Ephesus was extremely scandalous, under the terrible noise of the crowds of people, led by monks supporters of Cyril, and seriously consider the complex theological questions could not.
The upshot was that the Emperor Theodosius II "passed Nestorius.
Last sent first to the monastery, and in
Note that the case of Nestorius did not die: if at the time the Arians received a huge response in the West, among the "barbarians", Nestorianism spread across the continent to the East. Asian peoples to Christianity mostly in the interpretation of the deposed Patriarch.
And in the year 431 Patriarch of Constantinople became Maximian, a protege of Cyril. Alexandria chair into a powerful Empire in, and flushed with victory Cyril of Alexandria, forgetting caution, at the end of life has stopped trying to find a "balanced" relationship between the human and the divine personalities of Christ and was in his Epistles to speak in a more definite form: "we Confess one Son, not two natures, one of the worshipped and the other Nepoklonov, but one incarnate nature of God the Word".
And although he said that the two natures United in Christ in something unique, but it turned out that the connection still was divine essence - the dogma of the Trinity" for nearly half a century as won, then what else a single entity could have "God the Son", if not the divine?
Turned out that Cyril of Alexandria, unbeknownst even to himself, was the founder of Monophysitism - flow, alleging, that Christ, though born out of two natures, divine and human, is not in two, but only at first, and human nature became a part of his divine nature.
Immediately after the death of Cyril in 444, these ideas were developed Dioscorus, the new Patriarch of Alexandria, and Eutyches, an Abbot of a monastery in Constantinople. They have issued Monophysitism "organizational"and Eutyches attracted to his side many of the monks. By the way, because of this Monophysitism sometimes referred to as "eutechinst.com".
Against Monophysitism immediately made Pope Leo the Great and United with the Patriarch of Constantinople, Flavian, 448, achieved condemnation of the Monophysites in Constantinople Cathedral. The arguments of the opponents of Monophysitism were quite significant: Christ still ate, drank, slept, prayed, and wondered...
But common sense is very few people cared, and Evtimiy with Dioscorus managed to win the favour of the Emperor, Theodosius II.
In 449 BC at Ephesus was convened by the so-called "predatory" Cathedral, acquitted Eutyches from Dioscorus to replace Flavian and elected Patriarch of Constantinople Anatolia protege of Dioscorus.
Immediately after the Council, Pope Leo the Great Alexandrian Patriarch Dioscorus betrayed each other anathema than set a precedent that marked the beginning of a centuries-old process of Church schism.
New trafficking case adopted after the death of Theodosius II. The Empress Pulcheria and her co-Emperor Marcian were opposed Monophysitism and convened in 451 at Chalcedon the 4th Ecumenical Council. Patriarch of Constantinople, Anatoly caught between two fires - the Empress and his patron Saint Dioscorus, gave the last. In Chalcedon arrived yet, and the legates of Pope Leo the Great, and the opponents Monophysitism most.
Council of Chalcedon was held, as usual, very rapidly, but still on the basis of the message of the Pope developed the dogma of the "God-man", which all churches use today. Dioscorus was deposed, which led to a local Church schism in Egypt and Armenia decision of the Council of Chalcedon were never adopted, and Monophysitism still profess the Armenian-Gregorian, Coptic (Egyptian) and the Ethiopian Church.
We got to the second core of the Church's doctrine concerning the nature of Jesus of Nazareth.
The 4th Ecumenical (Chalcedonian) Church 451, ruled: "the God-man, Jesus Christ there are two natures, God and man, and the believers are obliged to confess one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, as understood in two natures Paradise, invariable, indivisible, inseparable, so that the connection does not violated the distinction of the two natures, but more remains the property of each nature, and unites in one person and one hypostasis".
"Apologetic" tone regulation ("not at all broken...") suggests that the dogma was formed in bitter struggle.
And plenty of consoles "not" leads us to suspect that won the Council of Chalcedon theologians have solved all the problems in the good old principle: "all left out.
Indeed, for each key issue appears to be:
God or man? Both, just nature "nality and unchanged", and their properties are preserved.
This Christ - one person? One, just "nature indivisible and inseparable".
Okay, let's think: what is "nature"? Origin?
If only the origin! This desire and will, and energy, and action.
The last statement is my personal guess. This is a "clear" at the 6th Ecumenical (Constantinople) the Council in the year 680, analyzing the ratio is two "desires, wills, energy and acting" in Jesus.
The above four concepts are almost exhaustive description of personality.
Very intricate and casuistic definition of the 6th Ecumenical Council about when the divine will in Christ became human desire and how it weighed the divine and human energies, unprincipled. Fundamentally, the presence of the "God-man" two unmerged "desires, wills, energy and acting" means the presence of two personalities.
In the end, with the tenet of "God-man" at the 4th Ecumenical Council in 451 happened the same thing with the "Trinity" for seventy years earlier: solved each of the problems separately, closing her eyes to rest.
The main thing is that with the "Trinity" was connected: there is a "God-man" self divine essence - so here it is, "God the Son", "the second person of the Trinity", "nesamoney, consubstantial with the Father", "existed before all time"... And human nature - Yes, she's Jesus too was, but to the divine nothing had.
In short, separately, both God and man.
And in General left a sea of paradoxes such as the one divine person of Jesus all knew existed "before all time", but could not "whisper" of man that we should not doubt the success of the case, in vain, to survive and to pray in the garden of Gethsemane that need to preach in Asia Minor, not in Jerusalem...
Actually, something similar in our time is called dissociative identity disorder. In the best case, this constant mental anguish, at worst mental illness, and depending on its severity is assigned outpatient or inpatient treatment.
And in the gospel we read: "Every Kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand" (Matt. 12:25).
But theological paradoxes is little anyone cared about in the V century, when there was a Frank struggle for power.
Returning from Chalcedon Monophysite priests raised a rebellion in Jerusalem (the city was sacked) and Alexandria (in the temple was locked and burned a large detachment of government troops, and during the next rebellion in 457 BC was killed by the Orthodox Patriarch Proterias). Gradually Monophysite riots spread to Syria, where at the end of the fifth century the population terrorized by gangs of fanatical monks, and the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch shared the fate of his Alexandrian colleague.
The Emperor Zeno in 482 published promonofizitsky conciliation decree, the so - called "Henoticon" (another translation is "Enotik"), which only worsened the situation, as consistently anti-Monophysite Roman Church after 35 years ceased communication with the East.
Not surprising - ownership of the Pope was surrounded by barbarians-Arians, and with them had to be considered. Monophysitism (the priority of the divine essence of Christ) was the complete opposite of Arianism (the priority of human nature), and the dogma of the "God-man", as we have seen, was a certain conditional compromise, no wonder it insisted on the Council of Chalcedon legates of Pope Leo I "the Great".
But in Constantinople Henoticon support not found: Metropolitan priests, the phrase "Christ is one and not two" seemed Monophysite and was considered a heresy.
After a complicated tangle of political intrigue, in which participated and the ruler of the greater part of Italy, the famous king of the Ostrogoths, the Arian Theodoric (approx. 454-526), Constantinople took the throne Justin Senior.
At the same time "changed" and the Patriarch of Constantinople. We considered the nominations and the Arians, Monophysites, but in order to calm the raging passions of a new Patriarch was John II of Cappadocia, a supporter of Chalcedon compromise.
This time the compromise prevailed on the firm - a hundred years, the Monophysites in Constantinople position passed, but the Roman Empire, then often called the Byzantine, almost lost Syria, Egypt and Palestine. Last, despite the strong hand of the Emperor Justinian (the successor of Justin the Elder) are out of control and were soon conquered by the Persians, and at the end of VII century by Arab Muslims.
The once thriving city of Alexandria and Antioch fell into decay and gradually disappeared from the map. Modern Alexandria was built in the XIX century and again and in another place, and the place Antioch, now a small village. Jerusalem "lucky" and he survived only because the prophet Muhammad considered him a Holy city.
We see that the discussion of the doctrines of the Trinity and the God-man" turned out to be the catalysts of the schism of the Byzantine Empire and the actual death of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem Patriarchy.
In the sixth century by Emperor Justinian in the Christian Church came a period of relative calm, the peak of which was the 5th Ecumenical (Constantinople) Cathedral 553, which once again condemned the Monophysite "finished off the remains of the Nestorians and decided it possible to burn heretics, anathema posthumously (in particular, the anathema was devoted to Origen).
But in the seventh century again flared up passions. Emperors, trying to restore the unity of the Empire before the face of an unsuccessful war with the Persians, began to seek compromise with the Monophysites.
Patriarch of Constantinople Sergius in agreement with the Emperor in 619, declared that Christ in two natures there is only one will. Hence the new theological course - monothelitism.
Note that this was a step towards common sense, but a heated debate has begun again. "Tree options" balance of nature, wills, energies and actions in Christ branch out directly proportional to the flow of time. Virtually every major diocese in response to the appeal made by St. Sergius of his vision problems, and attempts to find a new compromise lasted for many years.
In 638, it seemed that the deed is done, and monothelitism leaned even Pope Honorius (and dad were old enemies of Monophysitism), but this year both died and Pope Honorius, and the Patriarch Sergius.
The new Pope John IV declared strong opposition to monothelitism and allegiance to the Council of Chalcedon. His successor Martin I continued this line, in 653, he was arrested by order of the Emperor of Constantinople, and in 655, condemned and exiled.
The chief opponents of monothelitism in the East, the philosopher Maximus the Confessor, typical for that time sholastitsizmom argued that, if the two natures of Christ, the wills of the same must necessarily be two. Common sense his speculative logic was not able to overcome, and he chose to accept martyrdom: in the same 655, he was sentenced along with Pope Martin, cut out the tongue, cut off his right arm and sent.
Methods of dealing with dissidents gradually took more and more radical forms. It seemed that by force emperors succeeded celebration monothelitism.
But during the reign of Constantine Pogonat Rome, remained an opponent of monothelitism, threatened to split, and the Emperor preferred to avoid conflict - was another unsuccessful war, this time with the Arab Muslims, the political situation was extremely difficult, and the loss of Rome would have been a terrible blow.
The main defender of monothelitism, Patriarch Theodore, was deposed, and in 680 was called the 6th Ecumenical (Constantinople) Cathedral.
Last on the basis of the message of the Pope brought the compromise of Chalcedon 451 two "unmerged" natures of Christ until the full and final absurdity, declaring Jesus of Nazareth the presence of two desires, two wills and two energies and two energies.
With this dogma, the largest Church live today.
In our time, to justify the dogma of the God-man" churches used a psychological trick: separately justified the divine nature of Christ (with many references to Scripture and human nature (with equal number of links).
This kinda assumes of course, that the reader is initially configured on the tenet of "God-man", will draw conclusions about what these entities are in Christ "Paradise, invariable, indivisible, inseparable, in accordance with the decision of the Council of Chalcedon, 451
Actually about any such relationship between the divine and human natures of Christ in the Holy Scripture says nothing.
That Christ is God, says a lot. His so-called "non-believer" Apostle Thomas (Jn. 20:28), his divine nature talked a lot and he (John. 8:58; 10:30; 16:28), this was also confirmed by the Apostle Paul (Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:1-3; Eph. 3:9; Rome. 8:3; 9:5; 1 Tim. 3:16, and others)
But, so to say, God is the God of strife.
The task of Orthodox churches was the announcement of the gods are not all men, but only of Christ (of course, without derogating from God the Father), resulting Jesus of Nazareth became descended from heaven (literally) "the second person of the Trinity", and "God-man", completely torn away from us - "sinful creatures.
In fact, Christ is the same God as we all are. Hence the same person, as we all are. No fundamental, insurmountable differences between the divine essence of Jesus and the other people there.
Supporters of the doctrines of the Trinity and the son of God" say: if Christ is man, it turns out that he was deceiving himself, or us, speaking of his divine nature.
But the question is, what do I mean by "man".
If the person, in accordance with Orthodox theology, is "sinful fallen creature", then Christ must have really cheated.
But if you put in the word "man" (not necessarily even write with a capital letter) the humanistic understanding, which sets a moral imperative, then Christ was a man. And he was a man of honest, because all the words about his divine essence was applied to all other people.
There is still more indisputable proof of this.
"The Jews said to Him in answer: not for a good work we stone You but for blasphemy, and because Thou, being a man, make Yourself God.
Jesus answered them, is it not written in your law, I said ye are gods"? If He called them gods, unto whom the word of God, and cannot be disturbed by the Scripture, " Tom, Whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, you say, "blaspheme, because I said, I am the Son of God?" (Jn. 10:33-36).
It turns out that Jesus Christ himself, to prove their divine essence appealed to the divine essence of other people, referring to the Psalm: "I have said ye are gods and sons of God - all of you" (PS. 81:6).
The Orthodox Church to separate Christ from us, and goes on outright fraud.
Orthodox Jews asked Jesus: "Who are you?" (Jn. 8:25). Open the Bible in Church Slavonic and read what he replied: "First, as I call you."
And in the translation of the nineteenth century the word "firstfruits" ("start") turned into "Things". As we can see, the interpretation is rather arbitrary and biased.
By the way, Christ taught us one very fundamental and seemingly well-known things. The main and, by and large, the only Christian prayer "our father". Any other prayer Jesus Christ believed paganism (Matt. 6:7-9). But that's not it. Will say to himself only the first two words "our father" and let us consider: we turn to our Father! It means that any man is God's son (or daughter).
Absolutely illegal is read in modern Orthodox temples of this prayer with the words of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy spirit" after "for Thine is the Kingdom and the power and the glory". Another tendentious manipulation of the text of the prayer is fully described in Matt. 6:9-13, and the Russian Orthodox Church is not entitled it "edit".
Remembering the prayer "our father", we moved on to the first three Gospels, and they often emphasized the human nature of Christ.
When Christ healed the paralytic, "but when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men" (Matt. 9:8).
Jesus said: "why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone" (MK. 10:18).
And the phrase of Jesus in the sermon on the mount": "blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God" (Matt. 5:9)?
To finally understand that Jesus is the same God as we are, and we are as gods, as he is, we should note that Luke leads the genealogy of Jesus to God directly, but through Joseph, David, Abraham, Eber and Adam (LK. 3:23-38). And we are all descendants of Adam, therefore we are the same as Christ.
The Apostle Peter said, "Men of Israel! Hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by Him among you..." (acts. 2:22).
And in his Epistle Peter just one sentence puts out of common sense, all future delights about existence of Jesus Christ is "before all time": he sees Christ, "foreordained before the existence of the world, but manifested in these last times for you who have believed through Him in God" (1 Pet. 1:20-21). Agree that the exclusiveness and "pre-existence" is not the same.
The essence of Christ in the teaching of the Apostle Paul interpreted rather vague - however, as the essence of the Messiah in the old Testament prophets. But the word "Messiah", as we know, means "Anointed of God", that is, that man, endowed with some divine powers.
However, Paul was hardly concerned with the problem of a clear definition of the nature of Jesus - for he was quite sufficient to continually emphasize his Messianic role.
Here is a typical example. It is believed that Paul wrote a solemn hymn: "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of Angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory" (1 Tim. 3:16).
And from this it follows that in the flesh was God himself. As we recall, a similar view was expressed monarhianin-"modalist" Sabellius. But wait from the solemn hymn (and even more dubious authenticity is very much not in the spirit of Paul "bsprecovrate") theological depth is not necessary.
And let Paul calls Christ the God, the man - about any "unmerged, immutable, indivisible, inseparable," the confluence of personalities he has no speech.
Moreover, the vast majority of phrases Paul about the essence of us and Christ tells us that Jesus is the same as we. Quote:
"For He (God SZ) has appointed a day in which you will judge the world in righteousness, through foreordained by her Husband, giving identity to all by raising Him from the dead" (acts. 17:31).
"The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God" (ROM. 8:16).
"For if by thy mouth will confess that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" (ROM. 10:9).
"If there is no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen" (1 Cor. 15:13).
"Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus will raise through Jesus and us, and put before Him with you" (2 Cor. 4:14).
"So then, brethren, the saints, the members of the heavenly calling, settle Apostle and high Priest of our confession, Jesus Christ" (Heb. 4:1). By the way, the appeal of "saints" is used by Paul in all the Epistles to the Christians.
"So Christ also glorified not Himself the glory to be the high Priest, but He Who said to Him: "Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee" (Heb. 5:5).
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5). This phrase is short and clear answer to all questions.
And let's pay special attention to the phrase: "Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Jesus Christ" (Gal. 4:7).
On later attempts to "modernize" and "update" Chalcedonian dogma "of the son of God" we will have the opportunity to speak, and so far only state: "nelinet, permanence, and inseparability inseparability" of the two natures in Christ is no basis in Scripture is not. As well as the announcement of Jesus of Nazareth, "the second person of the Trinity".
No difference between the divine nature of Christ and the other people there.
But as in the middle ages were able to triumph this point of view, if the understanding of people as the gods began to interfere with the claims of the Church in state domination?
On this subject there is an interesting analogy. Let us ask ourselves the question: why in the armies of most countries of the person primarily humiliated?
And the so-called "hazing" has nothing to do with the humiliation inherent in the military system. First of all, as you know, soldiers dressed in the same form and display on the parade ground, where long and hard to teach different builds, front step, "left alignment" and other things seems to be useless from the point of view of common sense and military art.
Indeed, it would seem that the case of a soldier to shoot, run "forced marches", dig trenches, throwing grenades... And March, why? Coordination of train movements was crawling on their bellies, the battle is much more useful. The traditions of the times, when soldiers in the attack were taken in close formation and built in the "square"? Since then it has been over a hundred years, and drill, and now there. And well if only "ceremonial" shelf, but it's on the parade ground keepers of all who wear shoulder-straps.
And the fact that ill drill drill is under a centuries-old Foundation is to create a soldier's subconscious belief that he is a pawn, whose life does not belong to him and is little purpose. If the command is "left dress" follow "go to the light", unquestioning execution must be recorded on the child".
As you know, in the middle ages the state management guidelines were indistinguishable from the army and was based on ill hierarchical coercion.
Naturally, the soldiers on the parade ground" absolutely inappropriate to recall that they were gods. To cultivate in them "complex sinful creatures much more efficiently.
And so it happened that when the Orthodox Church adopted a complex and contradictory dogmas of the Trinity and the God-man", for the divine nature people places left.
Christianity and modernity
The author of this book can specify the logical question:
- "Still, why are You so uncompromising abandon the Orthodox doctrines of the Trinity and the God-man"? Nowadays, few people seriously talking about the suggestion of certain dogmas directly by God or the Holy Spirit. It is clear that in the early middle ages there was a fierce political struggle, in which these dogmas were formed.
Yes, and the Church recognizes this struggle - it is considered in detail in all Orthodox theological books, both scientific and popular.
But one God or three "consubstantial" - which, by and large, is the difference? "Trinity" is so merged with the Orthodox tradition, which is seen by the overwhelming majority of people as it is organic and absolutely essential part. In the end, not only clergy Florensky, Men, and entirely secular philosophers Soloviev, Rozanov, Berdyaev is implicitly acknowledged the dogma of the Trinity, and, for example, Karsavin his theory of personality is fully built on this dogma.
As for the consubstantiality of Jesus and us, at the end of the NINETEENTH century Vladimir Solovyov was developed the doctrine of "manhood", speaking about the potential of people to be like "God-man".
Philosophers "Russian religious Renaissance" was also expanded the use of the term "deification"in the middle ages used only against the saints. So, in principle, each of us can be almost the same as any "person of the Trinity".
So why break the spear in the fight against the "Trinity"? Thank God, now the Orthodoxy in Russia enjoys the esteem and respect, so let it be the way it is"...
In this question instead of the word "Orthodoxy" you could substitute "Catholic" or "Protestant", and instead Russia - any European (and not only European) country. Anyway, this issue is very serious, and to answer it we need a whole Chapter.
But first of all I must say that I am in any case not going to "break the spear in the fight" against "Trinity"nor against the Orthodox or the Catholic Church, nor against anyone else. Moreover, I, the Ecumenical advocates the unification of all Christian (and in the long run - not only Christian) churches.
And for what I have shown that the dogma of the Trinity" and "man" are outdated and in need of radical revision - explain.
Here is a very extensive and very revealing quote from the writings of Leo Karsavina On personality (all the italics belong Karsavina):
"Hypostasis is the true identity (but not the mask!). But the hypostasis - God personality; and if we calmly called of God, Incarnation of God, Personalities and even the Persons of God, we feel uneasy when they start to call the human hypostasis or person created. Wicked and wrong. And this is undoubtedly due, in Christ the two natures or two usii (and therefore two energies, two wills, two "souls"), but only one person - Hypostasis of the Logos, which, of course, is not something a third between God and man is not different from God, but is God himself.
So, in His humanity the God-man personal only because He is in God's Hypostasis (enypostasis), prichastvuet hypostasis of God and God, has God's alter ego and God, as himself. But, as the God-man is the perfect man, it is impossible to admit that it was not something inherent in the person, but the person was anything beyond the inherent. Therefore, strictly speaking, there is not and cannot be created, or human hypostasis or Person, if we are talking about human beings, it is only in the sense of possess and prichastvuemoy man of God Hypostasis or Person. And how could it be otherwise, since the true identity of God's Hypostasis and two people can't both be true?
So in God we find unity, higher than the individual personality, for He is tripartisan, and, moreover, the unity that gulino be called personal, for the hypostatic existence is not out of His usii and she does not resist, being in the form of its existence, and He is a personal God. This eliminates as misleading, the recognition of individual identity for the only concrete personal existence, i.e. denied any nominalism, and, on the contrary, affirms the reality symphonically-personal the existence. And thus - and "structure" the individual personality, as mnogoedinstva. But, recognizing God as the only true person, we must understand the human created, and in General a person, as pricesthere man of God Hypostasis or possessed by the person, the name of God. Hence the need for a special way to understand a person, it is to understand it as the created substrate impersonal, unknowable and unfathomable like his God and fully samodvizhny. The sense of human and creaturely existence will be revealed then, as his "litsetvorenie" or "deification" (theosis)".
Note that in the quoted passage is an attempt to make the dogma of the "God-man" is more logical, recognizing in Christ only one "true identity" is divine.
What heresy it reminds us of? Of course, Monophysitism.
Another important point. By Karsavina, man is "created an impersonal substrate, uncertainty and incomprehensibility of his like God", and the meaning of his existence - "litsetvorenie" or "deification".
Despite the use of the term Orthodox officialdom "created"humiliating to the modern man is Lev Platonovich could not write "created"?), does it look like the teachings of Origen about the "pre-existence of souls and the divine essence of people branded as heresy at the fifth Ecumenical Council?
In the end, no matter how you try to "peacefully coexist" with the Church officialdom, anyway, any attempt to link the medieval with the modern tenets of common sense will lead to the fact that the new is well forgotten old. More precisely, the old heresy. And the Orthodox Church will not tell you thank you, and will not accept your point of view, and will not develop on its basis a new dogma.
And to common sense as you arrive - even Christ said, "neither do men put new wine into old bottles; else the bottles break, and the wine flows, and the bottles perish" (Matt. 9:17).
As a result, this approach results in unimaginable intellectual strata, and cited a philosophical text Lev Karsavin - not the most complex and unreadable from a variety of written on this topic.
Hence, we must seek spiritual support solely those sources of Christian doctrine, when there was neither Orthodox nor Catholic, nor heresy, but only Jesus Christ, the apostles and the New Testament.
And since, as we have shown, there was no dogma or "Trinity"or "God-man" - well, we'll have to do without them. Help us anything they can't, but to prevent it. We have just seen, in which the trap they fell Lev Karsavin, so let's learn from the mistakes of others and their own, as they say, to make make it.
Without errors has not been costed, but it was wrong and Christ! What is his main fault, that it was only to preach in Israel! (Matt 10:5-6). We have already said that if not for the Apostle Paul, the work of Christ could die.
And certainly Jesus (Matt. 26:37-39)? How do they reconcile with the doctrine of the "Trinity" and "consubstantial Son to the Father"? Is "the second person" prayed the night before his arrest "first person" "to get past the Cup? What a strange communication, unworthy of divine omniscient beings... And that, interestingly, this time doing the "third person"?..
Won't laugh at the medieval delusions, just a pity that they still dominated in all the main Christian churches. I wonder who and when did the first dare to abandon the canonical dogmas of the Trinity and the God-man" - Orthodoxy, Catholicism or Lutheranism?
And "Trinity" could remain the same category of purely philosophical and historical attractions, as, for example, "Sophia-divine wisdom." The latter, as we have seen, also had a convincing justification in the canonical Scripture, and the Church renounced the cult of "Sophia" in the early second Millennium. Do not worry if this does not happen, and Christianity is not dead.
Note that in the twentieth century about "Sofia" remembered not only philosophers "Russian religious Renaissance". We remember and we all St. Sophia in Constantinople, Kiev and Novgorod, thank God, are in place and are equally unparalleled architectural masterpieces as the Trinity Cathedral in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra.
But the dogmas that have no convincing justification in the Scriptures, the Foundation of the Christian religion cannot be.
If no convincing justification in the Bible was the only argument against the doctrines of the Trinity and the God-man", I could be accused of dogmatic conservatism.
But the rejection of these doctrines, there are other aspects, in addition to the theological.
The historical aspect we have already considered and seen how these doctrines were formed in the early middle ages and what bloodshed resulted. However, this is not surprising - lack of orientation on the moral imperative inevitably leads to the escalation of the "social evil.
Now let's look at the social aspect of the problem.
All the major Christian churches consider the manifestation of the divine nature "of God" that Christ rules over the dead and the living (ROM. 14:9), has the power of judgment (ROM. 14:10), is a "recipient" of prayer (1 Cor. 1:2), the source of grace (ROM. 1:7), the source of salvation (ROM. 10:9), the founder of the Church (1 Cor. 5:4)...
First, again rearranged cause and effect - if Jesus all of the above received ascended into heaven and siwsi the right hand of God, it is about its origin and essence says nothing.
Secondly, all of this is the Apostle Paul refers to the Messianic role of Christ as the Messiah, as we know, means "Anointed of God", that is, of man with God, some special powers, rights and abilities.
This we have already considered. Interestingly another.
The medieval Church, relocated the cause and effect, gave the "Anointed one" in accordance with the dogma of the Trinity" primordial divine entity (other than the divine essence of people)that are very suited kings of all times and peoples, too, "anoint" in the Kingdom and call themselves the "Anointed of God". The emperors, kings and emperors were not enough to imagine himself on a par with the Messiah, they wanted to be equal with God.
Really, an analogy with the Roman Emperor Caligula, all the statues of pagan gods ordered to put his head together with a halo. Regarding the latter, I'm not kidding: images of Christian saints halo moved with statues of Roman emperors, and on them he (in the form of a pointed rays) was needed in order for the August head did not sit down pigeons and other birds...
Okay, this is a personal matter emperors - a cult to install and what statues sculpting. All this would not be so bad, but it started and "feedback" - Jesus Christ in the middle ages people were perceived not as our intercessor before God, as well as punishing the sovereign.
It is no coincidence that the people was so popular cult of the blessed virgin Mary, patroness" - she intercedes for us before Christ, the Savior!
Still, in the minds of the people to be someone's "good", hence the huge number of icons dedicated to the virgin Mary, and the magnificent celebration of the life stages, and addressed to her prayers. Sorry, but it turns out as something disreputable "good mother" reasoned with "evil son", aspiring to send us all fry in hell...
And don't blame the teaching of Jesus in these paradoxical folk traditions. They absolutely should flow logically from the desire to link the medieval Church in the whole concept of God, Christ and king.
Of course, the sin of blaming Catholicism and Orthodoxy in the fact that in the middle ages any Almighty Emperor confessed to God. It is not clear another - who are afraid of the Church now?
Ignoring the simple and accessible teachings of Jesus and the apostles, the largest Christian churches still don't want to admit that the divine origin of Christ is similar to ours. And yet, until very recently, the divinity was conferred earth "Anointed of God" - the kings, kings and emperors.
Begs extremely disappointing and hopefully unfair conclusion: the Church waiting for new dictators to solemnly declare their gods, and their subjects to leave the rank of "sinful creatures. This conclusion caused by the medieval dogma of the Trinity" and "God-man", harmful to the Christian religion, and for any Church.
But, unfortunately, that like the policy of the Russian Orthodox Church against state power, we see the correctness of this conclusion. The convergence of Church and state leads to fruitless attempts to "sanctification" those who do not deserve it. Though not in the form of "anointing of the Kingdom", but the essence remains the same.
You cannot serve both God and the President. "No one can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one and love the other; or one will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon" (Matt. 6:24).
The rejection of the dogmas of the Trinity and the God-man" is and cosmological aspect.
The fact that both Orthodox and Catholic dogma was formed during the reign of ptolemaios geocentric system of the world, claiming not just the exclusivity and uniqueness of the earth civilization.
But today, with much greater knowledge about the Universe, we must assume that rational, and spiritual forms of life exist anywhere else. What's more is that not all forms of life "humanoid" (anatomically similar to humans).
Speaking about the moral imperative emanating from God, we with enough confidence can assume its function in terms of any intelligent life forms. But the Church dogma of the incarnation of God the Son" in terms of extraterrestrial civilizations takes a very strange character.
Of course, you can assume that "God the Son" in the choice of its physical shell and method of execution took into account the specifics of a particular civilization, and "incarnate" in each queue.
But it sounds funny, and leads to a theological absurdity. In fact, according to the most Orthodox concepts, atoning for human it is passion of Jesus. And if the pain became just one episode of a long "detour" of various civilizations, lost and uniqueness, and significance of the work of Christ.
A much more logical and convincing looks assumption that on other planets goodness and love teach any local preachers, and every civilization comes to understanding God and the triumph of the moral imperative in their own ways.
For us, this conclusion is particularly important because on Earth we see some of the biggest (so-called "world"religions, seeking their path to goodness and love.
We, if you want to call themselves true Christians, may not be considered a Buddha or Mohammed below or above Christ. Just Buddhists your spiritual path, the Muslims have their own, the Christians call their own, but the goal (in a good faith interpretation of the corresponding teachings) is one and the same - improving life on Earth and the triumph of the moral imperative.
All of the above applies to different Christian denominations.
The building of the Kingdom of God is our common task, and religious hatred have no place among the people, United by a moral imperative.
In this regard, we note another aspect of the contradictions of the dogma of the Trinity and the passion of Jesus - moral.
It consists in the fact that Christ as the second person of the Trinity", "the uncreated and consubstantial", for modern man is intuitive and therefore perceived in isolation from any moral, usually lying exactly in the subconscious plane.
But the power of Christianity, as we have shown, that it is the most complete and adequate expression of the moral imperative. Moreover, moral alternatives to Christianity in millions of poorly educated people do, and a separation of Christianity from morality means for them the loss of any spiritual orientation and leads to the triumph of the "social evil.
Theological death of Christ is interpreted as the atonement for our sins, but as the man Jesus died for his teachings, showed us an example of how intense desire for goodness and love, time for you to go out and painful death.
And if Christ is not man, but "God the Son" or "God-man", then what is the example?
The opinion of the Church theologians that the suffering on the cross "God the Son" had to be much more severe than the punishment of an ordinary person, completely fits into the fabric of traditional humiliation Orthodox churches. Actually the suffering of any person committed to a painful death, infinite and incomprehensible. God forbid, of course, none of us know them myself...
And it turns out that the vast majority of modern people may think (and think) the following: "In Christ and "God the Son"to preach the goodness and love, and for it to go to the cross. God, then hang on the cross and rise again - no problems, but that's what us mere mortals do? It's better we get along somehow without kindness and love"...
And here comes a man in Church, listening incomprehensible set of chants and all. Before he can get there?
And if you would make an image of Christ is clear to everyone! And if often heard preaching goodness and love, including many hours of air time provided by broadcasters Church! And if, for example, the Patriarch was periodically applied to the Orthodox Russians with calls to eradicate drug abuse, corruption and other evils of society, to observe certain moral norms (up to clean the streets), and to their government to stop the next "local" war and accelerate the process of nuclear disarmament!
Maybe in our life, something would actually improve? After all, what a huge force - Christian spirituality, and it's a shame to see how it is spent on medieval rituals...
Hence, the need maximum simplification, not complication Christian dogma.
But the limits of this simplification are dictated by Scripture - document today (as well as during the previous two millennia), most fully expresses the moral imperative.
The use of any other dogmatic constructions repeatedly and unnecessarily increases the likelihood of a "social evil.
Drawing on historical, social, cosmological and moral aspects rejection of the dogmas of the Trinity and the God-man", we can move toward ecumenism.
The fact that the rejection of these doctrines could be the basis for uniting all faiths and create "one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church".
In order to show the objective necessity of ecumenism, it is necessary to understand why the presence of the name of the religious organization of the word "Church" (in particular, "Russian Orthodox") is not a synonym for compliance with the teachings of Jesus Christ.
To do this, let's remember once again the devil's temptation, this time all three.
"Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil, and when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered.
And came to Him the tempter, and said, if Thou be the Son of God, say that these stones become bread.
He said to him in response: written: not by bread alone doth man live, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Then the devil takes Him into the Holy city, and setteth Him on a pinnacle of the temple, and saith unto Him, if Thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written he shall give his angels charge concerning Thee, and on hands they shall bear Thee, and will not stumble against a stone Thy foot.
Jesus said to him: it is written: thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
Again the devil takes Him to a very high mountain, and sheweth Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, and said to Him: all these will I give Thee, if falling down, worship me.
Then Jesus saith unto him, get thee behind Me, Satan, for it is written: the Lord thy God, worship, and Him only shalt thou serve.
The devil leaveth Him, and behold, Angels came and ministered unto Him" (Matt. 4:1-10).
Very, very not like the official Church in the middle ages to remember these temptations, and now the Church theologians to try to "ignore".
Not only because this episode is a serious argument against the dogma of the Trinity: why is the devil suddenly began to tempt "the all-knowing and Almighty God the Son", "existed before all time, "the uncreated and consubstantial with God the Father?
And not only because there is a contradiction in translation: until the end of XIX century in Russian translation of the gospel of Luke was written not "get thee behind me, Satan", and "go behind me, Satan", that is, something like "use your brains, Satan, and go with me to serve God."
By the way, this is one of the arguments against the analysis of the Bible in the level of sounds, letters and words - God knows how many inaccuracies have crept in a long chain of translations, even of the New Testament, not to mention the old.
But still it's the little things that do not change the overall effect. The main thing - the Church does not like to remember the devil's temptations because of their symbolic meaning. Let's think about it:
In the first temptation (make stones bread) Jesus Christ gave up worldly pleasures.
In the second jump from the roof of the temple) - cheap "pretentious".
In the third (control kingdoms) - from the government.
Very unpleasant for the majority of clergy precedent. They, of course, would need to be on Jesus and renounce material wealth, pomp, and power, but wanted so much and hoping to live, and to wear clothes embroidered with gold, and manage the States...
What did they do? Rewrite the two Gospels, throwing huge chunks of text about the temptation? It is unrealistic.
And the saving idea for the Church was found even in the fourth century, and it turned out the third hypostasis of the Trinity: if the Holy Spirit is the same God as "God the Son", then he does all that he considers necessary.
Where in the Gospels, for example, says that the Holy Spirit must renounce worldly pleasures, kingdoms and other "useful" things?
And "Sacred tradition"? As I wanted the Church to the decrees of Councils, popes and patriarchs "quoted" on a par with the Bible! Of course, already in the fifth century a "spiritual" interpretation "Trinity" - the old Testament (God the Father), the New Testament ("God the Son"and "Holy tradition" (the Holy Spirit). Convenient, right?
However, in a futile attempt to convince the Church to go on "awkward" way of Christ were numerous, and in this regard it is useful to remember this religious movement, as Donatism.
Referred it back to the days of diocletianic persecution beginning of the fourth century, was named after the Carthaginian Bishop Donat and consisted in the fact that for any priest necessary personal infallibility, or "Holy sacrament"committed them to lose their force.
Of course, the vast majority of priests were not happy, Donatist Church hated, and finally to brand Donatism as heresy managed to Augustine in Carthage Cathedral 411 year. The Council decided that God's grace operates independently of the Holiness of the Church.
Of course, don't do that Augustine would have done someone else, and still get that Aurelie Augustin blame for a huge number of abuses of the clergy, as in the middle ages, and in our time. And a secret Vice, and financial fraud, and political intrigue, and more, until the duty-free vodka and cigarettes, the Russian Orthodox Church in our time.
Against Donatism usually put forward the following "poetic" argument: the pipe can be rusty, and the water flowing through it, clean. But this "poetic pragmatics" we can say: it is not necessary to be a plumber, to know that from rusty pipes can flow only rusty water.
And aside from poetry, then, of course, no dogma can not force a person to be Holy. We really look at the world and understand that perfectly.
And yet, if the Church hierarchy "hung" donatistskoe of the necessary personal Holiness of the Church from the many unsavory acts that would keep them.
The laity, and even more traders live by the same rules, and the priests still have to live on the other and, if possible, to give others the example set by Jesus Christ: selfless dedication and willingness to sacrifice for the sake of it all. Even life.
But it is in theory. In practice, however, everything was different.
As we know, in the fourth century the Church became a state.
In the middle ages, the West went on the way so-called "parietaria", and the East is on the way "Caesaropapism". In the first case, the priests sought to gain state power, in the second, the state sought to subjugate the priests.
Will not again conduct a historical review of the situation and popes, and with the Moscow Patriarch and the Holy Synod is well known. Suffice it to say that "papocesarism", and "Caesaropapism" not only are the typical manifestations of "social" evil, but disastrous for the Church.
And it can be proved.
Our methodology Caesar what belongs to Caesar" says the notion of "state Church" is as absurd in its essence, as "good government". The Church (at least ideally) is God, and any state, as we know, is the devil.
"You cannot serve God and mammon" (Matt. 6:24).
And for those who still believes that our methodology abstract and detached from the realities of life, explain the perils of the concepts "state Church" on our main "social" example - wolf pack.
We talked about the "happy hunting", which is the base of the "social evil. But let's see whether cloudless relationships within schools? Does not play any situation "Akela has missed at all hierarchical levels of society, where neighbors and try to tear small neighbor and to take his place in the hierarchy (or the den, or burrow, or apartment)?
And it turns out that even being inside a wolf pack the rights of its equal member does not guarantee nor life, nor peace, nor happiness. Moreover, reduces the likelihood of having both, and third.
The fact that, for example, moose is a potential victim may think that we should not go to places where yaws wolf pack, quietly grazing in remote swamps and raise elk.
But the wolf inside of the pack, the rest can only dream of. Through blood and dust, as in the poem of the Block. And the probability of death of the wolf is not less or more than the elk. Biologists will confirm this - the predators have no natural enemies, so if they are not killed in intraspecific combat, he would be multiplied in large quantities.
Let's return to human society. The fact that modern society does not like conductors moral imperative and absolutely objectively seeks to crucify me.
But the Church refuses to serve God and started to "play" by the rules of the state, sooner or later will have no less difficult: getting involved in the hierarchical social relations, it becomes an object of intrigue "neighbors on society".
Turns a sad situation, when first in the fight social evil with the moral imperative of the Church together with the state together crucifies the prophets, and then the state, according to the laws "vnutrioblastnoy" struggle, "crucifies" Church.
In the latter case, of course, the main object of envy of neighbors in the society is the wealth (in the form of money, and property), and begin trivial lawsuits. For "Patrimonio St. Peter", for profit, churches, monastic lands... For that only for two thousand years the Church did not litigation! She not only bought that she had not only been selected!
And in the early twenties of the twentieth century, the Orthodox Church on "the laws of war communism, the Bolsheviks confiscated all. And temples, and property, and... believers.
The vast majority of parishioners in the best case stood as security officers trampled by the feet of the robe, and at worst, actively participated in the "expropriation of the expropriators". No wonder in their eyes, the Church was the same "bloodsucker of the working people", as the landlords and the bourgeoisie, and the Royal family...
It is hardly necessary to regret about "expropriated" icons, vestments, and the censers, and the chalices - thousand shot and killed in the camps priests are far more worthy object of pity. But it is characteristic that Patriarch Tikhon was in 1922 arrested by the Bolsheviks, not because of ideological struggle against Marxism-Leninism, and because of the resistance to the mass looting of churches.
So again and again, let's recall of St. Tikhon, but still regret primarily in the politics of the Russian Orthodox Church during the whole time of its existence was to follow the state "fairway". Peter, by abolishing the Patriarchate in Russia and creating Sacred Synod, chaired by the chief Prosecutor (layman), brought this process to a logical absurdity.
And the Bolsheviks only took advantage of the "fruits" of the centuries-old policy of merging Church and state.
And we agree: in the early twentieth century there was no spiritual victory of Marxism over Christianity. Was a political victory of the Bolshevik party over the other political parties and fledgling Russian democracy.
And the fate of the losers were separated and the Russian Orthodox Church, completely fused with the state and ceased to be perceived by people as spiritual power.
The Bolsheviks in the twenties and thirties not only separated the Church from the state, and almost defeated her. In 1939, on the territory of Russia was only about a hundred temples, and on freedom - four of the Bishop.
But in 1943, Stalin, realizing the need for a cohesive national idea, allowed to open temples, seminaries, restored the Patriarchate, albeit under the control of state security.
And once again began the process of intimate intergrowths of Church and state, who after the death of Soviet power exaggerated form.
Communists from close cooperation with the Church at least kept Marxist ideology, and when the last is gone, the Russian government turned its attention to religion as an ideological basis of the state.
Of course, better to let the state at least from the outside based on Christianity than Marxism or any other social utopia.
But what Christianity?
With the dogmas of the Trinity and the God-man", is absolutely incomprehensible to the majority of believers? With hopelessly outdated stereotypical notions of heaven and hell, questioning the right of Christianity to the expression of the moral imperative? With many medieval rites? With a rigid hierarchical structure?..
In philosophical books fiery denunciation irrelevant, so just to quote an interview with Archpriest Alexander Me, this Sergei Bychkov in 1983. Men have seen the situation in the Russian Orthodox Church from within, so that he could see.
Question: "what are the main disadvantages of young priests?"
Answer: "the Early Christians called themselves disciples. The young priest strive as soon as possible to become teachers. They do not strive for spiritual and intellectual growth. Stop in complacency or workmanship. Daily life quickly jammed, and pastoral conscience is drowned out by complacency. Go deaf to the problems of ordinary people, especially secular. Look at all usmagazine point of view. This contributes to our General emphasis on the cult, which turned into "work"that takes a lot of time and effort. The rest do not have the time, sometimes even for those who would like to serve in spirit and in truth." The priest must be the interests that come into contact with "profession"and one "profession" can lead to a terrible rut."
Question: "what, briefly, in your opinion, the main tragedy of today's Russian Orthodox Church?"
Answer: "today's position in a tragic collision come two facts. Live undercurrent of interest in spiritual issues in people, the abundance of spiritual needs, the search for truth and the great creative potential of Russia - but it should not receive food from us, the Church. The reason the current type of the Church, which is:
b) obscurantism (the rejection of cultural achievements - SZ),
g) failure to respond to requests of the people,
d) complacency closed caste, which looks with contempt on all the "worldly",
e) nostalgijom - i.e. the belief that "used to be better". Hence the reference to the archaic form of godliness,
g) separation from the gospel and the Scriptures in General.
This is a tragic contradiction leads to:
a) spiritual decline of those coming into the Church,
b) the conversion of the people to surrogates of faith (the occult, yoga, parapsychology, etc.)
All this is compounded by pseudoskepticism ideology lazy mind people who, brandishing the "Philokalia", live much more widely than other irreligious intelligent".
I'd add: in ten or fifteen years after this interview, the Russian Orthodox Church also became the largest supplier to Russia alcoholic drinks and cigarettes...
In the Holy Scripture about the Church says a lot. But about what?
The Apostle Paul wrote, "are at Ephesus and to the faithful in Christ Jesus" about God, who wrought in Christ, when he raised Him from the dead and set him at his own right hand in heaven, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named not only in this age but also in the future, and hath put all things under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the Church, which is His body, the fullness filleth all in all" (Eph. 1:20-23).
So the Church is a global community of people who believe in Christ. So, symbolically interpreted Paul's words about the "body of Christ", and this is not to argue neither Orthodox nor Catholic nor Lutheran Church.
And all other places of Scripture devoted to the Church (Matt. 16:18-19; 18:17; ROM. 8:14-17; acts. 2:47 and others), referring to the global community of believers. About the "one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church", as referred to in the Nicene-Constantinople creed.
No other Church in the Scripture of the question. The seven churches which the Apostle John the Revelator (Rev. 1:11) - just a diocese of the Church community in Asia Minor, no "Orthodoxy" (single correct), or the "Catholicism" (samirnet) is not claimed, and certainly not United the followers of Luther, Calvin or Cocina.
The same applies to the dioceses, which are called "churches" the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 7:17; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:2 and others)
The Scripture also says nothing about what any Bishop is the "vicar of Christ" - this dogma was developed at the junction of the I and II centuries and was first seen in Ignatius the God-bearer, supporter rigid Church hierarchy and "monarchy" of the episcopate. Yes, and God forbid anyone from the bishops to be "Locum Tenens" at Calvary...
The well-known phrase Jesus said to Peter: "upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:18-19).
I noticed immediately that "bind and loose" is a traditional old Slavonic translation, in our time, obsolete so that lost the symbolic meaning of the phrase. Much rather would have sounded "to bind and to loose", or to "bind and loosen"that symbolic essence close to ecclesiasticae: "a time to rend and a time to sew" (the EC. 3:7).
Apparently, in MT. 16:18-19 we are talking about the approval of the actions of Christ the Apostle Peter (most likely, and his "successors") on Earth. The Church, of course, that's not argue.
But the question immediately arises: what is the Church to consider the question? Orthodox or Catholic? And maybe a Protestant? Or Socinians? Or "Jehovah's witnesses"? Or "seventh day Adventist"? And so on - to list of contenders for the succession" in respect of the Apostle Peter endlessly.
Moreover, what is meant by "succession"? Peter was first called to the Apostolic Ministry (Matt. 4:18), and it is very likely that the building of the Church on the rock-Petra" means a statement of the fact that Peter was the first Christian. And then does this mean that the "keys of the Kingdom of Heaven" and the right "to bind and loose" is every Christian?
On the other hand, you can say that while on Earth will not be "one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church", i.e. the global community of Christians, is not the Church, mentioned in Scripture. And while that "bind and loose" on earth has a right no one.
But in any case, neither Orthodox nor Catholic, nor Protestant, nor any other Church in MT. 16:18-19 we are not talking.
And very sorry that the above-mentioned Church (as well as many sects) rarely remember the following words:
"But you do not be called teachers; for one is your Teacher, the Christ, and all ye are brethren; and call no man your father on earth, for one is your Father Which is in heaven; and do not be called teachers; for one is your master, even Christ. That is greatest among you shall be your servant" (Matt. 23:8-11).
Let nowadays ideas of ecumenism - the unification of all Christian churches seem utopian. But in a historical perspective they will triumph together with the moral imperative - that is, as they say, the will of God.
And these are not empty words. Without the Association of churches (at the first stage - Christian, and then the other) flashes religious hatred can not be avoided, and no Kingdom of God speech can not be.
Many believe that in the Kingdom of God Orthodox will be "live" separately, Catholics separately, Russian separately, the British separately and Muslims or Buddhists there entrance, of course, is completely closed.
But let's look at things realistically: "the Kingdom of God will not. Evil cannot be considered defeated until there is the slightest potential danger.
We said that the basis for uniting all faiths and create "one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" would be a failure from the medieval dogmas and rituals.
Now we can say more: ideally, the dogma of any religion must fit in one line, clear to all, and this line should be the most complete and succinct expression of the essence of the moral imperative.
Of course, religion is not only an expression of the moral imperative, and not just faith in God. Religion is an integral worldview.
But almost all aspects of any religion (the essence of God, the creation, the person and teachings of Jesus Christ, facilitie) describes those or other Sciences, from philosophy and theology to the history and physics.
And for expression of the moral imperative and its rooting in the mass consciousness, by and large, just one line.
What will this line is hard to predict. Personally I am a supporter of the phrase of Christ: "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matt. 22:39), and in subsequent chapters we will have an opportunity to talk about the enormous power of these words.
But what would this line was not, it would not have called this "superamerica" religion - Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or anything else, it must be one of the most full and open expression of the moral imperative.
And if people are to love one another and not to do each other harm, generally without any religious dogma (even fit in one line) - God forbid.
And the sooner religions of the world will be purified from the medieval accretions that interfere with the moral imperative, the better. Therefore, in particular, I oppose the doctrines of the Trinity and the son of God" and thus, no doubt incur the wrath of most organizations that have in their name the word "Church" and use for their own purposes the doctrine of Christ.
For the last ecumenism is harmful to the ambitions and managerial unpredictable organizational form merge (sort of a forced merger of corporations), and it once again demonstrates the social orientation of most of these organizations. Yes, and the word "organization" is a product of modern society, with all the consequences in the form of a "social evil.
What happened to Alexander Menem, a strong Ecumenical and courageous critic of Orthodox officialdom, we know. Unfortunately, he's not the first, not the last.
We realized that the dogmas of the Trinity and the God-man", that separates Christ from people who objectively are not good and evil. And the Apostle John and the Apostle Paul, and Jesus himself has repeatedly stressed that the Savior consubstantial with us, each of us was given the opportunity to be like Christ.
But the theoretical possibility is not yet practical. Finally make sure consubstantial us and Christ prevents one important point: how to teach the Orthodox and Catholic churches, Jesus was "immaculately conceived" and led a perfectly righteous life, and we are in sin, conceived in sin, born in sin and remain.
These arguments cannot be ignored, although we see here another inconsistency of the position of the Orthodox churches and the Holy Scriptures.
The Church does not question the righteousness of the saints, isn't it? And let us remember the words of the Apostle Paul: "therefore, brethren, saints, members of the heavenly calling, settle Apostle and high Priest of our confession, Jesus Christ" (Heb. 4:1).
And because conversion "saints" is used by Paul in all the Epistles to the Christians! Goes, the Holy Apostle Paul believed that all true Christians are saints, and the Church does not agree with him...
About the "immaculate conception" we'll talk in the next Chapter, but now let's look: can any of us to draw near to Christ not only by birth, but by righteousness? What is righteousness and what it means for a person?
Accordingly, what is sin? Wrong Apostle Paul, calling all Christians "Holy brothers", or not?
Note that this is the most important question of the practical aspect of the moral imperative, and we don't waste will be a waste of time, considering it in detail.
The main problem of understanding of Judaism and Christianity has always been apparent contradictions in the old and New Testaments. Orthodox Jews at the beginning of our era, Christians were accused of denying the law of Moses. In the middle ages, the Christian Church has won officialdom because of these same contradictions raised anti-Semitism in the state policy...
Globally, in theological terms, Jesus of Nazareth fully relied on the old Testament concept of Messiah, that there are no fundamental differences with the old Testament there could not be. With regard to small contradictions, a lot of them and inside of the Gospels, and if detailed comparison of the old and New Testament has much to gain, what to list this book will not suffice.
But in moral terms, it may seem that Christianity and the Law of Moses, especially the Decalogue (the ten commandments - Exodus. 20:2-17) - things are absolutely incompatible.
Let's see: the iconography and Sacred second commandment: "you must Not make for yourself any graven image"... We have already seen that they do not relate in any way, and that the Christian Church decided to use the great power of art - not a reason to close their eyes to the glaring contradiction between the icons and the prohibition of the second commandment to portray whatever it is.
Fourth Sacred commandment: "Remember the Sabbath day Holy and honor him." In modern Israel, the Orthodox of his revered to such an extent that a command to turn on the light or microwave oven on Saturday gives the computer, but it's even flick the switch - sin. But in the Christian world to such absurdities, thank God, do not reach, and this has started Jesus Christ said to the Pharisees: "the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath" (Matt. 12:8).
Let's not get carried away by the enumeration of apparent contradictions. Home "strangeness" that Christ, claiming that he came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it (Matt. 5:17, LK. 16:17 and others), actually did not recognize the many requirements of the law of Moses. Jesus freed the students from fasting (Matt. 9:14), and not followed by washing their hands (Matt. 15:2), and the mother is not that he worshipped (Matt. 12:47), and so on.
And in "the sermon on the mount," he revises and many moral Law (Matt. chapters 5-7).
There is no doubt that Jesus, as the Messiah, had the right to cancel or modify any of the commandments ("All things are delivered to me of my Father" - Matt. 11:27). And the Apostle Paul, Jesus ' suffering on the cross atoned for our "old Testament" sins.
Yet, in purely human terms it is not clear why Christ in earthly life was in conflict with the Pharisees on such things as the Sabbath? Maybe because of the "quarrelsome" nature? It is unlikely. For "doing things on the Sabbath" according to the mosaic Law formally has the death penalty (ex. 31:15), so it's no small thing, and just so nobody would violate this commandment did not.
The situation is much deeper and is not psychological, and moral plane.
Pay attention to one more "inconsistencies". Christ, profound connoisseur of the old Testament, almost verbatim zithromaxe and the Psalms, and the prophets, when asked what the Law is "the greatest commandment", suddenly interpreted the Decalogue absolutely at ease:
"Jesus said unto him, thou shalt love the Lord God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind: this is the first and great commandment; and the second is like it, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" (Matt. 22:37-40).
Actually in the old Testament the first commandment reads: "I am the Lord your God... you shall have no other gods before me" (ex. 20:2)and the second (actually it is the tenth and last): "you shall Not covet the house of thy neighbor, do not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his field, nor his manservant... anything that is thy neighbor's" (ex. 20:17).
Cited according to Lev. 19:18 is not entirely justified, as it says: "Not IFRC and do not bear malice children of thy people; but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself", which significantly narrows the context. Therefore, in MT. 22:37-40 we can talk only about inaccurate quoting of the book of Exodus. How to explain?
Very simply: it is "inaccurate quote" is not a quotation, a sound and profound interpretation of the old Testament by Jesus Christ.
What is the "love thy neighbor as thyself"? Here, briefly expressed the essence of Christian doctrine: do not do to others what you would not want done to you. "So all you want to you treat people, and so do you with them; for this is the law and the prophets" (Matt. 7:11).
And the interpretation of the first commandment - to love God means not only to believe in him, but to comply with its covenants "not in service and love."
Christ could not fail to understand that many threats for disobedience, God through Moses and the prophets poured upon the people of Israel, as malodeystvennoe, as, for example, in our time, the criminal code, along with all sorts of "security agencies".
Without the latter, of course, until that too is impossible, but it is known that the main cause of crime is the desire to do it, and the fear of punishment does not always hold. In the middle ages, for example, criminals on the wheel and cooked in boiling water, but they still had no less than in our relatively humane...
And if God truly loves and understand that violated God's commandment - that is, indeed, the penalty can be much worse than a fine or jail.
Pangs of conscience of modern man "intimidate" as something disreputable - too often they are speculating all sorts of people, even parents, to report child for the food jam. Importantly, and as we soon realize, the only truly effective punishment - deprivation of peace and hope for happiness.
This is the result and the rejection of the Christian system of values, and the breach of the covenants of Jesus Christ. And if some people are satisfied with the nervous and restless life without any hope of future happiness, it is because from childhood they have no alternatives.
But this is related to the question of the establishment of Christianity in the minds and hearts of the people. Not in the form of a set of doctrines, but as a moral system, understandable to everyone.
And the rest of the commandments of the law of Moses?
Some of the commandments directly follow from the two listed in Matt. 22:37-40 (for example, "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not steal"). And some...
Are some commandments, believed Christ, once they are out of common sense, and only interfere with the perception of God and the destiny of man?
For example, the same Saturday. Christ because it "removed" not just as appealing to common sense.
"And asked Jesus to accuse Him: is it possible to heal on the Sabbath? He said to them: which of you, that shall have one sheep, and if it is a Saturday will fall into a pit, will not take it and lift it out? How much is a man better than a sheep! So, on the Sabbath to do good" (Matt. 12:10-12).
And if so, the veneration of icons - a violation of the second commandment is not a sin because it harms no one, but on the contrary, many benefits. If the person at the initial stage of understanding of Christianity, you first need to look at the pictures - nothing wrong with that. We all childhood preferred picture books, and many adults read only colorful magazines.
Still modern man sooner or later realizes that God is not an old man with a white beard sitting on a cloud, and Jesus Christ is not necessarily thin brunette. But the artistic Convention" has the full right to exist, including in iconography as an integral part of the fine arts.
It's the same with any other artistic works. As soon as the Chapter devoted to our methodology Caesar what belongs to Caesar", we realized that art is no less significant expression of the moral imperative than the Christian religion, to abandon it - this is, indeed, a sin.
However, the Church, as we have seen, and had not refused, but, in my opinion, unnecessarily build on this theme mountains declarative casuistry like the following quotes from the book the monk Gregory Circle "Thoughts on the icon:
"The image venerated by the Church, must be consistent with the Prototype. It can not replace or interfere with Archetype ascent prayer consciousness to it, but should be involved in this endless existence, must indicate the divine Glory, Trisanna the Light of the divine. The icon is a Holy end inconclusive damaged human efforts to create an image-image...
Now that we have learned a lot in the moral part of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, offer to speak on a very relevant topic: what is sin?
The word is used by all, to the place and out of place - so what is it?
It is clear and logical that in the old Testament sin is understood as a violation of the law of Moses, and not only one of the ten Holy commandments, and any of several hundreds of provisions that are mandatory for execution.
But the trouble is that the Law because of the excessive detail and specificity is outdated in the age of Jesus of Nazareth. Thus, the repeated statements of Christ that he came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it (Matt. 5:17; LK. 16:17 and others), meant the simplification and modernization of the Law in accordance with common sense.
And the "modernization" has been so successful that the Law in the interpretation of Christ in our time has existed much longer than the old Testament Law from Moses to the beginning of the Christian era.
What was the moral law of Jesus Christ - we already knew. And sin is the transgression of the law, lawlessness (1 Jn. 3:4).
Accordingly, Jesus Christ understood sin as the absence is to love God "with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all your mind" and the lack of love for one's neighbor "as yourself".
And that's all. Short and clear.
"For the commandment "thou shalt not commit adultery," "do not kill", "thou shalt not steal, not bear false witness", "don't steal someone else's", and all others are summed up in this word: "you shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law" (ROM. 13:9-10).
This was said on this subject the Apostle Paul. Too short and clear.
Therefore, any complication of the notion of sin is an attempt to return to the antiquated old Testament Law and to understand God not as an object of love, and how vengeful despot.
But, unfortunately, the medieval Church went exactly this way, and began to form a kind of another Law, designed not only to Christ or Moses, but many generations of Church fathers". Here appeared the dogma of the Trinity, which gave the Church - "the Keeper of the Holy spirit - the right to personally define what sin is, and it is not free to forgive.
And so it happened that in the middle ages the complexity and flexibility of the concept of sin has become a powerful tool for Church-state power.
And in our time, all Orthodox churches interpret the sin is very broad and ambiguous, in full compliance with the famous saying "the law - that pole. And where is the "drawbar" turn - decides, again, one or the other Church, despite the fact that she is (and not her, and Ecumenical Church) has the right to forgive sins (Matt. 18:17; Jn. 20:23), not to determine what is sin.
Look at "Orthodox" lists of sins. There are "seven deadly sins", there are sins "disorders", there are sins of "omission"is "forgiven", is "free", is "serious"...
This is only General division, and the specification takes a lot of pages. For example, Bishop Ignatius (Brianchaninov) among hundreds of other named and such sins as "shifting from place to place to avoid hardship and deprivation, clouding of the mind and heart", "LineageII", "nehranenie senses, especially touch, what audacity pogublyayuschaya all virtues", the "desire to receive gifts", "search bestrode salvation", "slow in the thoughts of anger and revenge", "clipping hope in God"...
Hardly anyone except specialists able to work out. But for the possession of power is "good"! The Church knows since the middle ages, that believers must be kept in continuous subconscious fear: "what if I this morning forgot to pray?.. And suddenly I Psalm No. 115 confused words?.. Is it possible to "lent" to eat eggs?.. And to drink milk?.. And today, I gazed at a photograph of models and experienced seductive thoughts, so it will be for me?" And so on.
So imagine the existence, right? And all because instead of crisp and clear understanding of sin by Jesus Christ, we are trying to understand the medieval scholastic (Yes even unfair) layers.
Let's for example look at the "seven deadly sins". They, according to the teachings of the Church fathers, came from the "root of all evil - pride", and this particular vanity, envy, anger, sadness, avarice, gluttony and extravagance.
Immediately begs the question - where to talk about fraud, theft and murder? In The Decalogue? That is, the seven deadly sins alone, but "thou shalt not kill" separately? The situation is strange and unnecessary.
Let's move on. Christ said: "do Not resist evil. But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matt. 5:39). And if I don't turn the other cheek when I was beaten, and gave the date, then how is this a sin? In the Decalogue not, then this is one of the seven deadly sins, such as anger? And if I wasn't angry, but simply applied the results of many years of training in karate? It is a sin or I can wipe my feet on the defeated enemy and move on with a sense of accomplishment?
And what is considered wasteful? And that gluttony? And that ambition? What pride? What envy? A "healthy capitalist competition" in the last term is included or not?..
From the standpoint of Jesus Christ of any of these concepts are ambiguous and is a sin only when it creates around the problems and inconvenience, pain and the like. But everything else, including "seven deadly sins" - not more than beautiful words.
But as you know, the less people understand, the official churches (and many sects) easier to manage them for their own purposes. Including using create a "complex sinful creature."
Indeed, in one degree or another we are all vain, jealous, angry, prone to depression, chrevougodlivy, stingy... Wanted to continue wasteful, began to consider the possibility of simultaneous presence of the same human avarice and prodigality, but realized in time that will fall into the same trap that we substitute the medieval scholastics.
Actually all is much easier. To love God and people is righteousness. The reverse is a sin. So Christ taught, and only from this point of view, the sin may be made accessible to our understanding. And the understanding of sin is the first step on the path to abandonment.
I may ask a provocative question - what to do with self defense? You can, of course, following after Christ declared: "If you are slapped on one cheek, turn the other", but if it comes down to it, it fills a distinguished author of the other cheek or it will change?
The question is really complicated, and far more General than specific behavior in a specific situation. It can be formulated as follows: what to do if, as the saying goes, "life makes sin"?
But such cases are encountered at every step.
Remember one typical episode from the gospel of Luke.
To Christ rich young man approached and asked what you want to "inherit eternal life". Christ reminded him about the observance of the Law, as well as additional conditions put the following:
"All that you have, sell, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me. He (the youth - SZ)heard this he became very sorrowful, for he was very rich.
Jesus, seeing as he was very sorrowful, he said, how hardly shall they that have riches enter into the Kingdom of God! Because it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.
Those who heard it said, who then can be saved?
But He said the things impossible with men are possible with God" (LK. 18:22-27).
Almost the same way this episode played in MT. 19:16-26.
It is clear that everything said about the wealth must first be understood in spiritual terms. If you build money in the cult, then Willy-nilly start to be "social" evil - with all the ensuing consequences.
Christ is not in vain said:
"You cannot serve God and mammon. Therefore I say unto you, take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body than clothing?..
So do not worry and say, "what shall we eat?" or "what shall we drink?" or "what to wear?" Because of all this the Gentiles seek, and because your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you" (6:24-33).
But let us not forget that we now consider the theoretical and practical aspects of moral imperative.
And earthly life dictates its own laws, rather hard and unsightly. First, each in varying degrees, have to worry about food and clothing. Secondly, today's realities do not allow any give to the poor all that you have, or to turn the other cheek when hit.
Theoretically, of course, this can be done, but in practice it may be the last act in life. And Christ, of course, did not want us to death from starvation or beatings - it would be no less a contradiction of his own teachings.
But then who can be saved, that is, to live completely righteous? No one? Hence, the Apostle Paul was wrong, calling all Christians are saints?
The Orthodox Church offers "otherworldly" solution to this problem: sin is atoned for the sins with good deeds, and after his death (and then on "the last judgment"), all the sins and good deeds will count, compare and decide who is righteous and who is not.
We have said that "the last judgment" is not linked with the teachings of Christ about the infinite forgiveness of our sins (that was "the paradox of Christianity"), and solved the problem of interpretation of heaven and hell as the full range of consequences of good and evil, first of all in this life.
But even apart from the concepts of heaven and hell, and "lifetime" atone for the sins of the Church is about the same position. Simply put: sin "stuff" - pray for a week. Sinned seriously - pray the month. I have sinned very seriously - go on a pilgrimage to the Trinity-Sergius Lavra...
It seems that everything is logical. Moreover, this approach can be useful in cases when a person sincerely believes his act of sin and makes every effort to redeem and no longer do.
Stress - sincerely. But then the prayers (like any other so-called "penance") will be primarily symbolic.
But for some, the characters are important, but for someone or not. And suddenly pragmatic and experienced modern man wants to compare their sins and good deeds, in order to "estimate"can he be considered righteous or not?
It turns out that the canonical approach of the Church to atone for the sins rather harmful than useful. Why - explain.
In this approach, the modern man certainly will want to imagine something like "the scale of good and bad deeds". In the "plus" will help others, raising children, donations to the temple, charity... In the "minus" - intrigue, denunciations, crime...
And let's reason together with the common man, "armed" with this scale and wish to achieve a positive "balance":
Yesterday I unfairly yelled at the wife hit a child, drunk etc). But today I helped a neighbor fix a car (or gave alms to a poor old woman), so that seems to be a sin atoned for".
Everything is fine? But the next step of reasoning may already be frankly absurd:
- "Today I helped a neighbor fix a car. So I do not deserve this right next to shout at his wife? Or on the same neighbor? Day after tomorrow we will make it up, I told him again to help repair the car, and everything will be fine"...
Unfortunately, in a similar way not only argues (albeit subconsciously), but there are a lot of people.
It turns out that such a "good" person, and have people around him life turns into hell without any "doomsday". But "the average balance on the scale of good and bad deeds" says he's all right.
"Sin shamelessly, deep,
The expense of losing the nights and days,
And, with the head from hops difficult,
Go off into the temple of God.
...Putting in the plate gresik copper,
Three, even seven times in a row
Kiss a hundred years old, poor
And kiss salary.
And upon returning home, measure
On the same penny someone
And hungry dog door,
Iknow, leg to throw"...
Is it possible to add anything to what is written by Alexander Blok?
It turns out that, because so far we talked about purely domestic matters. "The scale of good and bad deeds" can have far more dire consequences.
"I have that damned old woman was killed and robbed, and I assure you, without the faintest conscience... See: on the one hand, stupid, senseless, worthless, evil, sick old woman, no one needs and, conversely, all harmful, which itself does not know what he lives for, and tomorrow she herself will die... on the other hand, fresh young lives thrown away for want of support, and it is in the thousands, and it is everywhere! A hundred, a thousand good deeds and undertakings, which can be arranged and improve on the old woman's money, buried in a monastery! Hundreds, thousands, maybe beings on the road; hundreds of families saved from destitution, from decay, from death, from fornication, from venereal hospitals - and all her money. Kill her, take her money, in order to then devote themselves to the service of humanity and common cause: how do you think, is not whether one leads a tiny all the thousands of good deeds? One death and a hundred lives in exchange - it's simple arithmetic!"
Raskolnikov overheard this conversation in the tavern and made the final decision to kill that ugly old woman-percent-counter. We know that nothing good came out - this is dedicated to the entire novel "Crime and punishment". And the conclusion is straightforward Dostoevsky - crime can be no justification, no "arithmetic".
So let's not talk about people's ability to associate certain sins and good deeds - in any case come to an absurdity. But if even after Orthodox churches to admit that the comparison of disparate thoughts and actions capable of God or Christ, this still leads to disastrous consequences.
The fact that the primitive way of redemption through good works (the so-called "continuous repentance") can be interpreted as permission to sin as much as you want. Do not forget then to confess, pray, give alms to the poor, and everything will be fine.
But it can and the two old women-lender to kill, and three, one hundred, and not only old women-lender...
Unfortunately, the Church of its canonical understanding of the atonement (sin - read it five times, "our father"), she suggests the modern man the idea of such "arithmetic".
But we have to admit: focus solely on the redemption through good works gives people a moral right to sin.
To atone for the sin - not the main thing. Most importantly - sincere reluctance to commit. Then, even forcibly committing a sin, the person he would not voluntarily repeat.
Therefore, the teachings of Christ and is directed to the fact that the person had no desire to commit sins. Hence, this emphasis on love for people and for God. And how to do good deeds in order to "block" the evil - it is really math, but not love.
As for the canonical position of the Orthodox churches...
Yes, the priest in the confessional is easier to tell people: "I have Sinned - read it five times, "our father"than to seek his sincere repentance.
Yes, not all priests are capable of profound psychological revelation of the Christian worldview.
Yes, priests are few, and many penitents.
But to create a person's illusion of the remission of sins formal reading a few prayers - this is, indeed, wrong, and harmful. If a priest is not enough time for deep and thoughtful conversation with each penitent is better to postpone the confession and replace it with a common message.
Neither Orthodoxy nor in Catholicism this, unfortunately, has not yet been decided.
It turns out that give a true cleansing from sin (in fact, this is equivalent to acceptance of the Christian system of values) can only sincere repentance. Christ said that he "came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Matt. 9:13).
But it is very, very difficult. Of course, theoretically possible. And Church Canon is allowed. And in movies, and in books are also frequent. But in life...
I was always interested in people like Khrushchev, Churchill, Marshal Zhukov, General Eisenhower and the like. Can such a man at the end of life, pensions, repent at least some of their sins, which in large-scale public career had to make a lot?
For example, as a "public confession" to write completely truthful memoirs? Even if not for themselves, then at least with an objective analysis of his life among his contemporaries?
More and more convinced that it can, and not because he is banned or told to write the truth. Read "uncensored" memories, like the memoirs of General Sudoplatov, the chief saboteur of the Stalin-Beria security, and understand if these people something of his many crimes were considered sins, they would have gone mad or died of horror before retirement.
Successful social career deprive people of the opportunity to speak the truth and repent of their sins, and in "retirement" age that we expect from them is not necessary. They have long forgotten how it's done, and the Affairs of the Kingdom of God they do not care either in youth or in old age.
Same with their scores of friends and associates - corporate cohesion even in the face of death is stronger than the truth. Of course, there are exceptions, but not many. Sincere repentance may not be a lot of insincere people.
In these cases, as a rule, the moral imperative is powerless in the face of evil, which man "faithfully" served all his life.
But, fortunately, General Sudoplatov, the conscience of which hundreds, if not thousands of lives - a rare case. The vast majority of people is another problem. They would be glad to sincerely repent, but can't even remember what their sins are scandals on domestic violence and petty intrigues at work.
What do they do? Do remember all the details? So in fact you can walk to the absurd, until the phrase in the confessional: "Today in the day my boss three times gave me a note and I looked at him with irritation and have not experienced the attitude of Christian love".
But this, though absurd from the point of view of common sense, but from the point of view of Christianity is actually a sin!
And if, God forbid, died tragically and suddenly, without having to confess even to himself? It turns out that he has no chance of salvation?
Let's not get carried away by listing the many situations in which puts people cruel and unpredictable life. When brought to Jesus a woman caught in adultery, which was supposed to be stoned, he said, "Who is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her" (Jn. 8:11).
As you know, was not sinless.
"For we have before proved both Jews and Greeks are all under sin. As written, there is none righteous, no, not one" (ROM. 3:9-10).
So, in the end, who can be saved, i.e. the right to consider themselves the true Christian, to which the Apostle Paul spoke of as "Holy brethren"? We have just seen that the same Paul said, "there is None righteous, no, not one".
Is obtained an insoluble contradiction?
You will have to repeat the last lines of quoted Jesus ' conversation with the rich young man: "and they that Heard it said, who then can be saved? But He said the things impossible with men are possible with God" (LK. 18:27).
Let's try to understand what Christ meant by saying this phrase, in the middle ages caused a huge number of theological debate about the so-called "God's grace".
Usually in the latter concept was invested in the possibility of forgiveness of our sins God, while the Bible the concept of grace is extremely multivalued - this force acting in man (1 Cor. 15:10), and the preaching of the gospel (Jn. 1:16), and the gift of God (ROM. 3:24), and a few dozen different contexts and meanings.
Not surprisingly, it is a universal concept of God's grace, to which it was possible to attract a lot raznokontekstnymi of references to Scripture, was elected at the beginning of the V century Aurelian Augustine to ensure that nothing depends upon the will of man, because the latter is prone to sin from birth.
According to Augustine, descended on the man of God's grace - and no matter how much he sinned, it will be saved and enter the Kingdom of heaven. So please God, and not us trying to understand the motivation of his actions.
Let me remind you, as Augustine on this subject debated with Pelagius. The latter is not only recognized the freedom of the will of the people, but was of the opinion that man is born sinless. Augustine defended his doctrine of "original sin", after which the person is not able not to sin, and must rely only on God's grace.
The teaching of Augustine on grace is intimately associated with his doctrine of absolute predestination. The fact that inevitably the question arises: if a person is given the grace of God, then why believe and be saved not all? Answer by Augustine was this: God predestined the former for good, others for evil.
Speaking our terms, Augustine denied the freedom of the will on the moral level.
Thus, grace, and free will was in theology directly related, and all subsequent scholars have tended either to the Augustinian, or to the Pelagian view. For example, the first adhered to Thomas Aquinas, the second - Duns Cattle.
Lutheranism and Calvinism, oddly enough, looking at the relationship of grace and free will entirely, "Augustinian". Calvin generally denied the freedom of the will, and brought salvation solely to the unknown "divine Providence". Luther approached this somewhat softer and believed that the opportunity to gain grace gives a sincere faith.
However, faith is at the time of the reformation was the concept is so diverse, that the teachings of Luther and Calvin some of their contemporaries have been interpreted as allowing any number of sins.
For example, the so-called "libertine-spirituali" believed "Because God saves or condemns at its whim, it does not pay attention. It would be better with the same freedom that allows itself to God, to try to arrange a more pleasant and joyful life in this absurd world," Calvin himself wrote about their position.
However, John Calvin not only wrote, but acted. It is unlikely that his party was ethical tradition of the Chapter "libertine" Quentin Thierry in the hands of the French Catholic court - in fact, he himself provoked the emergence of this sect to their doctrine of grace. But whatever it was denounced by Calvin in 1547, Quentin Thierry was burned at the stake. As you know, on the conscience of Calvin penalty and academic antitrinitarian Miguel Servet.
Not all of the reformation was so "progressive"as we now may seem, and it's no wonder why neither Luther nor Calvin did not abandon key medieval dogmas of the Trinity and the God-man": in the XVI century, the society was still not ready.
But we are talking about God's grace. So far, we could based on the teachings of Augustine and Calvin to make a very absurd conclusion: sin is not sin, repent-not repent, confess not confess, the hope still exclusively on unpredictable forgiveness of God for our sins.
But it follows necessarily that freedom of the will of the people. We have this situation already considered, when we solved the problem of theodicy, and saw in this approach, God is the direct culprit of all the evil done in the world, and people inevitably turns into "human material" a higher gear.
In this regard, of course, the point of view of Augustine, we can not accept.
Orthodoxy has provided two kinds of God's grace: "anticipating" (universal and unpredictable, as in Augustine) and "special" (justifying a specific person by his deeds). "Grace works in freedom, and freedom in grace; they vzaimnovhodny" (Bishop Feofan Prokopovich).
If to break through the traditionally dark style Church-Orthodox theology, we can understand the following: a certain freedom of will, that is, the choice to sin is not sin," we have. Accordingly, we have the potential to receive "special grace", that is, to understand that sin, and to atone for sin, repentance, good works, and similar actions. But we also affects "anticipates" grace, that is, if it is not - no repentance will not save.
So, in the Orthodox doctrine of grace, we see only a few relaxed form Augustinian predestination.
Let's try to determine the possibility of forgiveness of our sins God is more just and fair than does the official Orthodoxy.
I suggest not to delve into logical construction, and to give a definition of God's grace in accordance with the moral imperative and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.
Ironically, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Orthodox theologians, fascinated by General philosophical questions of the balance of grace and free will, they have forgotten that there is a public teaching of Jesus Christ.
Will there be a sin of the people, sincerely accepted this doctrine?
If so, then the only refuge and, as they say, in extreme cases. To predict all such cases it is impossible to be a Christian living among the people, not everyone who shares his beliefs.
And if a man walks down the street and sees, for example, gang hooligan teenagers, insult a woman - surely he must, "armed with" the Christian doctrine, to pass? And if, God forbid, the bandits attacked the man himself - surely he must, with folded hands, to submit to their fate? It is unlikely.
So while there is a "social evil, and there are sins that even a Christian can not commit. Such involuntary sins not contradict moral imperative and considered sins can not be.
Thus, God's grace can be defined as given us a moral imperative, and our righteousness is as sincere allegiance to the moral imperative and action in all situations in accordance with it.
Moving from theory to practice, we can say: the Christian values of kindness and love, fully and publicly expressing moral imperative, must be unconditionally accepted into the spiritual plane, but can be applied practically every Christian not as a single and inflexible template, and in accordance with the specific situation.
Therefore, the practical aspect of the Christian moral system can be formulated as follows: if there is the slightest opportunity to do good and avoid evil, then it should be used.
And the deeper Christianity is rooted in each individual, the more he perceives the limits of the possibilities.
So, distributed to the poor all that you can at the moment, but know and a reasonable limit on the basis of their financial capabilities, otherwise tomorrow you will have nothing to give. Will you have tomorrow more money - and then give more.
And you are slapped on one cheek - turning the other, until you realize that the ability to expose and thereby morally disarm the enemy anymore.
I can not remember one sentence of Leo Tolstoy. When in Yasnaya Polyana, he slapped at a mosquito on his forehead, he chided a companion, that, say, You preach non-resistance to evil by violence, and they now Komar killed... In this, Tolstoy said: "it is Impossible to live in such detail."
In this light, it is possible to give an answer to the provocative question, will put whether I personally left cheek when struck on the right (more precisely, I take the position of non-resistance to evil by violence at any "power" conflict).
If there is at least some chance, I will do everything to violent conflict has not occurred. Moreover, if there is a chance to preserve life and human dignity - will turn the other cheek, that is not going to take any retaliatory action.
But if this chance will not - Yes, have to fight fire with fire. And let me know that it is a sin - there are times when sin is not the answer. To protect a woman or child - is that a sin? And so on, all possible cases are not listed, and there can only be guided by the Christian common sense.
Importantly, the likelihood of violence, and in General "social" evil, when this approach repeatedly reduced. Completely eliminate it and to live a life without conflict is not managed nor Jesus Christ, nor the Apostle Paul, or anyone else.
But the more people truly perceive the Christian doctrine, the lower this probability.
And when it reaches zero, depends when on Earth the Kingdom of God. We've already talked about this, so just remember again the words of Christ: "there shall come the Kingdom of God is conspicuous way, and say, behold, it is here, or, lo, it is there. For behold, the Kingdom of God is within you" (LK. 17:20-21).
We understand what sin is. We understand what righteousness is. But there is another argument of the Church officialdom in favor of the fact that Jesus Christ had a certain "special" righteousness is the dogma of his "immaculate conception".
This dogma, one statement declaring any physiological conception of sin, led to the fact that the so-called sin of adultery (the seventh commandment of the Decalogue) holds the record for the number of interpretations and speculations.
First, think about: what is "adultery"? To have sex at all? Or without the purpose of procreation? Or outside of marriage? Or homosexual? Or...
However, it is enough to open any Church leadership to "sacrament of penance" - there all is in detail painted.
For example, in accordance with the "Meditation of a penitent sinner" (edited by Archimandrite Vladimir) violations of the seventh commandment are: adultery, Fornication, malacia, sensuality in all its forms - passionate kisses with the other floors, unclean feel, zasmatrivalis on a beautiful face with lust, profanity, love songs, obscene gestures, locationsto, volokita, pandering, delight unclean dreams, arbitrary pohotnaya the kindle, excessive attachment... Satiety in eating and drinking, reading novels, watching seductive pictures, free treatment and games other floors, excessive panache..."
Unfortunately, can't remember where the Bible says about the sinfulness of reading novels, and what is "arbitrary pohotnaya the kindle" - and does not know. Frankly, and don't want to know the popular benefits, which include quoted must be written clearly and publicly available, and the use of such terms is linked in the General outline of the desire of the Church to the management of believers through blurred and ambiguous notion of sin.
So let's look at "adultery" from the point of view of the teachings of Jesus Christ.
To get started, read that on this subject in the old Testament. About "adultery" was first mentioned in it, and all of the ten commandments in the Pentateuch are specified and discussed in detail. And so I suggest carefully reading of the Law - Moses preferred the clear language and usually leaves little room for misunderstanding.
For violation of one or the other commandments of the Decalogue usually has the death penalty, and so death had to indulge in:
"If anyone is to commit adultery with the wife of a man; if he will commit adultery with his neighbour's wife"; "the man that lieth with his father's wife"; "a man lie with his daughter-in-law"; "a man lies with a male as with a woman"; "a man take a wife and her mother"; "who will smeetsa with a beast"; "if a man shall take his sister"; "if a man lie with his wife during disease traveocity" (Lev. 20:10-18).
More gently Moses spoke of "the man that lieth with his aunt" and "a man shall take his brother's wife (Lev. 20:19-20) - the death penalty for this was not supposed to, but sin (breaking the Law) was considered.
We will not go into the details of the manners and customs of the ancient Jews, derived from Egypt. If Moses believed all of the above prohibitions are necessary for the normal life of his people, he is, as they say, was visible.
To maintain peace and tranquility in the small nation was required to ban adultery - of course, Yes. Avoid genetic degeneration wanted to ban closely related marriages - of course, Yes. In order to strengthen the family and promote its creation, needed a ban on homosexuality - of course, Yes. In the unsanitary conditions of life in the desert sex during menstruation is extremely dangerous and it needed to ban " of course, Yes. And so on.
Thus, the concept of adultery was formulated by Moses, clearly and reasonably.
Of course, in the tribal system of ancient Israel, the woman plays a subordinate role, but no deliberate humiliation of "the weaker sex", prohibition of sexual life and an exaggerated attention to the "intimate" questions in the Law is not observed.
Note that Moses insisted on the virginity of brides (Deut. 22:6), but were allowed divorce under the following conditions: "If any man take a wife, and become her husband, and she does not find favor in his eyes because he finds in it something nasty, and write her a bill of divorcement, and give her hand, and sends her out of his house" (Deut. 24:1).
But in early Christian times, the situation changed radically. Humiliated by the people, as you know, easier to manage, and the medieval Church to create in man "complex sinful creature could not take advantage of such a wonderful occasion as "adultery".
Exploring the formation of early Christian art, we have seen that the "good Christian" was unconsciously unpleasant to look at "whore of Babylon". But centuries passed, the mores have changed, and the Church's attitude toward women and sex life - no. And that Jesus of Nazareth is still perceived by most people as a notorious misogynist, rests entirely on the conscience of the Church officialdom.
"First violin" is owned by Augustine of Hippo. Fair to say that he adopted many things from his teacher, Ambrose of Milan, who, in turn, from Origen and Philo of Alexandria, but the essence remains the same.
Let's see what Augustine writes in "Theological treatises": "Expelled after the sin of Eden, the man and his seed, infected by sin in it, as in the root, bound punishment of death and condemnation; so all his posterity and convicted along with him his wife was born from carnal lust".
And then, as you know, the "original sin has infected all of humanity. So, for Augustine, because of this relationship our ancestors, we are not divine beings, as "vile vessels of sin." Moreover, since any sex is a sin, because God objectionable. Because sexual attraction and Adam were driven from Paradise, and all the ills of mankind occurred.
But all this is pure fiction! Actually, just open the first pages of the Bible and read them to read. It will be helpful for us in the future.
In the first Chapter of Genesis speaks of God creating the world, and together with them (the sixth day) - man. Note - not Adam and mankind in General.
"And God said, let us make man in Our image and after our likeness, and let them have dominion... over all the earth. And God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and told them God: be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue it"... (Gen. 1:26-29).
And then, already in the second Chapter:
"And the Lord made man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden in the East, and there he put the man whom he had formed" (Gen. 2:7-8).
"And he took the Lord God of the man who created it, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And God commanded the man, saying, of every tree of the garden you may eat, but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it : for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die" (Gen. 2:15-17).
"And was created by the Lord God from the rib taken from man into a woman and brought her to the man. And said: " this is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because this was taken from her husband. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife : and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, Adam and his wife, and were not ashamed" (Gen. 2:22-25).
"And the serpent said unto the woman, ye shall not surely die, for God knows that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes will open and you will be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes and longed for, because it gives knowledge; and took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. And opened the eyes of them both, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed Fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons" (Gen. 3:4-7).
So the first "sin" (as we talked, his sin can hardly be called such), and there was - people disobeyed God.
Stress the first, but not "original". The word "firstborn" implies that we are all in this "sin" is born - again is an indirect allusion to sex. And that is no hint and no.
The fact that Adam and eve became ashamed of their nakedness, too, somehow associated with sex, although actually a sexual relationship, as a rule, lead to the opposite - people are no longer ashamed of each other...
Then God, having learned about the violation of his ban, he cursed the serpent (it is believed that the image of the serpent was the devil, but this is also speculation). Eve, the Lord said, now that she's in pain you will give birth to children and will rule over her husband, and Adam had to eat from the ground with grief and have their bread in the sweat of his brow, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken, for dust you are and to dust you shall return" (Gen. 3:19).
If someone is still waiting descriptions of sexual relations between Adam and eve, they had to disappoint. "And Adam knew eve his wife, and she conceived, and bare Cain" (Gen. 4:1) much later, and it was normal and natural - no wonder God said: "Be fruitful and multiply".
So, we have carefully read the beginning of Genesis and realized that only God knows where in the imagination of Augustine have passages like the following:
"And has opened the eyes of both of them. What? Not for nothing but the mutual lust is born of death, the punishment of the flesh of sin... Therefore, immediately after the crime commandments they lost internally left them grace that they insulted arrogant and proud love of his own power, stopped the eyes of its members and felt the lust in them, which you did not know before".
Well and further already known Augustinian "logic": if "original sin" was "lust" of Adam and eve, then we get it through the passionate sexuality" of our parents. In sin we are conceived in sin, born in sin and lives. And hope we now exclusively on the unknowable God's grace.
Gyrus Western "dogmatic development" alienated Catholicism from the Augustinian understanding of "original sin" as "lust", and now it dominates the view of Anselm of Canterbury, consisting in the fact that man as a result of "original sin" lost "grace primitive righteousness."
However, the "righteousness" in the ecclesiastical interpretation, as we have seen, includes so many conflicting ideas that fit with nostalgia to recall Augustine - that at least a clear and articulate their thoughts.
The same problem with the Orthodox understanding of "original sin" - it is just as blurry as the understanding of sin in General.
But the reformation left Augustinian concept of "lust" in integrity. There are several sects (for example, Socinians), which completely deny the dogma of "original sin", but few of these.
Dogmas dogmas and stereotypes stereotypes. But in terms of creating stereotypes to Aurelius Augustine far all theologians together. And so it happened that the "original sin" in the mass consciousness is still perceived as a sexual relationship of Adam and eve, and every one of us already by right of birth is sinful creature".
Let us estimate the viability of theological base hatred of the Church officialdom to sexual life. Usually referring to the words of Jesus Christ:
"You have heard that it was said: "thou shalt not commit adultery". But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee; for it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body to be cast into hell" (Matt. 5:28-29).
And then Christ adds:
"It was said also, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a divorce. But I say to you: whoever divorces his wife except for the cause of fornication, he causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery" (Matt. 5:31-32).
There are more "radical" (and less known) statement of Jesus: "And there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matt. 19:12).
With her and will start the analysis quoted Scripture, as we immediately see the catching "need" quotes out of context. And the context is the following:
"And there came unto Him the Pharisees tempting him, saying unto Him: for any cause for a man to divorce his wife?
He said to them: have ye not read, that he which Made them at the beginning male and female he created them? And said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh... what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.
They say unto Him, why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement and to put her away?
He saith unto them, Moses for the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives : but from the beginning it was not so; but I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except it be for fornication (my italics - SZ) and marries another woman commits adultery; and married divorced committeth adultery.
Disciples said to Him: if that is the duty of man to his wife, it is better not to marry.
He said to them: not all receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who from their mother's womb were so born; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs of men : and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. Who can hold it, let him hold" (Matt. 19:3-12).
From the above it in this episode of the gospel shows that it is only on the norms of the law of Moses, and we already know that meant Moses by the word "adultery". Any new definition of the term Jesus did not give.
It may seem that Christ has tightened the Law of Moses - forbade divorce "just so" and left the only reason is adultery, that is, adultery, homosexuality and so on.
Actually about the tightening of the Law is not necessary to speak, as Moses for adultery and does provide for the death penalty, then the problem of divorce, of course, has disappeared by itself.
But in this episode is even more important aspect.
We've learned that if Christ says to his disciples: "Not all receive this saying, save they to whom it is given", it seems that the disciples ought to hold it, and the rest may not be given.
It is as if it turns out that he's disciples were commanded not to marry, or to be eunuchs. Hence, all followers of Christ, which "is given to accommodate this word, it seems to be desirable, and if the Church does not require us to mandatory celibacy, or ostopenia, it was only "doing a favor" of our sinful nature.
Anyway, the medieval Church interpretation was just that, and hence the degradation of women, and monasteries, and prohibitions on sex, and many skopcheskih sects... Here are just a veil on women still have not guessed to wear, and it is probably accidental.
And in actual fact the opposite - "the word", which was desirable to "fit"refers not to the words about eunuchs, and to the doctrine of prohibition of divorce!
Hence, the phrase disciples, "it is better not to marry" Jesus considered the inability (or unwillingness) to accept his teaching on the inviolability of the family. And to him the position of students did not like, as he said to them: "Not all receive this saying, save they to whom it is given".
But he allowed the students not to accept his opinion, telling a parable about eunuchs. There are some eunuchs, there are others... Just come to the word eunuchs, and he brought them in as an example. When Christ told the parable about the husbandmen (Matt. 21:28-46; MK. 12:1-9), it does not mean that he sent students to gather grapes?
So Jesus of Nazareth did not insist on binding and indissoluble marriage, and especially on sexual abstinence or emasculation.
Yes, and the specific provisions of the law of Moses on the theme of adultery (except divorce), he said nothing, and wonder - not our business.
A similar position regarding the creation of a family became the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 7:1-17). And something for the Orthodox Church to listen to his words about this: "Only one doing so, as God, he was assigned to, and each as the Lord has called. And so ordain I in all churches" (1 Cor. 7:17).
Now let's go back to the saying of Christ: "Ye have heard that it was said: "thou shalt not commit adultery". But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If thy right eye offend thee..." (Matt. 5:28-29).
It turns out that everything is normal and logical - if you are married (that is covered by the mosaic concept of adultery), so no need to look longingly at other women and to hurt the legitimate wife. This contradicts the main Christian commandment to love one another.
Thus, none of the humiliation of women, nor about the undesirability of sexual relations in the teachings of Christ we are not talking. The Christian concept of adultery is different from the old Testament only in terms of the prohibition of divorce, and then nebezuslovnogo - if one of the spouses has changed (at least "in his heart"), then the divorce can be.
And who, according to the teachings of Augustine and all the major churches, sinless from birth, that is, free from "original sin"?
Only Jesus Christ, he is "God the Son". And if so, he could not be born from sin, hence the dogma of the "immaculate conception".
And sinless virgin Mary, accordingly, could not have sex - not only before marriage to Joseph, but after, and remained a virgin for life. It is unclear, however, as it has preserved virginity during childbirth. However, birth is not sex, so it seems to be "you", but the Cathars in the thirteenth century, still believed that Christ entered the world through the ear of his mother.
Catholicism went even further. In 1854 (and theological standards recently) Pope Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of the "immaculate conception" of the virgin Mary, to nip in the Bud any rumors and to make Jesus the "immaculate" in the second generation. They say so "original sin" before Christ certainly did not get.
All of the above have tried to reconcile with common sense, inventing the legend that is still the official position of the Orthodox and Catholic churches. Archimandrite Raphael (Karelin), for example, writes:
"In the Jerusalem temple, Mary gave God a vow of virginity. In the 13 years she was engaged to 80-year old man Joseph, a distant relative, who became the guardian of her virginity, in fact, a second father... residence of Joseph the betrothed consisted of two carved out of rock, one above the other rooms, which led to a stone staircase. In the upper room lived the virgin Mary. Downstairs, in a small yard, a workshop was righteous Joseph, where he studied carpentry... the mother of God came out of the house only to the source, which flowed near their homes.
It is not surprising that in the background the Church of the virgin Mary a woman who worked all his life, raised children, a loving husband, and he never changed, looks almost the slag. What a chance for the clergy, which in Catholicism and Orthodoxy belong exclusively to the male sex, once again humiliate women!
In pursuit of "purity" religious scholars even refer Mary to the genus of king David, and then in the Gospels, Jesus is called "Son of David" and, God forbid, believers will think that Joseph of David (Matt. 1:6-16) still had something to do with the birth of Christ...
We have already seen that nothing of the fall of Adam and eve to have sex was not, so let's see what is said in the gospel of Matthew about the family life of Joseph and Mary, as well as the "immaculate conception" of Christ.
Why Matthew - Yes, because in no other gospel about the "immaculate conception" in General it is not. From the evangelists about the birth of Jesus told only Matthew and Luke. The last "physiology" conception tactfully ignored (LK. 1:31-34), besides talking about Joseph and Mary, the parents of Jesus (LK. 2:27; 2:48).
But according to Matthew:
"The birth of Jesus Christ came about: His Mother Mary to Joseph, before they came together, She was found with child of the Holy spirit.
Joseph Her husband, being a just man and unwilling to expose Her, wanted to put Her away secretly.
But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, Joseph, son of David! fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in Her is of the Holy spirit; she will bear a Son, and shalt call his name Jesus : for He shall save His people from their sins.
And all this was done that it might be fulfilled what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel, which means God with us.
Joseph did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know Her. Till She had brought forth her firstborn son, and he called his name Jesus" (Matt. 1:18-25).
And this is all that is generally referred to in the New Testament on the subject of "the immaculate conception".
Personally, I consider myself not entitled to conjecture on the subject, how exactly was conceived as Joseph and Mary was about and what were their future intimate relationships. And if Augustine of Hippo, Archimandrite Raphael or Pushkin (in Gavrielides") undertook this courage is, in any case, their own ideas.
For me personally convincing are the following evidence that Mary was a normal woman, lived with her husband Joseph in a normal family relationship and had many children:
"Then one said unto Him (Jesus - SZ): thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with Thee" (Matt. 12:46).
"And he came into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said to Him: where is the wisdom and strength? Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brethren James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And not all His sisters with us? Where did He get all this?" (Matt. 13:55).
"Is not this the carpenter if He, the son of Mary, the brother of James, Joses, Judas and Simon? Whether here, between us, His sisters?" (MK. 6:3).
We see that according to the translation of the Bible 1860-ies, which we use to this day, Joseph was a carpenter (Matt. 13:55). In Church Slavonic version of the Bible was reproduced the Greek word "tekton" (as in old Russia was called builders). And Archimandrite Raphael (and he is not alone) speaks of him as the old carpenter.
It would seem, what's the difference?