To the page Theology

To the main page



Prof. Dr. S.V. Zagraevsky



Jesus of Nazareth: life and teaching




Published in Russian: . . . ., 2000. ISBN 5-94025-004-1






A new book by a well-known artist and theologian Sergey Zagraevsky is written in a popular and accessible form. The theme of the book is relevant and certainly interesting for any reader. That is the view on Jesus Christ and Christianity from the standpoint of common sense of a modern human.

Many decades the researches in Russia of life, personality and teachings of Jesus were carried out under the communist ideology or church officialdom. Numerous Western "soul-saving" brochures often pursue selfish interests of luring people into religious sects.

Thus, the independent Russian theology at the turn of the millennium faced a vacuum, which the book of Sergey Zagraevsky is intended to fill.

Much attention is paid to the person of Jesus and the church dogmas of the Trinity and the God-man. Contemporary evidence of the existence the existence of God is proposed in a form, close and understandable for  anyone, even for the most unprepared reader.

The problems of everyones concern - morality and sin, Christianity and sexuality, good and evil, heaven and hell, the end of the world and eternal life are also reviewed.





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.








About Jesus Christ and his teachings for two thousand years, written a huge number of philosophical, theological and literary. It would seem that you can add to it?

But we live on the eve of two millennia of Christianity, and ended the twentieth century, unique in terms of unprecedented triumph of common sense and freedom of opinion, especially in the countries of the European culture. And from the European culture to Christianity - one step, they were formed in parallel during those two thousand years.

Russia and we rightly assigned to Europe, because most Russians followed Orthodox Orthodoxy, claiming the ancient and the primitive Christian tradition. Yes, and freedom of opinion in Russia is now comparable with the European. God forbid that for a long time...

I want to say that we will have to theological discussion. Unfortunately, the word "theology" modern man is first of all a huge yellowed volumes, written in the middle ages, bearded old men in a language understood only by himself.

But we, thank God, not the middle ages, and to make the basis of Christian theology is simple, logical and clear - one of the goals of this book.

And no specific findings we do not, just a new time gives a new vision of the eternal problems. Therefore, no special literature we do not have to use it. The Bible, the Bible and the Bible again...

On this subject there is a great "Holy fathers" joke.

One Holy father, the young theologian gave his book is a commentary on the Bible. After some time, he asked, was there any useful comments.

"Very much, " said the Holy father. - So, to understand it, I now have more to read the Bible...

Not to be similar to the young hero of the joke, solemnly promise absence in this book "abstruse" language. If something the reader will not understand this reproach primarily in my address. I battled the principle "the more, the more solid". No wonder Voltaire said that the importance of the mask of mediocrity.




Our conversation will go on is not a new topic: who is Jesus Christ - God or man? Or the son of God (Church tradition)? Or legend? Unfortunately, the latter claimed not only Communists, but also some serious Western scholars.

What is the doctrine of Christ? Religion, philosophy, dogma or spiritual system? And what aspects of it makes sense to focus our attention?

So, to understand this, we have to consider the opinions and theologians, and philosophers, and historians. But consider - is one thing, but to evaluate - is quite another.

The evaluation criterion we can have only one: the common sense of the person of the late XX - early XXI century.

The twentieth century brought us not only unprecedented technological progress, two terrible wars, Chernobyl, Auschwitz and Kolyma. He brought a very wide range of opinions on any subject from any human experience.

And 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. And one of these "small" own opinions as emerging era of common sense, as a family "nests" - political map of the world.

And do not forcibly bring people's opinions "common denominator" and lead them to the next bright future - will still lead to the wrong place, the common sense of our time antiutopian.

Unfortunately, this antiutopichesky tends to degenerate into nihilism and to discredit the many moral values, including those about whom Jesus spoke. But this we have already "passed" over seventy years of Communist ideology, therefore, where our common sense has all chances to win.

Note that Russia no longer "lead to a bright Communist future" recently - what is the history of fifteen to twenty years! But in the scale of human life is not so little, and now we had the unique opportunity to look at the person and work of Jesus Christ impartially and objectively.

We, fortunately, are free and the Communist extremes such as "religion is the opium of the people", and from the Church censorship of the times of the Russian Empire, and of religious euphoria of the first years of its post. So let's enjoy it before it's too late. Russia's political system is unpredictable, and look again begin to "tighten the screws"...

Thus, the main goal of our book is to purify Christianity from a huge number of medieval dogmatic accretions and make the basic aspects of life, personality and teachings of Jesus Christ are clear to everyone.




The absence of the twentieth century in most Western countries, the Soviet government and comprehensive Church censorship predetermined enormous success philosophical-theological thought, in particular on the question.

But such great thinkers of the so-called "liberal theology", as albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) and Karl Barth (1886-1968), had views on the world, very different from modern. The fact that half a century ago, people have not been disappointed in the Communist ideas. Last, penetrating to the West in slightly modified form (type of fight for the rights of Africans), caused many theologians, philosophers and writers desire to link communism to Christianity and to make some General conclusions about the rosy economic and political prospects of life on Earth. Such fundamental antiutopistov, as George Orwell, author of the great novel "1984"was not enough.

In Russia of the twentieth century philosophers theologians Pavel Florensky (1882-1937), Vladimir Lossky (1903-1958), Alexander Men (1935-1990), and many others tried to create on the basis of Orthodoxy modern philosophical systems. We will have occasion to dwell on this, but for now just say that in the end, they have influenced a narrow circle of specialists, but the mass consciousness came incomplete and indirectly through Church officials decide what is and what is not.

However, in the West the idea of "liberal theology" on the way to millions of believers waited much better fate, and this is not surprising. The fact that theology is the science of religion, and only about her, and philosophy are much more diverse and traditionally elitist. Therefore, any attempt of synthesis of these disciplines leads to a complication of theology and the transformation of religion into the subject of verbal delights of a narrow circle of persons.

In the end, the Christian Church and the Orthodox faith, and not less Orthodox Catholicism and Lutheranism and Anglicanism - have their own theological development, they live by their own laws and dictate the faithful what they want to do.

This is the reality of our time, and it must be considered. But for us it is better - much easier to analyze carefully designed and well-established position of the Orthodox Church than dozens of diverse philosophical and theological teachings.

That is why our book can be useful both for professionals and for people who are familiar with Christianity in popular pamphlets like "Brief statement of faith", a colorful album or conversations with the parish priest.




For starters, let's just from this angle of view look at the modern image of Jesus in the minds of people.

Of course, many people, so many opinions. And yet, I suggest you hold yourself among friends and acquaintances an elementary "poll"who is Jesus Christ?

The "without thinking"will likely be "God".

Then, after some hesitation: "No, man, after all, and God is something more global, the Creator of the world and of Adam"...

Then the Respondent (speaking in Russian, the Respondent) would think and say, "Son of God". May be, remember the phrase "God the Son" or "God-man". A priest or a Church theologian may also call "the second hypostasis of the Holy Trinity".

The vast majority of answers that way, and in such sequence.

Then I ask another, more difficult question - what is the Trinity?

I will say, "What's so difficult? All students, even in Soviet times, knew that it was God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Spirit."

All correctly. I have no doubt that after some reflection, any answer to the question, what is the Holy Spirit. The simplest answer options spirituality, faith, Christianity, religion. Church theologian, once again, say: "the divine person, the third person of the Trinity".

And the next question then is not so simple. Remember him, we will have over him to think in the first few chapters:

- In what relationship to each other and with us "mere mortals"are three above God?

And to think you actually want, because there's another issue altogether challenging and even more provocative:

God is known to be one. This is the first commandment Holy, and the cornerstone of the Christian religion. And we have just listed three - Father, Son, and Holy spirit... us that, polytheism, that is paganism?

I noticed immediately that the answer is "God is one, but three manifestations" no good. We know, for example, that Jesus Christ prayed to God. So, he prayed to himself? And with the Orthodox Church in terms of "hypostasis" is not a "manifestation"and personality...

But there were no less complex issues. For example, what is Christian morality? And "original sin"? And sin in General? And whether our eternal life? And if you wait, in hell or in heaven?

Anyway, does God exist? And you can prove it or not?

Let's work together to find the answers to the myriad of issues that face us, and puts Christianity and common sense of our age.







The biography of Jesus Christ with varying degrees of detail know everything, so we will dwell only on those episodes from the Gospels, which can be useful for understanding of his personality and teachings.

To criticize the gospel contradictions pointless, they 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 smooth, and any conflict would be argued...

Hence, our task is not to criticize the gospel, and to evaluate the information contained in them from the point of view of Christian doctrine, historical context and common sense of our age.

So, let's begin. Jesus Christ was born...

That's the first problem. When Jesus was born?

Officially, at the turn of the year 1 BC (before Christ) and 1 year A.D. In any case, the chronology is exactly and 25 December 2000 or January 7, 2001 seems to be fulfilled 2000 years since the birth of Jesus.

Well, let's look at a well-known fact: Jesus was born during the Jewish king Herod (ruled 37-4 to BC). Having heard from the Magi about the birth of Jesus and seeing this as a threat to his Royal power, Herod ordered to cut all infants in and around Bethlehem (Matt. 2:16), and so inhuman act has immortalized his name with a minus sign.

Note that the historical accuracy of "beating babies" is questionable.

First, this act somehow was not reflected in the Jewish annals, which have been faithfully recorded much less global action of the king.

Secondly, Herod the Great was a very clever and subtle, though cruel politician. Who is he, indeed, was destroyed when the first suspicion is the potential pretenders to the throne, including his wives and sons. But such a touching behavior was typical for most of the despots.

As for the "good sense," he famous the fact that he agreed with the Romans, who conquered Judea in 63 g. before BC, and received for his country the status of a protectorate, i.e. full autonomy under purely nominal Supreme authority of Rome. Moreover, with the support of Rome repulsed the attack the Parthians.

For Herod, the Romans recognized the title of Tsar, when it was built a huge, amazing contemporaries in its scope temple (the famous "wailing Wall" in Jerusalem from the temple of Herod), and flourished not only a Jew, but also a large Jewish community in the largest cities of the Roman Empire.

"Naperekos" in all Judea went right after the death of Herod, and not by accident in the history of the Jewish state when he was awarded the title "Great". Not even David, not Solomon...

However, we "Herod" - damn. These are the paradoxes raised to the rank of tradition. We have them in this book is to recall and remember...

But the "beat" Herod babies or not, the fact of the birth of Christ in his reign can be considered indisputable.

So, Herod the Great died in the spring of 750 years from the Foundation of Rome, and the monk Dionysius Small (VI century) its chronology from "Christmas" started from December 25, 753 years (easier to conditionally accept the beginning 754 g.) from the founding of Rome.

Turning on the chronology of Dionysius, which we still use today, Herod died in 4 BC to Translate very easily: if 1 year ad - 754 from the Foundation of Rome, 1 g. BC - 753, 2 g. BC - 752, etc. Respectively, Christ was born not later than the spring 4 g. before the birth of Christ.

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, well-educated man, the originator of the first meeting of the apostles and the Cathedral of the rules", that is actually one of the creators of "Holy Tradition". Let's try to understand what was happening, he could not simply 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 the 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 - remember, it was taken at Easter to let the offender, and instead of Christ released Barabbas?

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 topic, I guess you could argue, but the inaccuracy of the gospel of John in the middle of the II 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, in the IV century became generally accepted and based on it so far calculated the date of the Christian Easter.

It was a small (unintentional pun with Dionysius Small) - relate the Jewish calendar 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 Roman historians Tacitus and Josephus), and Pilate was Procurator from 26 to 36 A.D.

Turned out that during 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, "on the carpet" to the Emperor, gave an explanation and was dismissed. Talked about this even the famous writer and theologian Tertullian (about 160 to about 240).

What has since happened in values! Not everyone now remembers that Jesus was crucified during the reign of Tiberius. It would seem that such a modest provincial preacher in comparison with the Roman Emperor - but wow! Could think the Emperor that posterity will remember him as a political figure, who lived in the age of Jesus Christ...

Now, we know that it was the Emperor Tiberius (remember even the Lives of the twelve Caesars Suetonius), and, of course, he never demoted would Procurator for someone's penalty, the more 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, and 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 "good" Emperor "bad" 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?

Dionysius and chose the 34 year. According to his calculations, everything was "normal" - Jesus was born at the turn of the 1 g. BC 1 g. BC, he would be in 34 g. it was a full thirty-three years.

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.




So, Jesus was born when Herod the Great, that is not later 4 g. BC Can we define "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, that the failure to provide information was a violation of law and could be punished in accordance with Roman law.

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 (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?

Taking a 34 year, we do not fit in "the age of Christ" - if Jesus was born in 4 B.C., he was in 34 A.D. would have been 37 years old (for those who will verify these calculations, let me remind you that "zero" was not, after 1 BC immediately followed 1 year CE, so if we "move" the beginning of an era, the calculation should take one year).

It seems that should be taken as the year of the crucifixion 30 yearbut 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).

Does not fit Jesus ' Ministry 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 that only a carefully reread the history of Rome, at least the same "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. It all fits!

Hence, we can confidently say:

The Birth Of Jesus Christ: 4 g. BC

The crucifixion: 30 g. ad

In fact we can say more precisely. In the early nineteenth century astronomical tables was calculated that 15 Nisan 30 years corresponds to 7 April.

Therefore, Jesus could have been born in the second half 5 year BC, and in the beginning 4 years B.C. In any case, the death on 7 April 30 yearsas 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 year BC as the most likely date for Jesus ' birth (and more modern encyclopedia is saying), then take the "Orthodox" version.

So, the most fair and compromise in both historical and theological terms are dates in the life of Jesus: 7 January 4 years BC-7 April 30 years ad

The exact date of the crucifixion, 7.04. 30 years, 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 year BC, 4 years in 1 year BC, 5 years in 2 year, 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 30 years he was 33, and in the 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 turn of 2000/2001. For example, the publishing house "Terra" 1999 released a huge colorful that "Chronicle of Christianity" (translated German edition). As usual: in the beginning of the book talks about the birth of Jesus in 4 BC, and at the end of his jubilee in 2000.

How can you not think about the enormous power of tradition, paralyzing any desire to connect to one another...




So Jesus was born in the early 4 B.C. in Bethlehem, a small town near Jerusalem.

Christ Jesus in life no one but the disciples were not called, it is not a name and not a nickname. This Greek translation of the Hebrew word "mashiyah" (Anointed of God or Savior), better known in the transcription of "Messiah".

Hence, the Christ - the Messiah or Savior.

Remember, by the way, one tradition, embodied in reinforced concrete, marble and plastic in the center of Moscow's Cathedral of Christ the Savior. In Greek it is "butter oil" - the temple of the Savior Savior. Suffering the temple is called illiterate... But it is true, by the way.

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 somewhat prosaic 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 (Matt. 2:1), but grew up and lived for many years in Nazareth (Matt. 2:23), a small city in the Galilee region in Northern Israel. Thus, it is officially considered a resident of 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 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.

So, Christ is officially "passed on the documents" as Jesus Ben Joseph 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)

In order to understand what the tradition of Jesus of Nazareth drew in his preaching activities needs to be done rather extensive tour in the old Testament. This excursion we will also be useful for understanding many aspects of the life and teachings of Jesus.




Let me remind you that the old Testament can be divided into five main parts.

The first part is "legendary". This is the beginning of the book of Genesis, the first book of the Pentateuch, written, according to the canonical tradition, the prophet Moses in the middle of the second Millennium B.C. This part tells about the events from the creation of the world God and Adam before the resettlement of the Jews (then still nomadic tribe of shepherds) in Egypt. Of these legends, however, you can do a lot of historical and theological conclusions, but from the very beginning of Moses and strictly documented history of the Jewish people.

Often, by the way, there is confusion in terms of "Israel", "Jew", "Judaism", "Jews" and "Jews". Let's let's define them - after all it is the nationality and religion of Jesus Christ.

Ancient of all, the name of the nation "Jews". It is most likely descended from Eber, the ancestor of the forefather of the Jewish people of Abraham (Gen. 11:16). The full name of the last Jew was Abraham (Gen. 14:13).

The name of the state of Israel came from Jacob, grandson of Abraham. Israel - the second, the honorary name of Jacob, meaning "Wrestler with God". Jacob, as we remember, in the dream wrestled with God and was not weaker than (Gen. 32:24-28).

Jacob-Israel had twelve sons, from whom went twelve tribes of Israel" (i.e. childbirth). When Moses led the Jews out of Egypt and they won the "promised land" - Palestine, each tribe received its territory. The tribe of Judah, one of Jacob's sons, was the most numerous and wealthy.

In the Tenth century BC king David established a unified state with its capital in Jerusalem, shortly before he was conquered by a hostile Jews of the tribe of the Jebusites. After the reign of Solomon, son of David, the state was divided into two - Judah (the tribe of Judah and part of the tribe of Benjamin) and Israel (all the other tribes).

In the I century BC the Romans, without further ADO, called all the conquered provinces than Israel and Judah, because Jerusalem was the capital of the latter. From the Romans, apparently, went and the paradox that the greatest achievement of the Jewish people, religion is one God, the first representative of which was Abraham the Jew, is not avraamizm or evreizm, and Judaism. Jews in Europe began to call the Jews, too, "with a light hand" of the Romans.

Note that Jesus was from the tribe of Judah (Matt. 1:3), that is, he had every right to call himself a Jew, and a Jew.




The second part of the old Testament is "legal" (the remaining books of the Pentateuch).

Moses, moreover, that led the Jews from Egypt, where they were oppressed in every way, gave the Jewish people the law of the Decalogue (ten commandments of the Holy). The law here is unrealistic to tell because of its extreme complexity, and the ten commandments (ex. 20:2-17) know (at least by hearsay) almost everything. However, they briefly recall, as we are on the Decalogue to talk a lot.

1. God is one.

2. Do not create graven images (idols) and not be anything that is in heaven, on earth and under the earth, and wherever it is.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain (we often say in old Church Slavonic interpretation - "in vain").

4. Do not do any business on the Sabbath day.

5. Honour thy father and mother.

6. Thou shalt not kill.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

8. Thou shalt not steal.

9. Do not bear false witness.

10. You shall not covet anything that is thy neighbor's.

The third part of the old Testament is "historical". The books of Joshua, Judges and Samuel - great detail and objectively written history of Israel and Judah from the time of formation (ca. fourteenth century BC) to the death (VI century BC).

The greatest prosperity of the Israeli-Jewish Kingdom reached in the Tenth century BC under king David (the end of the XI century-OK. 950 g. BC) and his son Solomon (965-928 BC). But at the end of the reign of Solomon began a gradual decline, which ended with the capture of Jerusalem by the Persians in 586 g. BC and the destruction of the temple. Many Jews were deported to Babylon, where the term "Babylonian captivity". However, half a century later, Judah was able to restore independence, but not for long.




The fourth part of the old Testament - "literary". These are remarkable monuments of speech and thought, as the book of Esther, job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon, it is also possible to include most of the "Apocrypha" books, not included in the Jewish Canon.

The canonical books were written, according to Christian tradition, during the heyday of Israel and Judah, and it is highly likely that it was. A strong state, as we know, tend to forget about religion, God, and the impermanence of all earthly things, but when it thrived all kinds of science and art. A Holy place is never empty...

So, to understand the specifics of religious thought Jews in Solomon and his descendants (to the state disaster VI century BC), analyze the two most typical in this regard the old Testament books of job and Ecclesiastes.

Canonical Jewish tradition attributes the book of job is not someone, but to Moses, but there is no doubt that it was written much later, probably in the same time of Solomon.

The essence of the story of job about imagine almost everything, but it will be useful again to remember due to unexpected conclusions.

So, once lived a righteous and pious job, strong, healthy and rich, and all he had, and herds, and the children and the house.

And then one day Satan came to God and invited to experience the righteousness of job. Satan's argument was the following: the job is righteous, because he is all there, and lisis it all this - even as will begin to curse God. After some discussion, the test began.

In job, first killed all the cattle and he went bankrupt, then all the children died, then he himself fell ill with leprosy. God, however, he is not cursed, took a scraper to dislodge its crust, and sat down in a puddle in the yard (water cooled his sores) and started complaining about the bitter fate of friends who came to comfort him.

The leitmotif of the complaints was as follows:

- I do not righteous? I did not bring God regular sacrifices, no one was hurt, etc.? For me what God sent all these misfortunes?

According to well-known contemporary joke, God replied: "Well, I do not like you!"

And actually, after long talks job with friends about what is right and what is not, God comes in the cloud to job and says absolutely amazing things:

- How do you know, the job that you need God, that he believed this or that person righteous? Are you trying to understand and calculate the view of God? Who makes the rivers flow, the wind blowing, the sun rises and so on (the list of what God is doing, takes a lot of pages). And don't try - still do not understand. So what are you, job, complain? We must be God - he did you wipe the dust, and no victim and innocence will not help.

Indeed, the right to joke - don't like, and that's it.

Then God, as in a fairy tale, sorry job - in fact that it's still not cursed. In short, everything was good, God is everything back to job, the last new born children, he lived happily and died in deep old age, glorifying God.

The main conclusion of this book is quite paradoxical: why live righteously? Because we will never be able to understand what God wants and what he believes for righteousness. The main thing - do not curse God, and for the rest, do what you want...

Actually, of course, so your conclusion. It seems not only to nihilism, but also on a complete denial of any spiritual values. But what do the words of the song don't throw as well as from the old Testament - the book of job.

And one of the vertices of the literature of the ancient world, the great book of Ecclesiastes, or the Preacher? It can be safely put on a par with the masterpieces of Homer and Ovid, as it is written, perhaps, personally Proverbs of Solomon. Or the king's clerk...

"Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher, vanity of vanities - all is vanity!

What good is a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?

One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh : but the earth abideth forever..."

And so forth, this book is impossible to tell, it can only be read. However, even from these first lines show that the book is written by man, not believing in anything and anyone.

The book is frightening, tragic, and leaves in the soul is so bitter, that Jewish scholars arguing for several centuries, or not to include the masterpiece of Ecclesiastes in the Bible Canon. Fortunately, still included by adding at the end a "reassuring" phrases, which sounded so out of tune with the content that their authenticity is questioned in the middle ages.

"Nihilistic" the ideas contained in the book of job, Ecclesiastes brought to its logical conclusion: what is the meaning of human existence, for which we live, who we need? God? But how do we know what he needs? People? But there will come a new generation and will forget about us...

Before Jesus Christ, who gave a convincing answer to these sad matters, it was still far away.




However, in the days of Moses and Solomon, few in Israel asked myself the same questions as the basis of the Jewish religion was a belief in God is not a specific person, but people in General.

But with the VIII century BC, many 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. 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 of his coming on the last part of the old Testament.

The books of the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the twelve "minor" prophets are written in the VIII-VI centuries BC

In VI century BC Judah was conquered by the Persians. Then, as we said, the Jews managed to briefly restore state authority and to 516 g. BC even rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. In the IV century BC Judah was conquered by Alexander the great, then ruled by the Egyptian Ptolemies, the Syrian Seleucids, in the II century BC, was a popular uprising under the leadership of the Maccabean brothers and a 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"). And so on until 70 ad, when after another uprising "small but proud nation," the Roman General Titus destroyed Jerusalem along with the temple and finally destroyed Judea.

The only thing left in the miserable, the oppressed nation is hope.

About the coming of the Messiah (Savior) said almost all the old Testament prophets. Prophetic traditions in the West have 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).

Before we finished the scheme, which was consistent with the Messiah (the Anointed one of God, the Savior, Christ in Greek). And if Jesus Ben Joseph of Nazareth did not meet at least one of the above "requirements", his Messiahship would be questioned.

Evangelicals, of course, things could "invent", but we are referring to Jesus Christ, thereby recognize him as the Messiah, recognizing all the old Testament prophecies.

So I suggest not to waste time debating what "the Magi worshipped the baby Jesus, who belonged to a donkey on which Jesus rode into Jerusalem, and how much in dollar terms was the traitor Judas. To understand the personality and teachings of Jesus Christ, these subtleties unprincipled. There is a much more serious problem.




Perhaps a review of the old Testament was a little tedious, and still need another long pause and remember the history of the New Testament. He is much shorter than the old and consists of the Gospels, Acts, Catholic Epistles, and Revelation (the Apocalypse).

The canonical Gospels (recognized by the Church biographies of Jesus Christ) four - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Around and consistency of their writing, and questions of authorship debate is going so far. This is not surprising, since in the original no book of the New Testament did not reach us.

Most "unlucky" gospel of Matthew. Its in the nineteenthand 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 beginning II 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. This position, incidentally, reflected in the magnificent "Chronicle of Christianity" 1999 (we have about this book is mentioned).

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 as the last they knew a lot about 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 was shouting such a complex and intelligible phrase, and children still thought in vain...

But in any case, the publicans did not like people, and people did not like tax collectors - the situation is similar with most modern tax inspectors. Note that among the apostles after the death of Jesus Matthew was once an outcast, and quickly disappeared from the historical scene.

Another argument opponents of the authorship of Matthew is the lack of direct references to his gospel in the remaining books of the New Testament did not bear scrutiny. Who was invoked on all hated tax collector? Of course, referred directly to the authoritative old Testament prophets.

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 (64 g.), the gospel can be dated no later than the beginning of the sixties.

Accordingly, the gospel of Matthew, which is largely based, and mark, and Luke, could be written at any time with 30 60 g.

The Apocalypse, the most widely read and widely read part of the Bible that was written after Aronovich persecution in the mid-sixties. 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 (it has a clear reference to acting in that time the Church community), 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.

And the name John in Judea was not so very often, not that we have derived its name Ivan, why is it considered not Jewish, and native Russian.

So, let us stand on the side of the Church tradition and note that the sequence of the writing of the Gospels according to their location in the New Testament.




It is clear why Jesus of Nazareth 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 something of fire, roaring and striking Roman invaders.

And Jesus was the "only" son of a 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 the fact that the Almighty Messiah could bring a little Judas, a fellow of Jesus does not fit in the head.

There was another extreme, associated with the same unhappy traitor Judas - his name was associated with Judah and Judaism. How many times it was used by anti-Semites! This fact is one step to the famous phrase "Christ was crucified by the Jews, especially popular in the middle ages, when anti-Semitism was raised to the rank of state policy. However, now such a stereotype exists...

Actually, the statement "Christ crucified, the Jews" wrong first of all formally - the crucifixion never had a Jewish death!

All executions in the West produced according to the mosaic Law, which provided for hanging or beheading, and for certain crimes - stoning.

The Romans, capturing the Jew in 63 g. BC, provided by king Herod the Great status of protectorate with full autonomy, but with 6 g. BC Judea became commonplace province, and the right to execute belonged not to the Sanhedrin (the Council of Jewish high priests), and the Roman Procurator. The Sanhedrin could give something like recommendations, and, of course, in the case of Jesus ' death, this collective body to assume a significant share of responsibility. Priests, however, are easy to understand, if you carefully read the gospel of John:

"Then the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a Council and said: what shall we do? This man doeth many miracles. If we let Him thus alone, all men will believe on Him : and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.

One of them, named Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said unto them, ye know nothing, and do not consider that it is expedient for us that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish. And this spake he not of himself : but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; and not for that nation only, but to the scattered children of God gather together" (Jn. 11:47-52).

Turns out, not so Caiaphas and vile as it is depicted in Bulgakov's novel "Master and Margarita".

Incidentally, the Pharisees, as this amusing, were in those days very progressive course in Judaism and considered its primary goal of "modernization" of the law of Moses in accordance with the realities of the beginning of our era, even believing in the resurrection of the dead (acts. 23:8). It was with the Pharisees usually debated Jesus - they had at least some "common ground"and more Orthodox Jews believed ideologically harmful any theological disputes. But due to the fact that, as the opponents of Jesus often spoke exactly the Pharisees, there is a paradoxical tradition that the Pharisee - a synonym meanness, as Herod - cruelty and the Judas betrayal.

In any case, how would Jesus did various representatives of Judaism, executed its not the Sanhedrin and the Roman Procurator Pontius Pilate, and certainly not on the basis of the law of Moses, but on the basis of Roman law.

And with the right in Rome was clear: you are a citizen you have all civil rights, including you can not torture, and execution can only "cultural" - cut off the head. You do not have the status of a citizen (like most people in the provinces) - you have no rights, you equated with the Roman slaves. And for the last Roman law provided for the possibility of torture and crucifixion, which was subjected to Jesus (Matt. 20:19).

Yes, and Christ led to execution, and mocked him, and nailed him to the cross, the Roman soldiers (Matt. 27:27).

So Christ was crucified by the Romans. I hope none of the readers will not have to make this reproach to modern Italians.




So Jesus of Nazareth was crucified on 7 April 30 of the year.

Note that the cause for which he went to the cross, there were not many chances for the historic triumph, and therefore 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 his cry on the cross "my God, My God! Why hast Thou forsaken Me?" (Matt. 27:46). The tragic meaning of these words leaves no doubt - it's almost a verbatim quote from the book of 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).

It would seem that Jesus knew everything, went to the cross deliberately and suddenly these words! What was going on in his mind at this moment dying?

On this occasion, resolutely discard one of the answers to the question, who is Jesus. Evangelists are so vividly and with different angles of view and describe his doubts, and his habits, and his weakness, that the version that Christ is pure legend, long ago no one seriously considers.

However, long ago? In the early twentieth century, this question could not be considered as completely closed, and the official Soviet "researchers", denying the historicity of Christ, relied not only on ideological idiocy, but also on the number of serious scholars of the West, such as Arthur Drews, Herman Reimer and David Strauss. The last in the XVIII-XIX centuries used the gospel so strict criteria of historical authenticity, which if desired could be turned into a legend and Hammurabi, and David, and Socrates.

We will not delve into a dead-end direction, let's just understand:

For several decades I century could not occur so much of the 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...

But back to Jesus.

Reason to doubt the future he really was. 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).

John, son of Zebedee, who is also the Evangelist, the beloved disciple, was very talented as a writer, but as an organizer was weak. Wrote, however, the fourth gospel and the Apocalypse, and that's fine. To each his own.

Jacob, the younger 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 mankind nor Christ, nor even one of the "small" of the old Testament prophets like 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. In short, there was virtually no chance. 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 - hit "by hand" as traitors and conformists, and the crowd of rebels Jacob was killed.




But in the early thirties I century on the historical scene appeared to the Apostle Paul.

Strictly speaking, the Apostle Paul is not. Do not attempt to open the gospel and to seek the name of Paul among the twelve apostles.

The story of Paul's surprisingly interesting and unique: people unfamiliar with Jesus, the original active opponent of Christianity who participated in the stoning of St. Stephen (acts. 7:58), some time later took on Christian ideas and fully dedicated to Christ. (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 one of God, a man with some wonderful abilities, 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.

And how to interpret their suffering and punishment? It's very simple - he saved us spiritually, 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 all ask. Then there will be a judgement day. How much time do we have until the second coming of Christ, known only to God (Matt. 24:36).

The main theological merit of Paul - he 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. Prior to that, because the apostles were on duty at the temple in Jerusalem, so afraid to miss the second coming of Christ...

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 distrustful and 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 (to divide them was practically nothing), and after much debate, Paul went to preach in Asia Minor (modern Turkey), and, as they say, "not good".

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, according to the Orthodox churches, even to convince the Apostle Peter in his right and make him head of the community in Rome.

The latter, however, is very doubtful, although the popes still consider themselves the successors of Peter, not Paul. In the official list of popes in the first place is always worth the Apostle Peter. What can you do, another tradition.

According to legend, the Apostle Paul in Rome during the Jewish pogroms of the Emperor Nero (64-65,) beheaded. This 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.

True looks and tradition that the Apostle Peter, too, was at this time in Rome, but did not have Roman citizenship, "lucky" less - he was crucified with his head down. However, let us not blame the Romans in some special fanaticism against the Apostle, on the contrary, crucified upside down was considered "mercy", so people relatively quickly lost consciousness.

The paradox, but to Jesus Christ in his time was displayed like "mercy": it is to cross tied and nailed. So the man is also relatively quickly lost consciousness and more easily died from blood loss or sepsis, but not from hunger and thirst. Therefore Christ suffered "only" a few hours. For those who are cross-tied, torture lasted a few days (think of Spartacus and his companions, who were crucified along the Appian way).

But let the bloody manners of the Roman Empire and back to questions of the Christian religion.




Orthodox, Catholic and Lutheran theology believe that a fundamentally new interpretation of the nature of Jesus Christ gave the Apostle John the Theologian, who, unlike Paul's pragmatic, highly tuned "philosophically". While the philosophy is dominated by the principle of "the harder, the better"that lasted for many centuries. And now this principle advocates enough...

John, as we talked about 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 turn of the I and II centuries.

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:

"(1) In the beginning was the word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

(2) It was in the beginning with God.

(3) All things were made through him...

(5) And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

(9) was the true Light, Which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

(10) was In the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world knew Him not.

(11) he Came unto his own, and His own received him not.

(12) But as many as received Him, who believed in His name, he gave power to become children of God,

(13) not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but were born of God.

(14) 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.

(17) For the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

(18) 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).

For many centuries the Church theologians believe that this passage contains the concept of the Trinity and Christ the God-man - the main tenets of Orthodox churches.

First, let's take a look at the introduction to the gospel of John through the eyes of modern man, not prone to artificial complication of the simple and obvious things. Will we see in it something radically different from the view of the nature of Christ, we have already established after considering the teachings of the Apostle Paul?

Links for brevity, given only to the numbers of verses from the first Chapter of John's gospel, that is, each digit must front to put In. 1".


The word and the Light in the beginning there were only God (1).

God no one saw (18), then He was the Word (Knowledge, Teaching). That's why "the Word was God" (1).

The word of God brought us the Son of God, Christ. It is in Christ gained his flesh (14), i.e. specific expression. Christ was the Light for us (9). He has given us of God (18). Thanks to his appearance began our real life - "was In the world, and the world was made through Him" (10).

What is the "Son of God"? John does not interpret this concept literally, like a pagan Apollo the son of Zeus and Latona. No, we all spoke the Word of God through Christ, we become "children of God" (12).

Hence, we believed, be like Christ. Moreover, we all are born "not of the flesh... but from God" (13). In any case, it turns out that Christ is the same person as we are.

Probably enough. Turned out that the size of the comments did not exceed the size of material commented. Why even bother? Despite the "blackout" style of the Apostle John the theologian, clear and objective of the mission of Christ, and his essence, and the essence of all other people.

But we-well, we look from a distance of nearly two thousand years, and much can be understood according to the common sense today. And the reaction of the provisions of the gospel of John in the beginning of the II century ad?







The beginning of the II century was the beginning of the infamous persecution of the Roman emperors against the Christians.

It is believed that the Christians from the Jews began to distinguish the Emperor Trajan (ruled 98-117), who responded to the request of the writer Pliny the Younger, 111-112, Governor of Bithynia, what to do with widespread in the province of Christianity. This answer was that Christians should be punished, but with respect for the rule of law.

What punished - more or less clear. Monotheism ethnic Jews in the Roman Empire has endured. Religious tolerance in the conquered peoples was the principle of Roman policy, although Herod the Great over the entrance to the temple in Jerusalem had yet to portray the Roman eagle, and pogroms against the Jews in Rome were not infrequent. But the appeal of many "indigenous" in Romans monotheistic religion - it was too much. The emperors were the high priests of pagan religions, and then "some" Jesus of Nazareth...

And "rules of law", as it is known that the pole. Persecution of the II-III centuries, then grown and waned depending on the personality of the Emperor, and the "legitimacy" when Christians were fed to lions observed very conditional.

For example, when "enlightened philosopher Marcus Aurelius (ruled 161-180) were toughened laws against Christians and believers killed in several cities of Gaul (modern France). When detsii (reigned 249-251), the Church was on the verge of death, but under his successors persecution almost subsided. The next strongest surge of terror took place at the end of the reign of Diocletian, 302-304 years, but not for long.

And finally, when Constantine the Great (ruled 306-337) Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, but this was still far off.

The beginning of persecution in the age of Trajan shows that at this time Christianity in the number of followers and sphere of influence went beyond the Jewish sect. Once the Emperor noticed and began to fight - it speaks volumes. Nero, while their anti-Jewish pogroms 64-65, did not distinguish Christians from Jews and destroying all in a row.

So, in the late I-early II century sect of Christianity became a separate religion Imperial scale, and faced a problem: how to explain the broad 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?

In order to understand the long explanation of the Messiah need to know the old Testament. It was in Judea, not everyone knew...

In the II century, to distinguish it from Judaism, Christians needed their "own" God. Then began Jesus to call God.

Of course, with God the Father no one "cancelled".

Questions like: "How in monotheism can be two gods?" at 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, not the fact that in Russia today.

But the theological justification of the divine nature of Christ, sooner or later, should have been required. It began to develop, Justin (Justin) a philosopher, or a Martyr (about 100-165), later executed along with six of his students. By the way, with the same "enlightened" Emperor Marcus Aurelius.

In III century on this subject began hot theological disputes.




Gradually the relationship between the divine and human nature in Jesus Christ not only became the key tenets of the Church of the Trinity and the God-man, but took a really detective coloring. The debate lasted for centuries, and continue to this day.

If we ask in order to look into the formation of the dogma of the Trinity from at least Justin Philosopher to St. Augustine ("only" three hundred years), we would get a bulky volume, absolutely unusable for reading - scholastic texts of the medieval theologians never dreamed of a modern man in a nightmare.

On this occasion, we give the definition of scholasticism.

Simply put, it's heavy logical construction, usually on the theological or philosophical themes, "fashionable" in the middle ages, and totally divorced from common sense and from the realities of life.

If the same thing to say language, characteristic of scholasticism, its essence consists in the following: "first, that the main task of the research relies in finding firmly established and to various problems equally applicable schematic concepts; secondly, that given the excessive value of some General concepts, followed by denoting these concepts to words, resulting in extreme cases, the empty game concepts and words brings the place of actual facts, from which these concepts distracted".

Feel the difference between "simply" and scholasticism? Not surprisingly, if we analyze the past, resulting in unreadable is unimaginable dimensions.

If we recall the debate about the God-man from Augustine to John of Damascus (V-VIII centuries) and discussions about the Trinity period of separation of churches (IX-XI centuries.)you will get another of the same volume.

From the debate on this topic in the "dark ages" (XI-XV centuries bulky volumes, however, will not work - fearing immediately pleasing to the fire, few professional scholars dare to wipe the key tenets. But the reformation (sixteenth century) gave material for an entire collection of works on the theme "What is the Trinity and how this dogma to fight".

But we, unfortunately, have the luxury bulky volumes can not afford. So I suggest only informative to consider the key points of the formation of the dogma of the Trinity and his "younger brother" - the dogma of the God-man. This is necessary for our proper understanding of Jesus Christ.

But before considering recall given at the beginning of the book the question:

- God, known to be one. This is the first commandment Holy, and the cornerstone of the Christian religion. And the Trinity consists of three - Father, Son and Holy spirit... we Have that, polytheism, that is paganism?




So, Jesus Christ at the beginning of the II century had to declare God and not to incur charges dvubozhii. The task, to put it mildly, difficult, and frankly, baffling.

"Cancel" God the Father 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 very necessary, it will be thought no matter what.

And Justin the Philosopher 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... the Word.

The absurdity of this approach at that time was not evident, because Justin, based primarily on the teachings of Socrates, identified the expression "the Word was God" from the Greek philosopher often used the term "Logos".

Socrates the "Logos" means "true word" (logic, source and criterion of objective knowledge), Heraclitus is reasonable nature of nature, Plato and Aristotle - the true essence of each thing, and Justin - the Divine Mind, which gained flesh and came to earth in the person of God the Son, Jesus Christ.

And there was this strange symbiosis between theology and philosophy - the identification of Jesus Christ with the Greek Logos.

The logo of the ancient Greeks, as we have seen, was considered something of a higher mind, so 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.

Church theology II-III centuries it went this way.

Writer and theologian Tertullian (about 160 to about 240) 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 doctrine of the Trinity. But actually the doctrine of the Trinity nothing had, and the dogma appeared in 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.

Philosopher Origen (ca. 185-254) thought in terms of potential and actual energy: before his birth, Christ was a potential internal energy of God, then came into the world, and has become an important energy.

Note that Origen, in a sense laid the Foundation for the doctrine of the Trinity, calling the Father, Son, and Holy spirit divine hypostasis. But Origen analyzed the relationship primarily of the Father and of the Son, as a result of recognizing God in the absolute sense, only the Father. The son, according to Origen, is the second God. The Holy Spirit, in turn, descended from the Son and treats him like the Son to the Father, not being God.

If we translate spoken language with philosophical and theological concepts into the language of common sense, then all logical Origen: the Christ is born of God the Father, created and left us with the Christian doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Remained slippery question - as in monotheism were two gods, and to ward off accusations of paganism, Origen calls the rest of the people also gods (remember a similar position of John the theologian - In. 1:12). 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).

In short, Origen began with the recognition that Jesus is God, and graduated from the recognition of the gods of us all.

To anything else besides a professional and conscientious philosopher could not come, but the believers in the third century this still was not ready. Origen's position seemed detached from the ugly reality, and it could not try to ground.

People in III-IV centuries ceased to be the gods and began to call "created beings" Monarchianism and Arians - the representatives of the two famous heresies, and the V century and the Orthodox Church as a whole.

Look, there would be monarhianstva and Arianism - would not be out of the dogma of the Trinity, and the official position of the Church in the end would be understandable and clear line of St. John the theologian - Justin - Origen: Jesus is God the Son, but we are all gods, and the absolute there is only one God - God the Father.

This, of course, can also attract the charge of paganism, despite the emphasis on the "absoluteness" of God. "Relative" of the gods, apart from Christ, is many billions. But such a position even if relatively simple, logical and respectful to the people".

A complex and controversial doctrine of the Trinity, not leaving the place of the divine essence of people, emerged in the struggle against Arianism, and Arianism, in turn, emerged from the wreckage monarhianstva. What past will not return...




If I had to return the former, it would have had to start from the end of II century. Around this time, finally formed the so-called "Apostolic" Symbol of Faith (the set of key Christian canons, who had, however, no relation to the apostles), which is relatively simple and straightforward, although it does not pretend to any theological disclosure of the nature of Jesus Christ.

Give it entire:

"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".

In this "Symbol", as we see, all is logical, and slippery competently cost. The only confusion is with two raznokontekstnymi references to the Holy spirit, but he and the Gospels has been interpreted very ambiguous about what we will talk again. Then the essence of the Holy spirit very few people cared, with the essence of Jesus Christ could not understand...

Justin, Tertullian and Origen, "combining" the Bible with Greek philosophy, were still more theologians than philosophers, and beyond Scripture almost did not go - no wonder the majority of the clergy took their point of view. But many philosophers II-III centuries, absorbed by Christianity as a "fashion" idea, could not help but try to build on its base "full" philosophical system.

How many exercises for this purpose "insertion" in Christianity! On the first place in popularity was the ancient Greek philosophy, but also used the concept of Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, and many other philosophical and religious systems.

The common name of these philosophical systems - Gnosticism (not to be confused with epistemology (science of knowledge). Gnostics were called a variety of philosophers, "adopting" the Scriptures. The most famous of them Valentinus and Basilides, who lived at the beginning of the II century.

Only 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" - this whole mess has 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 that solid illusion, terrible abomination and a real trial, consisting of three levels, from 365 spheres, then 30 "eons"...

The Gnostics believed that Christianity itself is too simple and axiomatic, and if it does not splash all sorts of sophisticated philosophical concepts, serious people will not perceive it.

This view was widely held, and when you read modern philosophical works, where mixed concepts of God, Christ, the Trinity, the absolute, Nirvana, Shambhala, 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 the most serious and intelligent people.

So, from Gnosticism in Eastern Christianity infiltrated the cult of Sofia - "God's Wisdom". Now it is often confused with Sofia, unhappy mother martyrs Faith, Hope and love but the greatest of 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 lasted a relatively short time and still in pre-Mongol times was replaced by the cult of the virgin.

"Sin" Gnosticism even the Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovyov (1853-1900), very fond of them to incorporate in their teaching, along with the canonical Christian concepts and some of the Gnostic primarily the same Sofia. His footsteps went and Pavel Florensky (1882-1937).

And those who the name of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (1831-1891) known only from books about meditation and astral, it may be curious to know what she actually tried to synthesize religious-philosophical thought of all mankind, using the concepts and practices of the various cultures of the West and East. What eventually turned out to be like her so-called "theosophy"? Of course, on Gnosticism.

Fortunately, already in the II-III centuries, bishops, and princes, and "ordinary citizens" understand that metaphysical philosophy is one thing, but the Christian religion is quite another. It was the period (unfortunately brief), when the Church dogma does not extend beyond the analysis of the Scriptures, and it was the main argument in the philosophical and theological disputes.

There was one exception - the deification of Jesus of Nazareth, but, as we said at the beginning of our era it was useful for ease of perception of Christianity by the masses of pagans.

Question: "Whom Christians worship"? - Answer: "Jesus Christ". Short and clear.

That is why Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (approx. 130-202), a brilliant analyst of Scripture, declared that any theory of the origin of Christ as the Word, the Logos of God the Father not necessary and even harmful, because they complicate the understanding of the believers of the Christian religion. There is God the Father, God the Son and all, for faith is enough. Irenaeus clearly believed that Christ is God, the charges dvubozhii didn't bother him.

And so it happened that in the III century established a more or less stable balance between the positions of Origen and Irenaeus of Lyons. Most theologians and bishops followed the line of Justin, Origen: Christ is God, but people are also gods, and "absolute" God is only one God the Father. Most "ordinary" priests preached by Irenaeus: Christ is the second (or "main") God, and no comments.

However, many clerics with Irenaeus and Origen did not agree and made precious slogan, something like: "Hold on for the monarchy!" Simply put, 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-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". Almost like the Apostle Paul, simple and logical, but more prosaic - the people ceased to be called children of God, and were called "created beings".

It is believed that the first "Monarchianism-dinamistami" were legendary Theodotos Tanner and Theodotos banker, who lived at the turn of the II and III centuries. And in the middle of III century is headed for a Christological namesake the Apostle Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch, absolutely real and very colorful personality.

Last, having a good relationship with Synovia, Queen of Palmyra and Syria (vassal of Rome made Christianity already in the III century, the state religion of the local (Syrian) scale, lived lavishly and luxuriously, 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, you see, would prevail if his point of view, things could be completely wrong...

But we have already said that the Church was needed Christ is God, and the teachings of Paul of Samosata in 269 g. at the Council of Antioch branded as heresy. Let me remind you that the Cathedral had already called a meeting of top representatives of the Church.

Curiously, at the Cathedral 269 year personally attended the Roman Emperor Aurelian. I thought about it, first, to highlight the scale of the figure of Paul of Samosata, and secondly, to refute the traditional view of the hopelessness of persecution against Christians in the II-III centuries. As we can see, even then, some emperors were concerned about the subtleties of Christian theology.

The so-called "Monarchianism-modalists" (from the word "mode" is a way of manifesting) saw in Jesus the God-Father, who took human form, walked the earth and was crucified.

For it appeared Sabellius, Bishop Ptolemaidsky, who lived at the beginning of the III 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 the Father and of the Son, the third hypostasis of the Holy spirit, and declared them all the same in essence. 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 really quite strange. In addition, the doctrine of "modalists" is very reminiscent of early heresy II century - Docetism (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 II century not believe could and Docetism few people seriously.

As we began to consider the most famous early Christian heresy, we 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. The theological debates often took place in the famous catacombs and were quiet and cultural, because at any moment to descend the Roman soldiers and offer to continue the dispute in another place.

And the heretical bishops demoted rare - a new candidate for such a dangerous position was difficult to find. While, however, Paul of Samosata after condemnation by the Council of Antioch 269 g. deprived of dignity 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.



By the beginning of the IV century all of Monarchianism dispersed, and to the flourishing of the Church under Constantine the Great Christian dogmatics came with the Apostolic creed and with a relatively simple, albeit blurred understanding of Christ as God the Son. On charges dvubozhii Church answered with quiet reservations about the same divine essence of other people, and without reference to Origen.

Note that Origen was not a cleric, and its not like many Church theologians such as the famous preacher, Bishop Methodius of Patara (mind. 311). Clear dogma has not yet been, but already there is a common opinion of the bishops that the disputes should be solved in a narrow circle of the Church, but from the secular philosophers and theologians, only harm. This view of philosophy, by the way, since ruled the world, more than a thousand years, and almost all medieval philosophers, as is well known, were either priests or statesmen.

Poor Origen! Moreover, that when the Emperor of Deli was imprisoned and tortured, and after the death of Decius were liberated, and he died in prison in 254 year, when the kind and the persecution ended, and the Church began to prosper and to get back on their feet. His teaching then another and comprehensively defamed in the VI century, when Origen understanding of people as the gods began to interfere with the claims of the Church to state domination.

Why! Of course, interfere. On this subject there is an interesting analogy.

Why in the armies of most countries, especially human 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 just that, 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.

Actually ill drill drill is under a centuries-old Foundation is to create a soldier's subconscious feeling that he is a pawn, whose life does not belong to him and is little purpose.

Left dress! In that light, quick March!

Actively Patriotic individuals, shouting in 1941-45 "Communists, go!" still the exception, or superiors. And the twentieth century has been in the yard, that is, the soldiers had somehow managed to teach political literacy and explain that they are going to die. Characteristically, Stalin at the beginning of the war was forced to go directly to the same Christian message: "Brothers and sisters".

But we are talking about the middle ages, when the state management guidelines were indistinguishable from the army and was based on the dull compulsion.

How to fit in with these principles, the teachings of Origen? It is appropriate to remind the soldiers on the parade ground of their divine essence?

- No! -said in unison 553 g. at the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and was posthumously condemned Origen as a heretic.

On St. John, the first to recognize people by the gods (Jn. 1:12-13), of course, nobody dared to venture so that Origen was "extreme" and three hundred years after his death.




But a short time the Church enjoyed bequeathed by Irenaeus calm in theological matters. 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 (ruled 306-337), who was the mother of Helen (244-327), adopted Christianity and instruct his son on the appropriate path.

Helen, by the way, we must first archaeological excavations associated with the life of Jesus Christ. In 325 g. this "iron lady" in the eighty-year-old (!) age had made the difficult journey to Jerusalem and relatively hot pursuit ("only" three hundred years later) found Calvary and dug up the cross, supposedly the same, because it was believed that at Calvary after Jesus it was not executed.

It is unlikely, of course, the cross was the same. Forty years after the death of Christ, in 70 g., Roman was taken and destroyed Jerusalem. Throughout the city and surrounding area crosses were hanged many people, probably at Calvary too.

But in any case, thanks to Helen. And for the strongest political move - the acquisition of the cross. And, of course, for having raised such a wonderful son. Constantine, however, Christian humility did not differ, seized power in the civil war, destroyed all rivals for the throne, and then was executed and his heir Crispus, and the young Empress Faust (Crispus, son of Constantine by his first wife, allegedly struck up a romance with his stepmother by Fausti, for which he paid). But the Christianity of Constantine the Great in the territory of the Empire in 313 g. "Edict of Milan" was legalized.

And in 318 g. amid the General euphoria of the victory of Christianity, the Alexandrian priest Arius (256-336) 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.

Arius of Alexandria was a bright personality, a perfect ascetic, but also a poet. The latter allows him to clothe his ideas in a public poem-song form, which greatly contributed to the popularity of Arianism.

Arius was based on "dynamic" monarhianstvo Paul of Samosata, but with a slight difference concerning the identity of Christ and the Greek Logos, the Word, the Divine Mind.

Paul of Samosata completely denied the idea of Justin Philosopher and radical thought that the identification of Christ and the Logos is absurd. According to Paul, Jesus Christ - man and the Logos - the divine substance, given to him by God.

Arias, knowing the end of the once mighty Bishop of Antioch, Paul of Samosata, so far did not go and did not deny the identity of Christ and the Word-Logos. He followed the line of Justin, Origen, 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 is the Logos, "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, which became the official position of the Church: 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 that, because we are talking about the relationship between Father-Son, then the Son in any case appeared later Father, and, as said Arius, "there was a time when it was not." I think, intuitively the same understanding and opponents of Arius, but further development of this idea has led to very undesirable conclusions about the divine nature of Christ.

In recognition of the position of Arius, in any case receive two divine persons: the Father is eternal and primordial, 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 viewpoint defamed in 269 g. 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 "consubstantial son of the Father" and human nature. However, the masses and the ordinary priests Arian doctrine still was perceived closer to what Christ is a human like everyone else.




For that fight? he asked the opponents of Arius, among which the most implacable was the successor of Alexander the post of Bishop of Alexandria, St. Athanasius (293-373), later for success in the struggle for an Orthodox Church "modestly" called the Great. This is also the nickname received his disciple and follower of Basil of Caesarea (329-379). There was another "great" enemy of Arianism - spiritual writer Macarius of Egypt (301-391).

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 (1193-1280), 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.

In the fight against Arieh distinguished, though not with the best hand, and even more famous Saint Nicholas, Bishop of Myra (260-343), aka Nicholas or Saint, he's Dutch seafarers ' patron Saint Nikolaus, therefore, he is Santa Claus or Santa Claus.

There may be a feeling that against Arius of Alexandria were all-all-all, and he alone, "so bad", all ruined life. In fact, he performed many bishops, and sometimes the majority, just their names Church historiography ignores for quite natural reasons - "Woe to the vanquished". On the side of Arius, for example, were Lucian (Chapter authoritative theological school of Antioch), Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea ("the father of Church history"), his namesake, Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia (Patriarch of Constantinople in 339-341 years) and many others.

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, of course, God, but we are all gods, only slightly worse. 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 a little to be gods...

Very impressive, and most importantly, promptly said Basil of Caesarea: "God became man so that man might become God".

In relation to the people in the end something bad happened: when in the middle of the IV century it was necessary to appeal to "the masses of the workers," Athanasius and Basil all were called gods, but as a defeated Arianism, this was quickly forgotten, and the people at St. Augustine, 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 every person it is insulting and demeaning term.

However, 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 God the Son from God the Father.

In IV century irrevocably passed when choosing between relatively clear and precise positions of Origen (Christ is God, but we are also gods) and Paul of Samosata (Christ - people like us).

However, permanently? But let's not get ahead of ourselves one thousand seven hundred years. We are talking about Arianism, and I wish that his defeat was a lesson to us: do not get involved in scholasticism, let's defend common sense...

Not surprisingly, the debate about whether there should Arianism heresy or Canon, lasted for at least three centuries. Try to figure out when the theological question, to be solved logically, piling more and more political.




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 famous Council of Nicaea 325 g. and personally presided.

Despite such a solid chair that Nicaea was happening - is difficult to convey. A good illustration of "Dean order" at the Council is that Nicholas of Myra in the eyes of the Emperor and bishops in the heat of the argument ran to the Aria of Alexandria and gave him a slap in the face, and was even for a time deprived of the Episcopal dignity and imprisoned in the tower. Yes, this is stated even in the official book "the Life and miracles of St. Nicholas, Bishop of Myra". How then Nicholas remained in the memory of posterity kind Grandfather frost is another historical paradox...

However, after a heated argument was won by the opponents of Arius, and the latter, along with several bishops were excommunicated and exiled.

The Council adopted the Nicene creed. Its main difference from the "apostles" creed was as follows: after the words about the Son from the Father born" appeared "uncreated, consubstantial with the Father". The divinity of Christ (as he nesotvoren and consubstantial with God the Father, that is God) was more or less institutionalized.

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...

So if you find where the word "omousianstvo" - carefully re-read it, and if the third letter "o", then do not count for another heresy. Only a hundred years from the official Church was proudly call themselves "Orthodox", that is "correct"and "Catholic"meaning "universal". In 1054 divided and name, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

So far omousiane winning at the Nicene Council, poskromnichal, and rightly so: they 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 separate personages, the father and the Son, can 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 of the Son, as we recall, meant just one person that was no less absurd - it means that Jesus, praying to God, praying to myself...




For that fight? asked this time the Arians and bowed to the Emperor Constantine the Great. In 328, Arius and his associates were returned from exile, and in 335 g. at the Council of tyre Athanasius deprived of the Episcopal dignity, and sent back to where he returned Arias.

Sam Arius of Alexandria died in 336 g., but the thing it lived and occasionally won. After the death of Constantine in 337 g. omousiane headed by Athanasius returned from exile and received the Episcopal chair, but not for long: the Arian Eusebius, Patriarch of Constantinople, in 339 g. Athanasius again "demoted". The latter went to Rome, to Pope Julius, who acquitted him on the Cathedral 340 g.

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 demoted in 355 g., the Emperor Julian the Apostate in 361 g. returned to his Episcopal chair, but after a year away, and by the mid-sixties Arianism almost universally prevailed.

Relatively short time. Athanasius of Alexandria (the Great) died in 373 g., but dropped out of his hands picked up the banner of Basil of Caesarea (the Great) and his friend, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, the Theologian, or (329-389). Note that Nazianzus - no name, and the origin of the city of Nazianzus, as well as Basil of Caesarea. Again we are faced with different translation traditions, and most certainly would have sounded - Gregory of Nazianzus. Like Athanasius of Alexandria.

But accustomed to Nazianzus, so let it be Nazianzus. The main thing that he brought against the Arians to the end with the help of the Emperor Theodosius I. Also, incidentally, surnamed "the Great".

Emperor Theodosius the Great acted decisively: convening in 381. The second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople, and after hearing all the parties, he declared:

"Consubstantial" is Imperial law, the Department transferred to the supporters of the "consubstantial" Trinity, taken Nicaea (now the Nicene-Constantinopolitan) creed with small additions about the Holy Spirit, and all questions are closed once and for all. And if anyone dares to protest, will have to deal with the Emperor, that no one is recommended.

The latter was soon confirmed: 385 g. were first executed heretics. "No luck" pristsillianu, Bishop Avilanskomu (modern Spain), and four of his disciples. They are under the guise of Christianity preached the doctrine of Basilides, a Gnostic philosopher of the beginning of the II century. This, of course, was not good, but the death penalty is hardly deserved.

Fair to say that the beheading Pristsillianu produced a strong negative response in the Christian world the end of the IV century. He would know the Christian world, are waiting for the execution of dissidents in the near future...

By the way, did you notice in the decree of the Council of Constantinople 381. the emergence of the doctrine of the Trinity? As it has become "consubstantial son of the Father," we shall soon see, but for now we note that the Emperor Theodosius the Great, even by force failed "close questions" Arian neither immediately, nor for the next few centuries.




In fact, it was a different era - the end of IV century.

Remember what happened in the V century? Properly, under the blows of the barbarians of the Western Roman Empire fell. In the year 455, as we were taught in school, the barbarian vandals had destroyed Rome, whence came the word "vandalism", and in 476. the barbarian Germans once again took altogether destroyed Rome, and with it the Empire.

Actually nothing of the sort - the barbarians never destroyed Rome was not destroyed by the Empire. Leo I the Great (Pope in 440-461) for and received the appropriate title, that they "agreed" with the vandals and saved the temples and the people of Rome from destruction. Robbery, murder and rape, of course, have taken place, but without it taking cities has never been done, especially in the middle ages.

Another tradition - remembering the bloody pictures of school textbooks, we equate the taking of Rome by the last day of Pompeii. In vain.

That the barbarians in 455 g. not washed Rome from the face of the earth, the fact that in a few years, when the same Pope Leo the Great, Emperor Valentinian III recognized for Rome, "the primacy of the Apostolic see, bonded by the merits of St. Peter, the dignity of Rome and the conciliar decrees, that no one had the courage to do anything unlawful, contrary to the authority of the Roman chair.

Strange wording to rubble...

Yes and Barbara behaved strangely: 476. Germanic Odoacer, once again capturing Rome, deposed the last Western Emperor, infant Romulus Avhustula, he became the ruler, but not the Emperor, but the signs of the Imperial dignity was collected and sent to Constantinople the Eastern Emperor. Atypical intelligent behavior for "wild Germans"...

In fact, our perception of the barbarians in accordance with the "barbaric" title - another dubious historical stereotype. Barbara, received permission to settle in the territory of the Empire in the middle of the IV century, a hundred years of civilized and learned a lot.

This, of course, there was no guarantee regarding the "care" attitude to the barbarians captured Rome. But Rome was saved Christianity.

Christianity has taken all the barbarians in the second half of the IV century, and therefore behave decently towards Rome, it is also a Christian, spiritual values. It is significant that c barbarians "agreed" not the Emperor or the Senate, and Pope Leo the Great.

Yes, historians are well aware of this, but...

Remember, somewhere in the Church literature you met fanfare about the fact that Rome and the Western European civilization from destruction by the barbarians saved primarily Christianity, and that this is one of the greatest contributions of the Church to humanity?

Hardly met, and here's why:

Rome and the Western European civilization was saved is not Christianity at all, but a very specific Arianism. Without exception, the "barbarian" peoples became just Arians and the Ostrogoths, and Visigoths, and vandals, and Burgundians, and Lombards.

It is not surprising, because Arianism was much clearer rustic and illiterate barbarians, than unimaginably complex provisions of the Nicene-Constantinople creed.

About the latter, we still talk, but as for the barbarians, they Arianism lasted until VI-the middle of the VII century, and only the pressure of the Pope gained through political and military weight francs, accepted Orthodox Christianity, made the "Arian" people to accept the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed.

A good example is the famous Frankish king Clovis (466-511) specially baptized is in Orthodox Christianity, as he had a war with Arianna Lombards (current Lombardy).

Most policies. Hardly the leader of the Franks thought about the relationship of the persons of the Trinity...




So why still the notion of the Trinity?

In order to answer this question, we need to briefly leave the "big politics" and return to the theological disputes of the IV century.

We stopped on the fact that Athanasius of Alexandria "friends" fought against Arianism and preached omousianstvo - consubstantial Son to the Father. It formed the basic relationship of two persons - God the Father and God the Son, to whom with 325 g. added definition: "born nesotvoren".

The son is born - in the Son. But nesotvoren on God. Consubstantial with the Father - there is no accusation dvubozhii, once the essence of the Father and the Son are one.

Effectively? Yes, probably. But no more, because no more or less serious criticism of this position does not stand up. We have yet to speak in detail about the Nicene-Constantinople creed, so far only ask the reader to think about how you can be born and uncreated, and how two individuals can be consubstantial enough to make one God.

By the way, you actually remember who you are talking about in our book? Not overshadowed Jesus of Nazareth numerous theological refinements?

Even as screened, right? It is not surprising.

It was during the struggle against Arianism the person of Jesus Christ hid behind vague notion of God the Son, "the uncreated and consubstantial with God the Father."

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 the same Athanasius of Alexandria, and in the sixties and seventies developed Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus.

The last reason sverhmedlennogo the title of "Great" is not received (however, "Gregory of Nazianzus" too bad it sounds), although he ultimately defended the Declaration of God the Holy Ghost, very many meanings defined in the Gospels, but it is usually interpreted as the Christian faith or spirituality. For Gregory, the Holy Spirit equally with the Son proceeds from the Father, just nesotvoren and consubstantial with the Father.

Youve got the Trinity.

Questions about the Holy Spirit, just appeared, was in the forties and fifties of the IV century trump card in the political game two omousianskih (defending "consubstantial son of the Father") 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 already familiar Bishop and theologian Athanasius of Alexandria. On the side of the latter arose and younger theologians, Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus.

Macedonia and I, and Paul I have omousianami and active fighters against Arianism, but that their relationship is no better. If you think that the title of Patriarch of Constantinople accidentally printed twice at some computer crashes, it is not so. Paul I was the Patriarch of 337 to 339, then with 341 to 342, then from 346 to 351, and Macedonius I of them was from 342 to 346, then from 351 to 360, Between them "wedged" Arian Eusebius (Patriarch 339-341), and in 360 g. the Patriarch of a long eudoxius was, again, an Arian.

What was the heat of political struggle, can you imagine?

Omousiane fought against the Arians, in their free time battles fought among themselves, and the Arians were in confusion, not knowing which group omousian they have to fight tomorrow...

Policy Paul I had a theological justification for the struggle against the policy of Macedonia, I. Theologian Athanasius gave it, and it was the Holy Spirit, turned in the third person of the Trinity. Macedonia considers its glorification of the 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 "titans omousianstva" until the early eighties he lived only a vigorous and impressive Gregory Nazianzen. He just succeeded in becoming a 379 g. the Patriarch of Constantinople, to win over the Emperor Theodosius the Great.

And you thought, 381. the Emperor at the Second Ecumenical (Constantinople) the Council declared the dogma of the Trinity for no reason, no reason at all? This policy is no...




Intrigue intrigue, and case by case. The dogma of the Trinity has won not only because at the right time in the right place (about Emperor) was Gregory the Theologian, and not someone from the Arians or "Dukhobors" (so called followers of Macedonia, do not confuse them with the Russian sect XVI-X -IX centuries). Trinity suit and the Emperor, and the majority of bishops at that time, she was in dogmatic terms of stabilizing compromise, and politically - worked on the image of the Christian Church.

Athanasius, Basil and Gregory, developed and defended the doctrine of the Trinity, "killed two birds with one stone:

First, they built the Holy Spirit, 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". The Bible is full of threefold praise the Lord, and the threefold repetition of the phrase gives an instinctive balance in any utterance. Remember faith, hope, love. Yes there is 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, 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.

What this system together with the concept of "consubstantial" was based on the heresy of a century ago - the doctrine monarhianina,"modalista" Savelli, few people cared.




The third God, the Holy Spirit, was very comfortable and for the state, and property claims of the Church - his "Keeper".

Why - explain.

Jesus Christ, as you know, reasonably rejected three of the devil's temptations. Tell us about them and Matthew, and Luke.

"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 doctrine of the Trinity: why is the devil suddenly began to tempt 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 the 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, "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, and God knows what other errors have crept in the long chain of translations, even of the New Testament, to say nothing of 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 profound 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 would have to be on Jesus and renounce 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 saving for the Church, the idea turned out to be just the third person of the Trinity: the Holy Spirit, if not worse than God the Son, then, he does all that he considers necessary.

Where in the Gospels, the Holy Spirit must renounce worldly pleasures, kingdoms and other "useful" things?

A Sacred Tradition? As I wanted the Church to the decrees of Councils, popes and patriarchs "quoted" on a par with the Bible! Of course, in the IV century a "spiritual" interpretation of the Trinity in the old Testament (God the Father), the New Testament (God the Son) and the Holy Tradition (the Holy Spirit). Convenient, right?

- "God the Son let the reigns in heaven, and we, the keepers of the Holy spirit will reign on the earth!" "she said proudly popes in one voice with all the patriarchs and emperors of Constantinople, which had also thought of themselves as the heads of the Church.

On such a spectacular note, the world entered the middle ages.







"Errors of the Trinity", another translation of "On the Trinitarian errors" - the book of the deceased at the stake Miguel Servet (1511-1553). On it we read at the end of this Chapter, but for now let's not get ahead of ourselves. Only using this opportunity will give the definition of Trinitarian: it is the whole range of issues related to the theological dogma of the Trinity. Accordingly, the Trinitarians - Trinitarian, antitrinitary - enemy.

So, briefly repeat the essence of the dogma: the Son, and the Holy Spirit are gods, descended from God the Father, but nesotvoreny and consubstantial with the Father.

Let's see how this doctrine permits as specified in the beginning of the book "provocative" question:

- God is one, this is the first commandment Holy, and the Trinity consists of three - Father, Son and Holy spirit... we Have that, polytheism, that is paganism?

This leads to the idea that the creators of the dogma in the IV century, all the "slippery" just listed and found a solution for each individual:

God must be one - it means that all three persons of one essence.

The son and the Holy Spirit must be the gods (that is, as we know, the Church was very necessary) - then nesotvoreny.

The tradition of the old Testament must meet at least for appearances, so if God the Father created the world and everything else, means to him and his Son was born, and became the Holy Spirit.

As they say, all is left out...

And the whole thing is a compromise system, dictated by momentary political situation in the IV century. Moreover, a system in which wishful thinking. But about this we will talk again in the analysis of the Nicene-Constantinople creed. While you can still think a little as three separate divine persons can be so consubstantial that make up one God, and how is it that the Son is begotten, and the Holy Spirit proceeds, but they nesotvoreny. It is unlikely, however, that something...

No wonder why the Church almost immediately after the development of the dogma of the Trinity in the beginning of the V century, was forced to take a position formulated blissful Aurelien Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (354-430): we must first believe, and then think. Literally: "I believe in order to know".




Augustine of Hippo - a landmark figure in theology.

He lived in the South of the Roman Empire (modern Algeria), in his youth was a pagan, and only in the year 387, thirty-three years old (the age of Christ"), baptized into Christianity. In 391 g. he became a priest and in 395. Bishop of Hippo in the city. This post he held until his death.

Augustine is famous among his contemporaries that, being an extraordinary person and having a fiery temperament, successfully fought against many heresies.

First, he dealt a serious blow to Arianism, placing the dogma of the Trinity "spiritual" basis in the form of self-awareness, thinking and power ("power of love") people. Now even the official Orthodoxy considers it very convincing, but then it was a strong psychological way, and another "trendy" synthesis of theology and philosophy.

Secondly, Augustine "has finished" Donatism - religious during the times of Constantine the Great. Donatists reasonably believed that the necessary personal Holiness and infallibility of any priest, or Holy sacrament, committed them to lose their force. Of course, the vast majority of priests were not happy, Donatists strongly poisoned, but finally denounce Donatism as heresy was only on the Carthaginian Council 411 g. St. Augustine ustavshem his position 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.

Do you think I dramatize? No.

Naturally, no dogma can not force a person to be Holy. And yet, if the above hierarchs "hung" donatistskoe of the necessary personal Holiness of the Church - you see, 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 for others, but something quite wrong turns...

Well, God is judge of all. We will not be distracted from the topic.

Third, Augustine won Pelagianism. Roman monk Pelagius (approx 360-after 418) announced determining the free will of man and was of the opinion that man is born sinless and has the ability to choose good or evil.

Augustine in discussions with Pelagianism developed his doctrine of "original sin", after which the person is not able not to sin, and must rely on the mercy of God, which, as you know, is unknowable.

This dispute lies rather in a philosophical than theological plane, but all the same it is not surprising that the struggle Augustine with Pelagianism ended with the victory of the first - remember, we talked about the fact that humiliated people easier to manage, and there's some sort of "free will"...




Augustine of Hippo is one of the prolific writers and theologians: nearly one hundred large-scale "scientific papers". And what is the scope of problems! It is Augustine has created such a "card" of medieval spirituality, as the doctrine of "original sin", on the transfer of sin through women through the passionate sexuality", "adenosarcoma the grace of God, the knowledge of good exclusively "by the grace of God, of a single authoritarian Church, faith as the only key to knowledge of the world, of the origin of evil and of the devil... Onthis we have yet to speak in the following chapters.

As much as we were, for example, Athanasius of Alexandria and Gregory of Nazianzus, in his life had to endure many hardships and unfair accusations. Sometimes they have even been on the verge of excommunication. Augustine, nothing like this happened. He knew how amazing feel for the position of senior leadership in the Church (the post of the Bishop of Hippo was formally modest), and gradually became a theologian, "service" any urgent needs of officialdom.

It is not surprising that the doctrine of Augustine found the place and future of the Inquisition, and the processes of the witches, and the state claims of the papacy, and the development of Catholic dogma, and "achievements" of medieval scholasticism, and the depravity of the clergy, and the humiliation of women, and many other components of the "dark" middle ages.

Not necessary, of course, to evaluate Aurelius Augustine, and at the same time and all the middle ages, from the standpoint of our time, but against the remnants of "avgustinianstva" in modern religious beliefs can and should argue.

Note that the Catholics Augustine is not just Holy, but the greatest of the Church fathers. But the Orthodox Church recognizes the blessed Augustine - on grade lower than a Saint. Yes, "blessed" is just an official title, nothing more. But Augustine of Hippo the title so "stuck"in certain "non-theological" encyclopedias even write his name instead: "Augustine". Moreover, in Russia the so-called foolish, and I, for example, in my childhood because of this thought that Augustine was also something of a fool.

Now, not whacky Augustine taught to believe, but then still think. Orthodoxy, not recognizing the "dogmatic development, theological themes to think not recommend in General, and offers a completely subjugate the mind of faith. No wonder we don't like and proof of God's existence, and logical reasoning on the subject of Christian dogma. Believe and all.

That did not love the Orthodox Church of the founder of the medieval world. Unfortunately, not for the fault of his teaching thousands of women in the middle ages were declared witches and after terrible tortures were burned at the stake.

However, let's recognize the immense scale of the figures Aurelius Augustine and not going to argue about what he has brought more peace - good or evil.




In connection with the above, there is one sentence. Let's start from afar.

Middle ages, as you know, we believe the end of V century, when the Western Roman Empire fell. But the division of the Empire into East and West in 395. it was purely administrative and not the first. Even Constantine at the beginning of the century, as we remember, fought against Licinius in the East.

We have already said that in Rome 455 g. no one destroyed in 476. also nothing really horrible happened, and the fall of the Roman Empire, neither formally nor in fact was not. Just after a partial seizure Christianized "barbarians" of the Western part of the Empire has been some reduction in its territory, and authority over the Roman Empire for several centuries was concentrated at the Constantinople Emperor.

Army, weapons, uniforms, clothing, titles - all in Constantinople remained Roman even three hundred years. Language as it was two - Latin and Greek - as they existed very, very long time. Moreover - "barbarian" rulers of the Western part of the Empire (the kings of the Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Burgundians, and others) considered it an honor to obtain from the Emperor the title of a Roman patrician and the status of the Procurator of the province." No exceptions were not already upomnenny chief Germanic Odoacer, or famous king Theodoric of the Ostrogoths.

The very concepts of "East" and "West" of the Roman Empire after 476, the newly ceased to exist: emperors of Constantinople, of course, began to call themselves Roman, claiming the succession and on the Western part. Yes, and territorially they had it right - they have a few hundred years remained enormous possessions in Italy.

But the Emperor Justinian (ruled 527-565) was completely destroyed by the Goths and vandals, together with their kingdoms, restoring the Roman Empire almost within the boundaries of the IV century. For many who have first-hand knowledge about the famous Roman commander of Belisario, may be the news that he had lived and fought during the reign of Justinian.

And only at the beginning of IX century under the pressure of Charlemagne (742-814), crowned Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, Constantinople, the Emperor refused the title of "Roman" and became the "Byzantine".

By and large, these legal subtleties unprincipled. We just got used to refer to human history as a continuous redistribution of cards, and subconsciously trying to divide history into periods are not spiritual, and political-administrative.

So maybe we will give the priority of spirituality? Or not enough fighting yet? Or, at least, not playing with toy soldiers?

Yes, the capture of Rome, a coup or a revolution - an event that has the exact date, it is easy to count. But we're chronology from the birth of Christ, which no war won!

So maybe, after all, and with the historical periods of mankind, and specifically with the beginning of the middle ages, we find more nodal date, rather than the controversial fall of the Western Roman Empire? And why the end of V century? The first taking of Rome by the barbarians, Visigoths occurred in the year 410...

Maybe better still, see when the transition took place in Rome and the barbarians from paganism to Christianity?

Formally, this process began in 313 g. after the edict of Milan" Constantine the Great, and in fact it lasted almost the whole of the IV century. Even after Constantine it was not all that smoothly, and was "anti-Christian" Emperor Julian the Apostate (reigned 361-363).

Taking this opportunity, I want to partially rehabilitate Julian the Apostate, branded so unpleasant nickname.

His "apostasy" was reduced to the fact that he:

- equalized the rights of Christianity with paganism (contemporary, established freedom of conscience");

- banned Christian priests to teach in schools and closed for access to public office ("separated Church from state and school from the Church");

- stopped the extreme forms of Christian fanaticism in the form of the destruction of pagan temples ("struggled with vandalism").

Christianity, he really did not like, but quite civilized. Was he, like Marcus Aurelius, part-time philosopher of ancient Greek school and never missed an opportunity to engage in debate with Christian theology. Especially, by the way, his irritating" the miracles of Christ, which is also not surprising - he was a convinced atheist.

But we have strayed from the topic (unintentional pun with Julian the Apostate).




Fracture of historical eras - especially change in the psychology and attitudes of mankind.

Marxist "the transition from slavery to feudalism", perhaps logical, but even more blurred over time than the transition from paganism to Christianity.

And the Christianization of the barbarians, as we said, happened at the end of IV century. Here is the transition to the middle ages. The completion of this transition is "crowned" the teaching of St. Augustine, which laid the basis of theology, philosophy, culture and even life of the middle ages.

Now, the suggestion is to consider the beginning of the middle ages is not questionable the fall of the Roman Empire, and of Aurelius Augustine, the founder of medieval philosophy.

If we count the beginning of the middle ages traditionally, from the taking of Rome by the barbarians in 455 and 476 years, you will be dismayed to recognize that neither the military nor the government's point of view, no fracture occurred. The Roman government and military systems had existed for centuries.

The formal date of the beginning of the middle ages, therefore, could be:

- 354 year, the birth of Aurelius Augustine (historical justification - the middle of the period between the Nicene Council 325 g. and Constantinople Cathedral 381.);

- 430 year, the death of Augustine and the complete triumph of his doctrine.

To solve it, of course, historians. I understand that it is difficult to break the inertia of centuries of thinking. But much broke, and recently!

For example, now, finally, schools have begun to teach children that the middle ages ended at the turn of the XV-XVI centuries, that is the beginning of a New Time was considered the reformation. Finally, at least here, common sense has prevailed! In the mid-nineties taught that the beginning of a New Time was a revolution of 1566-1609, and in Soviet times, the students somehow supposed to believe that the English revolution, 1642-1660,

And if the middle ages were still down a hundred years in the end, so why not add a similar number at the beginning? And there is a formal occasion - from the makers of the middle ages on the scale and significance of Augustine, no one can match. No theologian, no trace of the Pope in the spiritual life of mankind has not left. A spiritual matters determined by politics and economy of the middle ages far more pragmatic than the New time.

And fame in our time Augustine is quite comparable with Justinian, Clovis and Charlemagne, despite the fact that he physically did not kill anyone and did not win...




So, Augustine recommended to believe, but think about it. But there was one dogma, in which even Augustine ponder not recommended - it is the Trinity.

Indeed, at that time, Trinity was a compromise, not only theological, but political, who arranged the Emperor, the majority of bishops and "ordinary" Christians. It seems to be good, but remember, what was the "New economic policy under Lenin and "early" Stalin? The ideological and political compromise, who are the majority. But that was then, in the mid-to late twenties? The majority rallied, stabilized, already began to eat each other and occasionally to wrest from their ranks next minority, accusing them of abandoning "the party line".

The theme is eternal, but as it looked in the early middle ages?

The formation of a theological approach to the personality and teachings of Jesus Christ at the turn of the IV and V centuries ended "Trinitarian" compromise. Any further discussion about Christ theologically based or on the dogma of the Trinity, or one of those heresies, which we discussed in detail - Origen, Arius, Savelli, Paul of Samosata...

Thus, a serious theological discussion in the V century finally gave way to action novel (in a modern Thriller titled "the Struggle for power in Church and state."

And because the "drag" can be anything, for anything, any of the actions of any Church group richly adorned with references to Scripture and the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils.

Theology has a purely scholastic form and turned into the "science for science". More precisely, in science for policy. Similarly, in the twentieth century, Stalin attracted some quotes from Marx, Trotsky - other, Bukharin - third, resulting from unpredictable moving around "the party line" the country was starving, and the camps were full supporters of all leaders, without exception.

But we know about Stalin relatively plentiful, but about the early middle ages - is relatively small. So let's have a little rest from theology and read "an exciting Thriller.




The late twenties V century was marked by unprecedented outbreak of the struggle for power in the Church.

The main Church points to the time remaining 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.

Church leader of any city, as we remember, was called by the Bishop, and in the aforementioned centers, he received a special honorary title in the Greek interpretation of the Patriarch, in Latin - dad. The bishops of the surrounding cities gradually rose in full hierarchical dependence of the patriarchs and popes, and in order to more effectively control appeared "intermediate" rank - metropolitans and archbishops. In IV-V centuries of Church organization finally lost early Christian democratic and began to resemble modern.

The struggle for power in the V century unfolded between the three Patriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch) and the Pope. The theological reason for it was that the creators of the dogma of the Trinity, fascinated by the questions of the divine essence of Christ and his descent from God the Father, 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 broader disputes about the Trinity.

And at the turn of the IV and V centuries 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 419 g. on this occasion joined 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 after birth.

Cyril of Alexandria taught pretty much the same, with the slight difference that the divine power descended upon Christ in the womb. This minimal difference is not prevented Cyril against 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 g. the Patriarch of Constantinople. Antioch Church group was triumphant.

But the Patriarch Nestorius had been long - up 431., 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. on 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 435 g. - in reference to Egypt, where he lived in poverty, led a wandering life, and died in the year 452.

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", the triumphant March of Nestorianism swept across the continent to the East. Asian peoples to Christianity mostly in the interpretation of the deposed Patriarch.

It is noteworthy that two centuries later Nestorianism sober view of the nature of Jesus Christ peacefully co-exist with Islam - the prophet Muhammad considered Christ the Son of God, but not God the Son.

And only another six hundred years later, in the XII century, Genghis Khan managed to win the Nestorian tribes Naiman and Kerait. How far gone Nestorianism to the steppes of Mongolia! A Central Asian followers of Nestorius, together with the Arab caliphs replaced Tamerlane in the late XIV century. However, to our days in these parts, numerous Nestorian communities.

And in the year 431 Patriarch of Constantinople became Maximian, a protege of Cyril. Alexandria Department has become the most powerful Empire in what could no longer postpone the Pope, an outstanding politician Leo I the Great, the one who saved Rome from the barbarians.

And drunk 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 g. these ideas were developed Dioscorus, the new Patriarch of Alexandria, and Eutyches, an Abbot of a monastery in Constantinople. They have issued Monophysitism "organizational", bringing to his side many of the clergy, especially monks.

Against Monophysitism immediately made Pope Leo the Great and United with the Patriarch of Constantinople, Flavian, 448 g. 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 g. in 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. At Chalcedon arrived yet, and legates (representatives) of Pope Leo the Great, and the opponents Monophysitism most.

Council of Chalcedon was held, as usual, very rapidly, but still based on the position of the Pope developed a doctrine 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.

Stop. In vain I promised a solid Thriller. Have yet to stop and return to the theological issues. Without this it is impossible - we got to the second core of Christian dogma concerning the nature of Jesus of Nazareth.

Only consolation is that the dogma of the God-man is very simple to understand if you understand the dogma of the Trinity. He is as much a compromise, and even more controversial.




So, the 4th Ecumenical (Chalcedonian) Church 451. held: the God-man, Jesus Christ there are two natures, God and man, and the believers are obliged to:

"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 on the good old principle of "all left out.

Indeed, for each key issue appears to be:

God or man? Both, just nature of nality and unchanging, 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.

For us, incredibly intricate and casuistic determination 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. If we have a Frank and scholastics will analyze in detail, neither this book nor this life.

Fundamentally, the presence of God in two different "desires, wills, energy and acting" means the presence of two personalities.

The person of Christ, maybe one, but the person in any case are two. The concept of "identity" now no one confuses the notion of a legal or physical person, and then, as we see yet happened.

Finally, the dogma of the God-man on the 4th Ecumenical Council in 451 happened the same thing with Trinity for seventy years earlier: solved each of the problems separately, closing her eyes to rest. The main thing is that the same trio had tied: is man independent of the divine essence - so here it is, God the Son, second person of the Trinity, "nesamoney, consubstantial with the Father"that existed "before all time"... And human nature - Yes, it is Jesus, too, was but to divine nothing had.

In short, separately, both God and man. But while a single person.

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.

There was a final deliverance of the Church hindered her real Jesus of Nazareth: the dogma of the Trinity Sani and alienated from the people, and the dogma of the God-man has turned into a lunatic ....

Since Christ and we have two "unmerged, immutable, indivisible, inseparable" personality.




Theological paradoxes is little anyone cared about in the V century, when there was a Frank struggle for power. There was something like a password: recognize the doctrines of the son of God and the Trinity - you're a friend of the people, not the enemy.

By the way, you thought that the term "enemy of the people thought of comrade Stalin? No, he appeared just as the opposite of "other people" during the French revolution. "Friend of the people", as you know, was Marat, enemies, whatever.

We don't just remember the bloody French revolution. After The Council Of Chalcedon 451. blood flowed like a brook, and the overflowing river. Our so-called Thriller took the form of action.

Returning from Chalcedon Monophysite priests raised a rebellion in Jerusalem (the city was taken and plundered) and Alexandria (in the temple was locked and burned a large detachment of government troops, and during the next rebellion in 457 g. was killed by the Orthodox Patriarch Proterias). Gradually Monophysite riots spread to Syria, where at the end of the V century the population terrorized by gangs of fanatical monks, and the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch shared the fate of his Alexandrian colleague.

Emperor Zeno in 482 g. 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 ("bias" in the divine nature of Christ) was the complete opposite of Arianism (the"bias" in human nature), and the dogma of the God-man, as we have seen, represented a compromise, no wonder it insisted on the Council of Chalcedon it Pope Leo I Great.

And so it slips into the vocabulary of the Stalinist era. I don't know what "bias" - Monophysite or Arian - take a right and a left...

But the "General line of the party" the Emperor Zeno to shake failed, because in Constantinople Henoticon support not found: Metropolitan priests, the phrase "Christ is one and not two" seemed Monophysite and was considered a heresy.

However, the appeal of the "Henoticon" to order responded to almost all, but not for long. The successor of Zeno, the Emperor Anastasius Dickory, tried to continue the conciliatory policy, but ended his reign in the 518 was a very inglorious: Monophysites raised a revolt in Constantinople, started fires, robberies and murders.

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 the 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.

So, the struggle of the patriarchs for power in the V-VI centuries ended sadly - the death of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem Patriarchy, and centers of the Christian world in the VII century there are only two to Rome and Constantinople.




In the VI century by Justinian in the Christian Church came a period of relative calm, the peak of which was the 5th Ecumenical (Constantinople) Cathedral 553 g., which once again condemned the Monophysite "finished off" the weak remnants of the Nestorians and decided it possible to burn heretics, anathema posthumously. Then "under the hand" just got Origen.

But in VII 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 dissident Monophysites. Patriarch of Constantinople Sergius in agreement with the Emperor in 619 g. caused a sensation - announced 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 - is there any human being divine and human qualities, but the will-it must be one, otherwise he would wait unimaginable mental anguish.

Started again a heated debate. "Tree options" balance of nature, wills, energy and action in Christ multiplied in direct proportion to the 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 (as we remember, fathers were secular opponents Monophysitism), but this year, unfortunately, both died and Pope Honorius, and the Patriarch Sergius.

New dadsand OAINN IV announced strong opposition to monothelitism and allegiance to the Council of Chalcedon. His successor Martin I continued this line, for which in 653 g. he was arrested by order of the Emperor of Constantinople, and in 655 g. condemned and exiled.

The chief opponents of monothelitism in the East, the philosopher Maximus the Confessor (582-662), typical for that time sholastitsizmom argued that, if the two natures of Christ, the wills of the same must necessarily be two. Common sense its philosophical logic was not able to overcome, and he chose to accept martyrdom: in the same 655 g. 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.

It wasn't to be. When Constantine Paginate (rules 668-685) Rome, remained an opponent of monothelitism, threatened to split, and the Emperor had feared 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 g. was convened by 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.

So with this dogma, and still live.




At the beginning of the VIII century debate about the nature of Christ did not stop, but took a more peaceful in nature and were soon superseded by the "battle with the icons" - iconoclasm. About it, we'll talk later, but for now we note that iconoclasm has created another precedent for the separation of the Eastern and Western churches, which took place in 725-784 and 815-843, Pope were staunch supporters of the veneration of icons, and in the East periodically prevailed iconoclasts.

By the way, a supporter of icons was the last great theologian, recognized and Catholicism, and Orthodoxy - John Damascene (approx. 675-753). For our study it is of interest primarily to those that wrote the major work "Exact exposition of the Orthodox faith, finally approving the dogmas of the Trinity and the God-man.

Until 1054 the Church was formally United, but their legal separation has been only a matter of time. Not going to comment on the political side of the problem - it was hard and Rome and Constantinople, but they chose to survive independently. Will focus only on the key theological issue of separation of direct relevance to the topic of this book. It is a resounding "filioque," which translates from the Latin "and from the Son".

Remember Arianism? It disputes the Trinity is not settled, because 589 year in the Cathedral of Toledo was formulated by adding to the Nicene-Constantinople creed, lies in the fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father and the Son.

Toledo Cathedrals were merely national Assembly barbarian Visigoth Kingdom (part of modern Spain). The Visigoths were Arians, besides, in any case, the Cathedrals in one state could not have influence on Christian theology.

However, the addition of the "Filioque" was the trump card in the political game of the West and East. The Pope accepted this addition in the early ninth century, wishing to flatter Charlemagne, who was in confrontation with Byzantium. The Patriarch of Constantinople declared the inviolability of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed of 381 and refused any additions.

To any compromise, the parties failed to come, and in 1054 from Constantinople with the scandal left the papal legates.

With sorrow we note that any attempt to understand who is in a dispute about the "Filioque" rights, is doomed to failure. Indeed, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, that Christ is to us it just brought. If and of the Son, Christ created it, at least partially.

From the point of view of the beginning of the XXI century, this question can be put more - all our actions are dictated by God, or we take part in them? This question is primarily philosophical. How many philosophers have pondered on this subject, there was so much and opinions.

We'll talk about it, but for now we note that in the debate about the "Filioque" theological to prove anything was extremely difficult (in Scripture the concept of the Holy spirit, as we said, very multivalued), and therefore this difficult issue has been very useful when the division was interested in everything.

But we are not going to engage in a purely scholastic dispute about the "Filioque". We find only that, according to Orthodoxy, the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, and of Catholicism, from the Father and from the Son.




The "dark" middle ages, not in vain called that way, but not because of the perception of most modern people, it appears outwardly gray and gloomy as the castle of the knights. The latter is quite debatable - we perceive as ancient Greece as something blindingly white, but actually and clothes were colorful, and even statues painted. Same thing with the middle ages - were bright and clothing, and emblems, icons and frescoes...

"Darkness" in another. XI-XIV century in Europe, almost nothing new was added either to theology or to the knowledge of the world, but hardly to any other area of human knowledge. Is that the gunpowder was invented (or had stolen the secret of the Chinese), and also learned to build Gothic cathedrals, caravels and water mills...

Orthodoxy due to the collapse of Byzantium and "transplant" on the soil of Russia was not until the development of doctrines and theological discussions, and in the West, theology is so complicated that people finally ceased to accept Jesus Christ as something familiar and understandable. The most difficult works of Peter Lombard (mind. 1164) and Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) in dogmatic terms entirely based on the teachings of Aurelius Augustineand OAInna Damascus. We have agreed not to try to analyze the candid scholasticism, besides all that concerned the nature of Jesus Christ, she relied on the doctrines of the Trinity and the God-man. I tried not to draw - although officially the Inquisition was established in 1227, fires were burning since X century.

What absurdity has made in this time theological controversy is the fact that when in Europe in the XII century appeared followers of Docetism and Gnosticism, the so-called Cathars, they in their doctrine preached that Christ, being essential spirit, not drinking, not eating, not suffered, and entered the world through... the ear of the virgin Mary.

However, in the teachings of the Cathars were also positive aspects - they reject war and murder, including animals. And why they were chosen for the birth of Christ a "custom" body, is also clear: they did not recognize any "carnal intercourse".

It is noteworthy that already in the XII century, people got so tired of the hypocrisy of the official Church that the Qatari heresy in all its absurdity, not only have many followers, but was for many years the dominant religion in Northern Italy and southern France, and its suppression was required, even so-called "crusade" of French troops ("the Albigensian war"), 1208-1229

Throughout the rest of Europe the masses of the Cathars burned at the stake by the end of the fourteenth century almost eradicated.




The reformation is now seen as a "ray of light in the darkness of the middle ages". No wonder - it coincided with the teachings of Copernicus, the Great geographical discoveries and, most importantly, the Renaissance.

However, the reformation movement was extremely diverse and ambiguous. Martin Luther (1483-1546), as is well known, recognized the absolute authority of the Bible, free will of people and the possibility of their salvation through the earth's activity, abolished the monasteries, the cults of the saints, most of the sacraments, indulgences, the Church hierarchy and other most notorious medieval tradition.

But John Calvin (1509-1564), actual ruler of Geneva and a great researcher of the old Testament, not only did not recognize free will, but also brought to the point of absurdity ascetic idea was not even loud laughter in the streets.

As part of our books should not discuss in detail the manners of the sixteenth century and the differences between Calvinism and Lutheranism. Given the fact that the reformation was related solely to Catholicism, and did not affect the Russian Orthodox Church, called the European Protestantism "Catholic" and this limit.

Fundamentally different: "Catholic" Protestantism did not abolish the doctrine of the Trinity! Luther hundred years ago did not dare go so far.

And with the participation of Calvin on the Trinity had a very ugly story.

Miguel Servet, scientist and doctor, was the first in the history of medicine, described the pulmonary circulation, had the misfortune to enter into correspondence with Calvin, which rejected the idea of the Trinity of God as the remnants of paganism. He had just published a book On the errors of the Trinity"in the title of this Chapter.

Calvin, an implacable opponent of Catholicism, sent copies of letters Servet in the Catholic (!) the Inquisition of the city of Lyon, where the latter lived. After that, Servet was arrested for antitrinitarizm and was scheduled to appear before the Inquisition. He managed to escape from prison, but he did not know who told him, he decided to emigrate to Switzerland, and that his undoing. In Geneva, Calvin saw it, immediately gave the order for his arrest, he achieved his conviction Geneva magistrate and shocked the civilized world that in 1553 g. burned Servet on fire.

By the way, another paradox of our perception of the middle ages: we believe that the terrible Spanish Inquisition was not anyone or anything, but actually in Spain burned at the stake previously suffocated. And in the rest of "humane" Europe burned alive.

Unfortunately, Servet was not the first and not the last: for example, in England the Act of toleration" 1689. antitrinitarian did not spread, and their execution was stopped only at the end of the eighteenth century, However, another paradox - physicist and theologian-antitrinitarian Isaac Newton in 1727 died "his death" and was with all the honors buried in the vault of Cambridge...

Moreover, at this time already was, to flee to the New world, where today antitrinitarizm most developed. Although you can call a religious movement developed several hundred thousand people in disparate sects is the question.

Now antitrinitarizm in the West exists only in the form of a relatively small churches, sects such as sotsinianskoy (Poland and Romania), the Pentecostal-unitariantsev (mainly USA), "disciples of Christ" (USA), "Unitarian universalist Association" (USA, Canada and Mexico). There is indirect of antitrinitarian like "Jehovah's Witnesses"who deny the dogma of the Trinity, but all recognize the incarnation of varying degrees of divinity.

Despite the many sects and their respectable names, all these drops in the sea of Orthodox tradition.








Thus, historical justice requires to state that, for whatever political reasons, and in Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and the "Catholic" Protestant doctrines of the Trinity and the God-man completely defeated. Jesus Christ, therefore, is considered to be the second person of the Trinity, God the Son and God, and to create visibility permissions huge number of conflicts with 325 g. in the Nicene creed, there is the statement that the son of the Father, begotten, but nesotvoren and consubstantial with the Father.

Approximately in the same position with 381. is the Holy Spirit, but, according to Catholicism, he comes not only from the Father and the Son.

But offer all the same look at the dogma of the Trinity through the eyes of a man of the XXI century.

First, let's again look at that yet on this occasion in the New Testament. To be purely theological conversation with many references to biblical texts, but will have to focus - we don't want the opponents have accused us in ignorance of the Scriptures.

Once again our "provocative" question:

God is one, this is the first commandment Holy, and the Trinity consists of three - Father, Son and Holy spirit... we Have that, polytheism, that is paganism?

Maybe a careful analysis of the New Testament will convince us that the three Gods, and we still manage not to be a pagan?




First of all fan this book back and reread at the end of Chapter 1 our comments to the beginning of the gospel of John. None of the Trinity, as you remember, we saw there. Yes, and Christ as God or God-man with two personalities - the same, except that if just to understand the "Word became flesh" (Jn. 1:14), it is possible to interpret the Christ as the Word.

This poetic, no doubt. But we do not poetry, and theology, and the transfer of "bridge" to the ancient Greek philosophical Logo absolutely false, unjustified and in fact is a form of Gnosticism.

Actually "the Word became flesh" is interpreted in terms of spiritual truth expressed by God through Christ.

Time at the beginning of the third Millennium it is clearly understood, the more if the same John the Theologian in his "revelation" writes: "I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and Kingdom and in the terpeneAI AI, 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).

That's the very "Word of God" is that God told us through Jesus. The identity of the Word, the Logos and Christ has nothing to do with it.

The same applies to the phrase of Jesus in the gospel of John: "Before Abraham was, I am" (Jn. 8:58). In this context, it becomes clear position of John the theologian, on the basis of which Origen in the III century brought the doctrine of pre-existence of souls, including the souls of Jesus.

This doctrine, along with other thoughts accident Origen in the VI century branded as heresy, but according to John, indeed, it turns out that our souls existed before Abraham and the creation of the world...

By the way, why not?

But it's not that, just that we again came to the conclusion that Christ is the same God, man and the Son of God, as we all are. The Apostle John the Theologian - not Origen, arguing with him is not accepted.

This fabric is laid Jesus ' prayer: "And now glorify Thou Me, father, at your side with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was" (Jn. 17:5). This phrase, often cited by defenders of the Trinity, can be interpreted either as the purpose of the mission of Christ before the Foundation of the world, or as the pre-existence of souls. Nothing else can be, if there is absolutely clearly stated: "that they might know Thee the only true God, and whom thou hast sent, Jesus Christ" (Jn. 17:2-3).

There is still more indisputable proof of this. When Orthodox Jews once again doubted that Jesus was the Son of God, and wanted to stone him, Jesus answered them:

"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 blasphemy because I said, I am the Son of God?" (Jn. 10:34-36).

If Jesus Christ himself, to prove their divine essence appealed to the divine essence of other people, referring to the book of Psalms ("I said ye are gods and sons of God - all of you" - PS. 81:6), then how can you argue?

By the way, Christ taught us another very fundamental and seemingly well-known things. Even those who have not read the Scriptures knows that the main Christian prayer "our father". She also, incidentally, and only, and any other prayers of Jesus Christ believed paganism (Matt. 6:7-9). But that's not it.

Say to yourself, only the first two words "our father" and think: you refer to your Father! So, you are the Son of God (or Daughter)!

And the phrase of Jesus in the textbook "the sermon on the mount": "blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God" (Matt. 5:9)?

And his words "why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone" (MK. 10:18)?

Looking for more comments on this topic?

Need? Okay, here's another review: Luke, too, acknowledged the same Christ, Son of God, as all men. This can absolutely prove: Luke leads the genealogy of Jesus to God directly, but through Joseph, David, Abraham, Evra and Adam (LK. 3:23-38) is true for any of us! We are all descendants of Adam...




And what's with the third person of the Trinity?

With the Holy Spirit - a huge range of opinions of all the evangelists, to the extent that it left us Christ, Dunav (Jn. 20:22). Catholic "Filioque" (the procession of the Holy spirit "and from the Son") was based primarily on this.

It is important for us that the Holy Spirit as a separate God never appears. Some so-called God the Father (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). Traditionally, as we have said, the Holy Spirit has been interpreted as spirituality, faith, Christianity.

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 as a religion, if people are willing to live in accordance with Christian moral and 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 and the Holy spirit, that is, their dogmatic "consubstantial," in General can be no question.

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. Enemies 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 has nothing to do with it, except that the names are the same.

The apparent contradiction of the Covenant "teach all Nations" with many sayings of Christ in the gospel, that he sent to save only Jews (Matt. 4:16; 10:5; 15:24 and others) also understandable, if "the people" to consider the twelve tribes of Israel. And if you do not think so, perhaps, after all, this phrase is a fake time when Christianity really was going to "all Nations." The old Testament prophets, on which rested Christ and Matthew were just talking about the salvation of Israel, and the apostles after the crucifixion of Christ before Paul was constantly in Jerusalem...

We will not enter in this case in the dispute. History has shown that it was necessary to baptize all Nations, and in the context of this book, this question does not matter.




Let us turn to the Epistle of the apostles.

Most often 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 in the first Message is a little fake.

Who is the "author" is hard to say, but it is clear that foreign-language texts of the easiest to tamper with the translations. And judging by the direction of forgery, did the blessed (in the Catholic Saint), Jerome (342-420), the famous composer and translator of the Bible into Latin. What we are reminded of the years of his life? Right, it's the midst of the struggle with Arianism, and Jerome was consistent and staunch opponent of the latter, respectively, the defender of the Trinity is not for nothing that he was in Constantinople in 380 g. studied with Gregory the theologian.

Most likely, Jerome (officially apologize if someone else put in his translation of the first Epistle of the Apostleand the OAInna phrase: "For there are three that bear record in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit; and WithAI three are one" (1 Jn. 5:7). This is almost verbatim the dogma of the Trinity. Mention all three persons, and consubstantial.

Jerome phrase stuck, but to clarify, what is the Word, forgotten! 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 a Word.

That Jerome did not consider, for him, after heated debates IV century the identity of Christ and the Word (Logos), it 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. No more than that.

Offer your conscience, "once deceived" Jerome to include all other potential fakes, for example, recently we analyzed the phrase: "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). In defense of Jerome say that in his time he had to baptize mass of barbarians, but it's still not a reason to write the gospel of Matthew...

Let's not get involved in the study of authenticity of biblical texts. The Apostle 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).

Feel the difference between for and existence? In vain we blamed Peter, the fisherman in the lack of education.




Let's see, did anything on the subject of the Trinity, the Apostle Paul is the founder of Christian theology.

"Trinitarian" Orthodox tradition holds that place of Paul's letter to the Romans, which says about God, "For from Him and through him and to Him. To him be the glory forever. Amen" (ROM. 11:36).

Well, where is the dogma of the Trinity? I personally see nothing but beautiful 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 (!) spectacular three-fold repetition in the Bible (for example, "Holy, Holy, Holy") as evidence of the dogma of the Trinity.

Actually the Trinitarian and three times is completely different concepts, different and "Lenin lived, Lenin lives, Lenin will live" would be a Trinitarian statement. Although defenders of the Trinity, of course, can assume that Mayakovsky was subconsciously thinking about it...

Of course, no thought, and we must not confuse cause and effect. We analyzed the emergence of the doctrine 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 IV century dogma or not.

Trinitarians sometimes cleverly uses the phrase: "God... has spoken to us by his Son, Whom he appointed heir of all things, through Whom also he made the worlds" the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews (Heb. 1:1-2).

And the trick is that you quoted only the last part: "Through Whom also he made the worlds". The result seems to be that "it": God has created through the Son of eternity - the time, land and so on.

But in context, it all sounds quite different! Christ is the heir of all things on earth from God, and now will be to govern it, and God through him has given us eternity immortality.

This is the Apostle Paul always said, and we again see a dishonest quoting from snatching out of context...

In order to ensure clear understanding of the person of Jesus Christ in the teaching of the Apostle Paul, to 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). By the way, at this point the treatment of Paul to the Athenians, they interrupted him and laughed. But still want to side with the Athenians are not biting, and ridiculed the Apostle...

View Paul clearly seen in all his Epistles:

"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).

"According as He hath chosen us in Him before the Foundation of the world, that we should be Holy and without blame before Him in love" (Eph. 1:4). By the way, another reason for Origen about the pre-existence of our souls before the Foundation of the world, on a par with Jesus.

"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 for any scholastic dogmas she places are not leaves.

And finally, please 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). That is who we are in this world.



And the canonical concept of the God-man, leading, as we have seen, to "split personality" of Jesus of Nazareth?

To justify the Church is very interesting 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 dogma of the 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 the relationship between the divine and human natures of Christ is nothing in Scripture does not say.

Yes, in the gospel of John, Jesus calls God "the unbeliever" the Apostle Thomas (Jn. 20:28). Yes, his divine essence much did the Apostle Paul (Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:1-3; Eph. 3:9; ROM. 9:5; 1 Tim. 3:16, and others), but at the same Apostle Paul, we read: "the Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God" (ROM. 8:16). And about the "children of God" the Apostle John (Jn. 1:12) we have already read.

Knew all this and Origen, making the same conclusions about which we talked a lot: no fundamental, insurmountable difference between the divine nature of Christ and the other people there. Even if the difference was, and Christ would be "more God"than we are, this is not the occasion to announce the presence of the Savior two "unmerged" personalities - the divine and the human, that is, to make him a lunatic.

Will try, at least partially, to "save the situation": although the nature of the dogmatic "clarification" of the 6th Ecumenical Council 680 g. the same personality, we can seriously talk about the two natures of Christ, but only in the sense of its dual origin , the divine and the human.

But this is true for all people.

Now let's stop. The question of the relationship between the people of the divine and human natures - the most difficult, it was considered a huge number of philosophers of all times and peoples, and it cannot be considered solved in our time, and even in the middle ages. We will have the opportunity in this book to talk about it.




In the historical overview (chapters 2-3), we examined the formation of Holy Tradition regarding the nature of Jesus of Nazareth and saw the teaching of the apostles was to "Supplement" the dogmas of the Trinity and the God-man.

We have just shown that this addition had no basis in Scripture. Hence, all the questions - only to Tradition. Would be good to analyze it from the point of view of common sense of our time, but what?

Not exactly Lutheran - figures of the reformation abolished the Holy tradition "at the root". It is strange that such a global approach, they left intact the doctrine of the Trinity. Do not guess, apparently, about the fake St. Jerome in the Scriptures...

So are the Catholic and Orthodox Tradition, but it is a huge multi-volume scale works of Aurelius Augustine, John of Damascus, together.

What to do? To write a new "Collection of Apostolic and Conciliar rules" and analyze it? The amount of books we have, unfortunately, not the...

Because you cannot grasp the immensity, I propose to concentrate our consideration of the Holy Tradition to the most compressed form of the Nicene-Constantinople creed 325-381, (the capital of the Byzantine Empire in ancient Russia, as we remember, respect was called Constantinople, from old Russian interpretation of the Nicene - Constantinople Symbol). "Character" in ancient Greek means "gathering together" or "expression", so this approach is quite justified.

About Catholic "Filioque" we have already spoken. In the "Symbol" appeared to add to the procession of the Holy spirit "and from the Son", that's all. Basic Symbol is still the same, it recognizes the Orthodox unconditionally, so do not spare the time and give it in full.

Don't be surprised Slavonic language XV-XVI centuries - the Church in the modern Russian language creed does not translate, as well as Orthodox prayers. For some reason, it does not write through "izhitsa" and "Yat", and the modern alphabet - another paradox.


"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 spoklonyaema 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.


Out of respect for the readers think it is necessary still to translate "Symbol" in modern English:

"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. We hope for the resurrection of the dead and the hereafter.

So be it."




Let's first of all let's get a grasp of the key words: "From the Father, born before all time...born, uncreated, consubstantial, drifting Jesus Christ from us. It is possible to understand how a modern man to accept?

When born, so created, and born. How can I give birth, not made?

Paradox: the Nicene-Constantinopolitan formulation may be casuistically not applicable 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 genetics, as you wish...

But if God the Son is born of God the Father "before all time"when there were no women, no genes, then surely created by God!

No, it does not converge "From Father born nesotvoren".

And "consubstantial with the Father"?

When the old Testament God created man "in his image and likeness", it's understandable. But if you understand "consubstantial" literally, that Christ was not God himself took his appearance and came to us himself prayed, talked to myself and so on (remember the teachings of Monarchians Savelli?)

If not, then, "consubstantial" cannot be taken literally, that is, Christ was an independent person. This, fortunately, no one disputes. But, then, if he too is God, God with us two (and with the Holy Spirit - three), and we are 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.

Have you noticed that about the Holy spirit in the "Symbol" 't even have to specify about the uncreated and consubstantial and formulated as a third God ("spoklonyaema and glorified"), without any reservations?

Frank paganism? No, just the fact that it's just adding Ecumenical Council 381., and it did not do unfurled. Presiding at the Cathedral of the Patriarch Gregory the Theologian avoid unnecessary conflict with the followers of the former Patriarch, "Dukhobors" Macedonia, and not put emphasis on controversial issues. It seems to be understood of course, that what the second person of the Trinity, so is the third.

Maybe they meant, but something bad happened...




In the Nicene-Constantinople creed and other controversial moments.

For example, Christ was incarnate from the Holy spirit and the virgin Mary, and in a few words we read about the Holy spirit, proceeding from the Father. It turns out that the Holy Spirit is the mediator at the birth of a Son. Grandson or something, turned out to be Jesus?

However, it is clear how such a strange phrase 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). Once again make sure that the Apostle Matthew was not familiar with the problems of the Trinity, and its wording in the Nicene creed simply moved from the "apostles" creed.

To move something moved, just not in the "Apostolic"or in the Nicene Symbol anything about the origin of the Holy spirit is not mentioned, and in 381. in Constantinople in accordance with the dogma of the Trinity added that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and Christ was both the Son of God the Father, and grandson (son independent of the Holy spirit).

What is the strength of tradition, that for sixteen hundred years, no one has corrected this purely "editorial" error! But the creed is not a simple prayer. In it, each word is of great importance...

Contradictions can find some more, but not in vain creed is just that. Saying in old Church Slavonic "begotten, not made, consubstantial," we should not think. In fact, according to medieval notions, and faith.

But in modern English the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed of the Orthodox Church does not translate, apparently so that he subjectively perceived historically and was discouraged to think about it.

Also, of course, a strange position - then, logically, "Symbol" should be taught not in the language of the XV-XVI centuries, and in Greek, or at least the language of the Baptism of Rus. And historical tradition would have been strictly complied with, and certainly no one would have understood...

Thank God, though the Scriptures on the wave of liberal reforms of Alexander II in 1860-67, relatively faithfully translated into modern English.

But I would suggest that in the beginning of the third Millennium still respect the believers and do not require mindless repetition of the Nicene-Constantinople language, initially controversial, but still largely obsolete for 1600 years. Let every Christian to read and understand that in the creed meets the spiritual needs of modern man, and what can be treated with understanding and respect, but nothing more.

What in the Nicene-Constantinople creed orientation can and should be, we still talk.




All the major Christian churches consider the manifestation of the divine nature of the son of God that Christ rules over the dead and the living (ROM. 14:9), has the power of judgment (ROM. 14:10), is the object of worship and prayer (1 Cor. 1:2), the source of grace (ROM. 1:7), the source of salvation (ROM. 10:9), the founder of all authority in 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 recall, 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 original divine essence, which is 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 gods. Really, an analogy with the Roman Emperor Caligula, all the statues of pagan gods ordered to put his head together with a halo. Yes, about halo, I'm not kidding: images of Christian saints, he moved with statues of Roman emperors, and at the last 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 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!

Had 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. Straight games in kindergarten - "good" mother reasoned with "bad" son, aspiring to send us all fry in hell...

However, it is quite unclear what the Savior went to the cross. Notice the eyes of the mother (Jn. 19:25). That's what theological paradoxes, it turns out that you can turn a terrible human suffering...

And don't blame the teaching of Jesus in these paradoxical traditions. They absolutely should flow logically from the desire to link the medieval Church in the whole concept of Christ, God and the king.

What it ended, we know, and now "God's anointed" with absolute authority preserved, probably only a few Arab-African countries. Touch wood, touch wood, but there is no longer any absolute dictatorship in any civilized country!

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?

Why not abandon the complex and contradictory dogma of the Trinity and its absurd consequences of the dogma of the God-man, and not to declare Jesus according to the Scripture, Christ, the Messiah, the Anointed one of God, a man of divine origin, the Son of God, immortal genius with divine abilities? Choose something huge!

Ignoring the simple and accessible doctrine of 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.

Not for this, not for this Jesus went to the cross...

But tradition - a great power. Or maybe the Church waiting for new dictators to solemnly declare their gods, and their subjects to leave the rank of "sinful creatures?..




The author of this book can be set long, but a reasonable question:

- "Still, why are you so up in arms against the dogmas 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 priests Florensky and Alexander Men, and it is "secular" philosopher Vladimir Solovyov (1853-1900), Vasily Rozanov (1856-1919), Nikolai Berdyaev (1874-1948) - acknowledge the doctrine of the Trinity. Furthermore - who died in Stalin's camps philosopher Lev Karsavin (1882-1952) his theory of personality is fully built on this dogma.

So why break the spear? Thank God, now the Orthodoxy is absolutely deserved honor and respect, so let it be so, for what it is, and our common sense let us be in some other area. For example, in environmental or urban planning"...

A serious question, and before him as a serious answer, I dare to ask: what, Catholics, Lutherans or Anglicans are not Christians, and nothing in the world except the Orthodox, no? As a Catholic will remember the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope, Luther will come up with something else, and it turns out that in Germany the common sense one, in England, another in France, third, and Russia, as you know, has his own unique way, only it is not clear where.

It is unlikely that Christ intended that his followers in different countries will be less implacable enemies. Well at least that lately almost exclusively on the words...

Okay, the question can be reformulated and ask on behalf of any representative of the Orthodox churches. Indeed, the Trinity, as we said, is recognized by Catholics and Lutherans.

So, the question is why the fight against the Trinity?


First of all, I in no case are not going to fight either against Trinity, nor against the Orthodox or the Catholic Church, nor against anyone else. I am a supporter of the unification of all Christian churches.

And for what I have shown in this and previous chapters, that the dogmas of the Trinity and the God-man are outdated and in need of radical revision - explain.




Generally speaking, that Jesus died on the cross?

Theological his death is interpreted as the atonement for our sins, but as a man he 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 or God-man, then what is the example?

For the vast majority of modern people may think (and think) as follows: "On Christ and God, 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 old Slavonic chants and all. Before he can get there? For example, reference to "Wonderful in His Saints, our Lord Jesus Christ" - how to understand it? Not all graduate theological Seminary...

But 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 the Patriarch was periodically applied to the Orthodox Russians called on to abide by certain moral norms (up to ensure cleanliness on the streets), and to their government to stop another war, to eradicate corruption and other evils of society!

Maybe in our life, something would actually improve? After all, what a huge force - Orthodox spirituality, and it's a shame to see how it is spent on the mysterious medieval rituals and dogmas...

And Christ as the second person of the Trinity, uncreated and consubstantial", for modern man is dead, because intuitively understand. The divine nature of the son of God is obtained obtained mythical God-man, like Apollo, human - Museum, as Alexander the great and their "unmerged, immutable, indivisible, inseparable," a combination frankly absurd.




To illustrate, here is a very "simple" (in the philosophical and theological standards) the text of the writings of Lev Karsavin On personality. Fair to say that Lev Platonovich and actually wrote a relatively simple and clear, but when it comes to official dogma - if you see how cloud over the smartest, the living eyes of this brave and witty man, and from his pen goes as follows (all italics belong L.P. 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 which ought to 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)".

The end of an extended quotation.




For those who heroically read the quoted passage and tried to understand it, note that there 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? Right, 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 "reverence" towards the official Church (humiliating for the modern man, the term "created" - really 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?

Even as it seems.

In the end, no matter how bowed before the ecclesiastical officialdom, anyway, any attempt to link the medieval with the modern tenets of common sense will lead to the fact that new is well forgotten old heresy. And will not love you the Orthodox Church, and say thank you, and do not Pat on the head.

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.

So our only chance for a victory of common sense - the search for spiritual support only 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 the 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 got the Russian philosopher 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 and could die.

And doubt Jesus? (Matt. 26:37-39). How do they reconcile with the doctrine of the Trinity and "consubstantial" Christ to God the Father? Surely the second person of the Trinity prayed the night before the arrest of the first hypostasis "to get past the Cup? What a strange communication, unworthy of divine omniscient beings... And the third hypostasis, interestingly, this time doing?

To close the issue with the view of Christ as the second person of the Trinity, I propose to recall the famous words of Caesar: "it is Better to be first in the province, than second in Rome. In the case of Jesus it sounds like: "Better to be the greatest of men, than the second of the Gods". I would add: not just a second, but still slightly inferior...

Why do so many centuries we have offended the great man?

But we will not 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 son of God, Orthodoxy, Catholicism or Lutheranism?

And the Trinity could stay the same category of purely philosophical and historical attractions, as, for example, Sofia - "God's Wisdom". The latter also had a convincing case in the canonical Scripture, and the Church renounced the cult of Sofia at the beginning of the second Millennium. Do not worry if this does not happen, and Christianity is not dead.

Note that in the twentieth century about Sophia remembered not only philosophers Vladimir Solovyov and Pavel Florensky. 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 spiritual Foundation of the Christian religion cannot be.

Moreover, the rejection of the dogmas of the Trinity and the God-man could become the basis for uniting all Christian denominations and the creation of the Church itself, which we say in the Nicene-Constantinople creed - "one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church".

However, there is hardly any chance to survive until the merger. Theological issues are solved for centuries, and political, it happens, and does not solve...







This Chapter may at first glance seem superfluous - the book-we have about Jesus of Nazareth...

But Jesus is inseparable from God. Not because he was God, "consubstantial" and existed before all time, but because he gave his life, preaching to us the divine truth. Therefore, a proper understanding of the teachings of Jesus Christ is impossible without faith in one God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth". This is stated in the Bible, and in the creed, and most importantly - understanding the true nature of God can help us in this life. And if God will give, and in the life of the age".

Easy to say, to understand the true nature of God, the divine truth... "What is truth"?

Copyright to the last question does not belong to me, and Procurator of Judea, Pontius Pilate.

The dialogue of Jesus of Nazareth with Pontius Pilate is most fully described by the Apostle John in the fourth gospel. As we remember, in the words of Christ that he came to testify to the truth, the Procurator with sarcasm, typical jaded and distrustful Roman, said: "What is truth?" (Jn. 18:38) and this effectively ended the conversation. Remember the shocking picture of the artist Nikolai GE, which is called: "What is truth"? Well-fed, contented life patrician triumphant gesture "sews" huddling against the wall, looking sullen, disheveled Jew...

Fortress Pilate to some extent is understandable. He was undoubtedly raised in Greco-Roman philosophical tradition, which for many centuries sophisticated delights disappointed in all the saints. The initial position of the materialist, as is known, the positions of the idealist any arguments will not...

Nevertheless, I propose the following dialogue in greater detail. In fact, in this short episode of the New Testament touched the eternal problem: what is truth and what is God?

Indeed, the absolute truths of modern science does not recognize. As proved in the early twentieth century, albert Einstein, everything is relative. The only thing that Einstein somehow never raised his hand and left absolute is the concept of God. Where absolute God - there is absolute truth. Logical?

Unfortunately, it is logical to not more than the position of Jesus Christ in his conversation with Pilate. We came to the same question - where absolute proof of the existence of God? Surely, if they are not - then there is no God, and the truth is not, and Pontius Pilate was right?

And what if Jesus went to the cross?




This question is cared for all and always. Even in conversation with Woland Berlioz Bulgakov (in the novel "Master and Margarita") referred to evidence of the existence of God, which had five, who then denounced Kant, who then built a sixth proof"...

Then the conversation stalled and ended severed head Berlioz. But that still have to prove?

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.

In fact, the evidence was offered 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 both good absolute and unchanging can only be God.

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, superchrist middle ages, Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) the potential of the absurd is not noticed and summarized the evidence of Augustine on the grounds that we are constantly comparing things to each other, operate with the concepts of "more" and "less than", and this method of comparison involves the presence of some of the maximum of the absolute God.

Turned out to be so explicit scholasticism, that even do not want to comment. Why the comparison requires a maximum absolute God? And what if a minimum is the absolute devil? And if the poor have a hundred rubles, and the rich man - million, the latter is closer to God? Sorry, not serious.

The so-called "ontological" proof (coming from our perceptions of being) invited Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109), a very extravagant and conflict theologian, and "brought to mind" the great philosopher rené Descartes (1596-1650).

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, that man, as a being finite, could not be imagined without the infinite God.

Can't resist another comment: the idea of a perfect being a standard "new Russian", I'm afraid, very different from the Cartesian...

Very cleverly approached the question of God's existence, the French thinker Blaise Pascal (1623-1662). Due to our limitations, he thought, 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 if you lose, nothing to lose.




We will not bore the reader with other evidence - cosmological, physico-teleological, and many other. Most importantly, the great philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) 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, and here the tradition of championship Kant stronger fact: actually understood English philosopher-theologian William of Occam (1285-1349), who believed that the concept of God as an infinite being, in principle, cannot be justified by means of rational knowledge. Moreover Occam went further and denied the opportunity to prove the existence of anything at all in the world except himself.

On the unreality of the world and unprovable existence talked earlier philosophers (the Gnostics), and later ("subjective idealism"). And now on this topic even films (for example, "Matrix") with scenes like the following: a "bad" organization connected to our brains electrodes and creates in us (with the help of a supercomputer) the illusion of a normal mortal life, and we all actually lie in the bath with a nutrient solution and serve "biomaterial" for unknown purposes...

Fortunately, against illusions and unprovable world so rises our common sensethat the most convincing is "domestic" counter-argument: if "subjective idealist", God forbid, on the leg will drop the hammer, it will hurt regardless of demonstrable reality hammer or not.

However, let's pay tribute to William Ockham: he was not only a philosopher of "subjective idealism", but also a great critic of Catholic officialdom. And how did he for all his freedom of thought, instead burned at the stake, managed to obtain from the Church of the honorary title of "invincible doctor" - a purely medieval paradox. In fact, Occam from the illusory world and unprovable existence of God has made quite "Orthodox" conclusion: information about the world, and especially about God, we get nowhere, except from the faith.

Actually you could bring the output of the razor to the point of absurdity and offer at the same time believe that the incident on the leg hammer hovered in the air...

But we will not engage in a purely philosophical debate, provable whether the incident being auctioned.

Will take the world around us objectively existing and will talk seriously about the existence of God.




In the words of Bulgakov's Woland on "the sixth proof", developed by Kant, had in mind the teachings of the past that, although the existence of God cannot be proved, it can and should be recognized.

To do this, Kant proposed a brilliant moral argument: we have a commitment to excellence and happiness unattainable in this world, so considerations of humanity require to recognize that the harmony of happiness and perfection can be achieved, provided the immortality of the soul and the existence of God.

Simply put, without God, humans would have no hope for happiness, everything would be "vanity of vanities" (as in Ecclesiastes), and to live it would be at all sad.

I can't argue with Immanuel Kant, to the same hope, as they say, springs eternal. But the problem is that the hope of hopes strife.

Many philosophers are not left in its complex and spectacular conclusions designated common sense ordinary person familiar with the philosophy or hearsay, or from the school and the Institute notes. But let us stand in the place of this man and try to equip his "Kant's" commitment to excellence and happiness unattainable in this world.

I am afraid that most modern people immediately ask the question - is it really unattainable in this world?

"Yes, " say many (as many think). I know that Christianity is the teachings of kindness and love. It is a childhood repeated. So what? Christ is God, he is the second person of the Trinity, he is the son of God - let him and loves his neighbor and good doing. Or maybe Nicholas of Myra is he a Saint with a halo in the churches depicted... As for me, a sinner, than to trust in God and Angels, better to trust me on yourself, friends, colleagues, business partners. Who knows, maybe you get some money, I'll live in a nice house with a beautiful wife, buy a nice car - what is happiness?"

And if my readers will smile and say that the above is only true for the "new Russians" - okay, here's another example, this time from a life of creative and scientific intelligentsia".

Suppose a person has a higher understanding of earthly perfection and happiness - the service of art, science, humanity...

This seems to be quite enough. People believe that after death he will live on in his works, writings, books, discoveries, inventions, etc. and it supports it. And although the old Testament Ecclesiastes and wrote about life as "vanity of vanities, from the point of view of any creative person is not so terrible: we read the book of Ecclesiastes almost three thousand years old, so not "vanity" was the life of its author, whoever he was, by king Solomon or the king's clerk.

However, not all so is simple. Convince yourself something is possible in many ways, and hopefully be a lot, but more...

"Godless" position has one serious flaw: to answer the question, "vanity of vanities" does your own life, have only to ourselves.

And gradually you start to think: who is it all for? Who needs my pictures (books, inventions...)? Nobody seems to be no tear to see them, all under the door for an autograph is not worth it - so why should I? For whom will I spend a lot of forces in the "penetration", running through the galleries (editorial, ministries, sponsors, etc)? For the sake of indifferent contemporaries and unpredictable offspring?

Here it is not far to Ecclesiastical "vanity of vanities". I think: that's good Preacher, he was found in a Bible was placed, and suddenly I was something contemporaries, and do not recognize? And if the descendants do not recognize, or simply not stumble on my "masterpieces"? Then that life has failed?

After understanding the above, depending on the storage card there are two ways.

The first is the continued creativity, but continuous suffering, doubt and psychological self-destruction. The second is actually more dangerous: it is better I will earn money, spend a respected and respectable person, but we'll see... In the latter case, such a "respected and respectable" person really threatens creative death. After gradually start to think: not all be prophets (with the risk of being on the cross), and seems to be so bad... to Track when a creative person becomes a cultural Philistine, very hard, and stop the process even more difficult.

In General, both ways "not very". Moreover, this situation allows the Orthodox Church to make a conclusion about the dangers of creativity for the harmonious development of personality, as well as to assert that peace of mind can be achieved only under the condition of deep and genuine faith, not "clouded" by any reasoning.

Indeed, genuine and uncomplicated "faith gives the "Kantian" hope for happiness in the future life" and supports the person in all his endeavors. But where to get them at the beginning of the third Millennium, this very "uncomplicated" faith?

If anything people and learned a few thousand years of civilization, it is reason. And as any farmer (especially Russia) are not averse to reflect on the overall prospects of life on earth, "uncomplicated" faith, even of it does not have to wait, but from the educated people - and even more so.

By the way, and Christ is in full compliance with the common sense to speak of faith as the need to love God "with all thy heart and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind" (Matt. 22:37). Stress - mind.

So let us speculate about faith in God. And let us, by Occam and Kant, there can be no "direct" evidence - so maybe there will be indirect evidence of the existence of God? Well, at least his spiritual presence on earth?




Oddly enough, we have to remember the work of Engels, "Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German philosophy" (1886.). However, solely due to the big names.

Classical German philosophy (XVIII-XIX centuries) were distinguished primarily by the fact that the assumed alignment of comprehensive philosophical systems and a calculation of the future of humanity (for example, dialectics and "world mind" Hegel's doctrine of "perpetual peace" Kant, "closed commercial state" Fichte)...

Engels, of course, did not regard Marxism to classical German philosophy, otherwise he would not titled so their work. Would that Marxism was over before it started. And in fact that Engels was right, and if he sacrificed his good name of the philosopher for the sake of evil name of a Communist - God is with him.

German classical philosophy really ended around the time this was written by Engels. All subsequent philosophical systems and Freudianism, and Nietzscheanism, and existentialism, and many others - did not believe in the steady progress of history and did not attempt to calculate the path of humanity to a brighter future dialectical.

And how it was possible to calculate in an unpredictable twentieth century? In this century, for example, humanity has acquired the potential at any moment to destroy itself. Can you predict the future when there are huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons?

Most of the "independent" philosophers of the twentieth century understood this and went into the study of the human subconscious and spirituality. Instincts, libido, super-Ego, Superman, existential...

There is one relic system of philosophy, though prodeklarirovany gap with the German classical philosophy, but who refused to give up hope specify the path to humanity's future is bright, but still taken to solve practical problems arising on the way there. It is easy to guess that it was Marxism.

You can arbitrarily much debate on the topic of why Marxism has proved convenient for the dictatorship that seized power in Russia. But the fact remains: the country was building a philosophical bright future, and absolutely and certainly idealistic. Yes and in the West, the Communist idea has many followers.

Fortunately, the Marxist ideology had ended with the Soviet Union and the Soviet government. And what is left of these systems? Stress - spiritual, ambitious, universal, recognized in varying degrees by all?

Perhaps such a system, we will be able to serve as a starting point in the search for evidence of the presence on earth of a higher power - God.

Let us remember. Of course, immediately begs religion. And, note, this is not a simple splash of fashion to the "forbidden fruit", which was Russian Orthodoxy in Soviet times. Yes, care ideology from the minds of the Russians seems to have freed the place for religious beliefs, but look to the West - where ideology was not, and in the Church people go, how to work, and it truly mass phenomenon.

Well, religion has been fixed, let us recall further.

Theatres, museums, exhibition halls... Not everywhere, but there are queues, especially on weekends and holidays. Where are, where not is a separate issue, but here we have found another worldwide spiritual system. Let's call it a generalized art, including in this concept, and literature.

What else? Morality?

The word "morality" in our time, pragmatic above all have associations with its "everyday" forms such as "no Smoking, no littering". But actually the spiritual part of morality (humanism, morality, compassion, neighbor) is very closely linked with religion. In Muslim countries, agree that the concept of the ideals of humanism (and especially about the norms of behavior or morality) are very different from the Christian one.

Thus, we are going to talk about morality only in the context of the Christian religion.

Youth subcultures such as "heavy metal" and no less heavy rock have the same drawback, that she herself was young: the age pass. Yes, and they are based, generally, on certain specific terms of art or religion. The word "subculture" has the prefix "sub", that is, the independent system is not meant simply to identify.

"The ideals of democracy" in their modern, "Americanized", the form is not suitable as an idealistic system, because they pursue very materialistic goal - in the best case, the improvement of the state system, social security and other things, and in the worst case cover people's desire for money and power. And in politics the majority of countries have long prevailed economic factors.

On politics and the state we still have a lot to say in the following chapters, but from the global spiritual systems more than anything you can not remember.

Therefore, state: after the collapse of hopes for a perfect socio-political and economic future of humanity were the two great religious systems that somehow touches everyone - it is a religion and art.




First thought - religion and art are in irreconcilable enmity. This stereotype is under a clear basis in religious dogma - Orthodox faith does not like the art in principle and 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, says: "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 and even more imagination, you can 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:

- "Art at that time did not exist at all! And if tolerant to all kinds of devilish machinations of Catholicism was made in the Romanesque and Gothic painting some (however small) deviation from the canons of the Church, and actors wandering as it is not very burned at the stake, then we in Russia in the middle ages, it was strictly! I tried to Dionysius to write something like "Mona Lisa" of his contemporary, Leonardo da Vinci... Musicians and other pagan orgies type of holiday of Ivan Kupala was destroyed at the root, and if not eradicated, and modern irresponsible citizens still read novels, watch pictures, go to the theatre, so here they are, the work of the devil"...

Let's ask a more specific question - and icons?

The response from the Orthodox Church, no doubt, will be as follows:

- All icons were subject to the canons of art and was not. The icon is not a work of art, and the way that elevate the mind and the sense of praying to his subject. And if the icon along the way, considered by critics a work of art - that's their business".

There is another question: why the Church needed such complexity?

What I will explain.

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, you know, what is it called? A form of idolatry.

Why did violate the commandment? Wouldn icons in the first Millennium, and the problem would be a no. Jewish synagogues and Muslim mosques bad feeling and without icons...

Well, let's see. I think one more trip "back to the roots" would be interesting, useful for the perception of further material, and most importantly, necessary for the final conclusions of this Chapter.




We talked a lot about the Roman Empire, and let's remember, in addition to Roman law, Roman mores. Jesus was crucified during the reign of Tiberius. Then the rules of Caligula, then Claudius, then Nero.

Want to comment on the morals? Perhaps more rampant sexual and other freedoms knew no one epoch. Thousands of people died in the arenas, the concept of family has taken shape only financial partnership, AIDS didn't know then, and what was happening in Rome and in most provinces - read "Lives of the twelve Caesars Suetonius. And what was the Marquis de Sade he perpetuated his name" in the basement of the deaf family estate, but in Rome it was almost the norm.

No wonder the Apostle Paul, spreading Christianity in the Empire, fought with all the above manifestations of Roman mores. After all, Jesus of Nazareth, in turn, in moral terms, was the successor 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-I -V centuries BC - Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and others.

But Israeli asceticism late pre-Christian era and was very specific economic and political framework. The country was occupied by Rome, constantly fought for independence, and serious people was somehow inconvenient accrete a large number of wives and concubines, and especially to spend time in feasts and "booze". 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 came to Rome, and led a relentless ideological war with the Roman mores.

Art got "under the hand" 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 somehow did not even remember that it was in Roman art first appeared in scope and perspective, and architecture - arches and vaults.

War Christian ideology with the Roman art ended with a victory on all fronts when Christianity survived two centuries of persecution, acquired a powerful supporter in the person of Constantine the Great and the beginning of the IV in. became the state religion of the Roman Empire. By the end of the V century Roman mores 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, is a pure legend, not supported by any facts or evidence. Teacher Luke, the Apostle Paul, and already have enough problems with the Orthodox Jews, and he is unlikely to become once again irritate violation of the law of Moses (the second commandment of the Holy).

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 very doubtful for a professional writer and theologian in the I 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 (IV century), 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") - were "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 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" of art consequence of the destruction of Rome in the V century. As we are taught in art schools, the classical tradition in art were lost due to physical destruction of the artists.

This is another outdated stereotype. Rome, as we know, never before 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.

However, the "classical" Greek-Roman art - that's it, there were separate from the religious and moral views? In any gods believed (polygamist Jupiter, Venus, depraved, bloody Mars), so they were portrayed.

And used to depict gods and in the Christian era continued to represent only a fresh and new. And not only God the Father, God the Son, and of saints - known portraits of emperors and statesmen, and executed in the same "icon" style. You could say - Romanesque, but many 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. Well, let's just say, painting. 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 (the beginning of VI 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": was 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 art has been to others. The reasons for this we will consider later, but for now just say:

In the middle of the first Millennium art under the influence of Christianity morals and governments have adopted 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 - such as normal, organic continuation of ancient Greek and Roman traditions, as, for example, impressionism towards classicism. Just started a new era.




But why won Christians violate the second commandment Holy, and not abolished the art "on the vine"? And right to left as "secular" - as it is in the Church in the form of icons allowed...

Perhaps the Christian bishops knowingly violated the second commandment. Or maybe they just were not up to it - I had to save Christianity from the barbarians.

While there, the second version of the no - recall the history of the struggle with the early Church heresies (monarhianstvom, Arianism, donatizmom, Pelagianism, Monophysitism). What are the spears were broken for some delicate questions! Remember, for example, how long we had to consider a purely scholastic dispute with Arius Athanasius, with this and deal with the difficult - so, hurry, purely exploratory... And such disputes have been conducted and much less significant problems, like the need of the posts, number of prayers and the like.

And with icons - a clear violation of the commandments, and nothing! Splinters in the eyes of the notice, but the log for some reason not. No dispute, no "enemy voices"no "deviation from the General line of the Church" to the eighth century!

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 John the theologian, and the second commandment of the Holy!

Well, isn't that strange?

No, not really. The fact that the Christian Church, despite all the declarations, could not live without art!

If the icons were just one of the tenets of the Church - which, really, after 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 real works of art, is advantageously distinguished the Christian Church from the Jews and did the perception of Christianity more understandable to the Gentiles.

It is possible, by the way, it is coupled with the Arians saved Christian Rome from the barbarians and led to their universal appeal. 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, he accused the Church of idolatry - of course, because of the worship of icons. 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 g. the relentless struggle against the icons of the so - called iconoclasm. The struggle was continued by his son Constantine V, then Leo IV...

We remember 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 got me back! With iconoclasm fought the Constantinople Patriarch Germanus, the Patriarch took the Pope, in this struggle became famous theologian John of Damascus.

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...

But how many masterpieces were killed in Byzantium endures. Mosaics are usually only covered or zashtukaturivat, and then they can be cleaned, but the icons and burned, and cut.

The Cathedral, held close to Constantinople in 754 g., under the strong pressure of Constantine declared that "retrieving 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, Regent Irene, 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 religion to fight against the state?

But the Church survived!

In 842. The Council of Constantinople finally established veneration of icons such casuistic argumentation: "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."

Arguments, frankly, 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 and icons, and any other fine art. We will talk about this in the next Chapter. 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.

Do not forget to say thank you and Roman popes - they have taken with regard to the veneration of icons is very principled position. They have, however, had no other choice, the papal possessions in Italy, surrounded by state Christianized barbarians that iconoclasm is not perceived. Yet protection of icons popes gave Catholicism a bad precedent for future patronage the arts and Sciences.

And most importantly - we realized that no matter formal theology, the Church considered art as its principal component, so more important than any of the canons, and I even key type of the 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.




After separation of the churches in 1054 art as developed by its own laws, and has continued to evolve.

Proponents of the Orthodox Orthodox Catholic morality accuse the West of condoning a violation of the canons of iconography, leading to the Romanesque art, Gothic, and the Renaissance. Moreover, these accusations are the same in other areas of art - as, for example, the West is "rolled" to "Decameron" bokachcho? How well it all started at St. Augustine...

In this case will act as a defender of the West and answer: what did you expect from a culture that is built on the basis of the Roman Empire? After many redrawing the map of Europe in the V-VIII centuries, the Empire of Charlemagne, who in the end, the most barbarous States, was a highly eclectic fusion of Roman statehood, barbaric customs and the Christian religion.

And remember the medieval papacy which there were manners? So... the Fish rots from the head, the tricks of the monks and priests are also known. The Inquisition, of course, was to play the role of "moral police", but in what form it led - read spooky book "Hammer of witches, written in full accordance with the teachings of Aurelius Augustine.

Simply put, the "extreme" were defenseless and powerless woman. Manners dads at the same time not become better. Benedict XII (Pope in 1334-1342) mistress was the sister of Petrarch, John XXIII (1410-1415) in a fit of madness excommunicated... angels, Alexander VI Borgia (1492-1503) was famous orgies in the style of Caligula... Absolute power, known to be corrupt, and the Pope to use it.

Attempts to separate the fighters for the purity of faith "to correct the morals of" no good not over - think a monk of the Dominican Savonarola (1452-1498), caught in the fire of the Inquisition after several years of struggle against luxury and vanity of secular art".

This "muddy water" the art could not enjoy a degree of freedom.

Curious more: how this freedom was understood artists. If you were waiting for the bold and free wizard of the XIII century painting type Michelangelo - in vain. Not a lack of freedom was the case, but art is not ripe (the rhyme was an accident).

It is not ripe it is not in terms of skill. What really any Italian master of the XIII-XIV centuries, with the sight of a huge number of perfectly preserved Roman frescoes, not "guessed" to correct the volume, perspective, antique or "secular" subjects? Excellence is not enough? You can't be serious. Sit down and copied by squares, then reproducibility - high intelligence is not necessary. No, I hurt something else, not perceived by the Roman frescoes as an example to follow.

And it was not in the state or religious taboos - they'd have found how to get around, it would wish. Imagine a "black market" non-canonical painting somewhere in Florence in the fourteenth century? From the selling floor landscapes with the right perspective or images of brawny heroes...

But, joking apart, would direct prohibitions - would such markets. In the fourteenth century society is more like art than in the fourth.

From all this it follows that art throughout the middle ages did not accept the ancient tradition, guided by some internal laws of its development, and not the lack of masters or prohibitions.

When the Western Church still beginning to struggle with the art, it was too late XVI century. And the fight started, not the Catholics and the reformers.

Luther and Calvin declared painting idolatry according to the second commandment of the Holy, branded theaters as "heathen revels"in Protestant countries (Germany, Switzerland) under the ban came even concerts. In England, with its particular form of Protestantism, Anglicanism, the puritans destroyed musical instruments and sheet music. About the icons I'm not saying they were killed in the first place.

Fortunately, the yard was already in the XVI century, and contemporaries of Luther and Calvin, do not enter into theological disputes, Michelangelo, Raphael, Titian, were able to feel relatively calm. Undoubtedly, the reformation a few "fixed" and the morals of the Catholic countries, but "secular" component in society was already so strong that the rulers and the aristocracy did not really care about "art" the differences between Catholics and Protestants. A traditional patrons of the arts and Sciences were just rulers, so that artists and writers are no longer threatened with death at the stake.

Violent revolutionary XVII-XIX century suffered acute struggle in the socio-economic sphere, and left the religion and art alone, giving them complete freedom to develop independently from each other. And on the monopoly of one or the other direction in the art, as a Christian dogma, it was impossible to say.

It has, finally, and philosophy of New Time (bacon, Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza), and then the German classical philosophy. "Confide algebra harmony" philosophy of the beginning and towards religion, and art. At last, however, a noticeable effect is not exerted. Russia was not so lucky, but until then we still get.

So far, we have seen that Western art after the separation of the churches quite felt OK, no it artificially (involuntary tautology) is not directed in a particular direction, the development of Romanesque, Gothic art and the Renaissance is absolutely natural, logical and inseparable from the manners and development processes in Europe.

Attempts to "command" art of the papacy, of course, were, but they were quite civilized nature of the type "he who pays the Piper calls the tune". Yes, and the papal order was riding recognition and wealth for any artist - remember St. Peter's Basilica and the Sistine chapel.




- "That's right, - may I say - that's the downfall of Western mores! Popes, wallowing in filth, just the art of "lost" and gave it to evolve, regardless of religion. But until Russia harmful Western influence has come only in the XVIII century, and before that the Orthodox Church with negative phenomena such art was fought and won! They in the beginning of the XV century the brothers van Berg wrote seductive three-dimensional images of the type of Adam and eve in the Ghent altar - wrote their contemporary Andrei Rublev something like that, suddenly landed on the fire or stake!"

Well, as we have in Russia dealt with dissidents is we really know, but wrote would Rublev anything in style or at least the technique of van Eyck, even with a hypothetical guaranteed safety is the issue.

First of all, how was he to know about the style and technique of the West? Abroad iconographers did not go, "catalogs of art" was not published, and even foreign wars, facilitate information exchange, Russia in the fifteenth century did not lead (Tatar raids do not count). Full contact with the West began, indeed, only in the XVIII century.

Hence, only the natural way of development of Russian art could bring Andrei Rublev's desire to write something in the style of van Eyck, and Simon Ushakov (XVII century) - in the style of Rembrandt (also because of his contemporaries).

Stress - to the desire. Could it be them? A ban would be whether or not they wish to implement is another question.

So, it is necessary to consider the development of Russian art, and with it the Orthodoxy. For this we have to go back to the division of the churches in 1054 and Byzantium.

Since the Byzantine Empire was wrong by the time separation of the churches. In the eleventh century Byzantium under the onslaught of the Muslims had lost almost all of Asia Minor. Later, however, in the XII century by the first crusaders returned, but not for long.

About the weakening of Byzantium says first of all, the fact that a small army of pagan tribe on the banks of the Dnieper under the leadership of anyone in Europe the unknown commander Oleg in 907 not only reached Constantinople and laid siege to it, but was forced to pay tribute, and Oleg is still supposedly nailed to the gate shield.

Historical paradox: it is the military defeat of the Byzantine Empire was the greatest victory of her culture and religion, preserved by the descendants of Oleg.

But let's order.

The Byzantine Empire was close to death. In 1204 Constantinople during the 4th crusade was taken and plundered by the crusaders. On the ruins of the Byzantine Empire was created ephemeral Latin Empire, then at the end of the XIII century, Michael Palaeologus restored the Byzantine Empire. In the early fourteenth century, the Muslims (Turks) once again robbed the Empire of Asia Minor, then the current Yugoslavia...

To understand what was with Orthodoxy, recall the Kingdom of Judah and the Jewish religion. Excursion into the past will be helpful to us in connection with the fact that the Byzantine Empire in the early second Millennium BC was in the position of Jews in the middle of the first Millennium BC.




That Judea in the days of Jesus Christ was oppressed Roman province, we have already mentioned in the first Chapter. But I knew a Jewish Kingdom and other times - public prosperity under king Solomon (Tenth century up to ad). Flourished at the court of Solomon also all kinds of science and art, and the Solomon was famous for pramogos wisdom. It is very likely that he personally wrote several books, including the already quoted us a book of Ecclesiastes.

Even from the first words of Ecclesiastes, "vanity of vanities" - shows that a book written by man, not believing in anything and anyone. And this is not surprising - as we have said, a strong government believes only in himself and forgets about the impermanence of all earthly things. Indeed, in the days of Solomon about religion remembered except the priests, and it is probably not all.

Strong power is, of course, is good, but any effect sooner or later there is another, more powerful. And if the force is not more than a legend, and "window dressing", then does the trouble.

I, oddly enough, about the "great and powerful" Kingdom of Solomon, as it appears on first reading the old Testament. Things were not so rosy. Unless, of course, thoroughly read.

The temple of Solomon, as it is known, was the pride and joy of Israel, and stood over Jerusalem. Our imagination then it is also a brilliant Golden dome and get something like the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, but also an architectural masterpiece, just about as much of it written in the Bible...

In fact, the size of this "superframe" were as follows: length : 60, width - 20, height 30 cubits (3 kings. 6:2), that is, a length of about 24 meterswidth - 8, height - 12! And at the top was not the dome, and the most common roof.

Take a small Church near Moscow, remove it from the "onion", remove the bell and you will get a "pride and glory" of king Solomon and the entire people of Israel.

And in the Jerusalem temple had three floors and a lot of wooden outbuildings around, so in terms of internal volume and compositional integrity, he is not "pulled" even on the suburban Church. And how pathetic watched the "architectural masterpiece" compared to his contemporary Egyptian temples - you can imagine.

Characteristically, the person himself, Solomon built a three-storied Palace size HH cubits, that is, the height is equal to the temple, only twice more. Even more characteristically, in the temple, he put many images of the cherubim (3 kings. 6:23), and in his Palace even lions (3 kings. 10:19), that is, its a little worried about the second commandment Holy...

They built a temple for seven years, and the wooden Palace is thirteen, indicating very weak economy of ancient Israel. Not surprising - the "official" king Solomon's revenue amounted to 666 "talents" in the year (3 kings. 10:14). Include "unaccounted cash", we get at best a few thousand. Be counted on the current exchange rate in dollars or rubles is difficult, therefore, will lead to compare the cost of utensils Persian king Ahasuerus: 30000 (thirty thousand) "talent" (FAM. 1:8).

So imagine the scale of the great Israel and Judah...

Actually, Solomon was a skilled diplomat, was able to sign lucrative dynastic marriages and from time to time correctly balanced between the truly powerful neighbors - Egypt, Assyria and Babylon.

That, incidentally, remarkable that a great spiritual heritage of the ancient Israelitish Kingdom, by which a modest three-story building is perceived as a magnificent temple, and the ruler of a loose Alliance of several small tribes - as the great king...

But all passes, including worldly glory. And then people tend to think about God.

The entire history of the kings of Judah after Solomon is the story of the decline of the Jewish state and at the same time the history of the formation of hard canonical traditions of Judaism.

Why do you think the Jewish religion so immune to all kinds of new ideas? Yes, that's why it was the only force allowed scattered all over the world to the Jewish people not to lose their national unity. In all the synagogues of the world service and on this day are virtually identical, and minor ritual differences do not affect the unity of the Jewish religious tradition.

And not for nothing canonical Judaism in the beginning of our era have not accepted the teachings of Jesus Christ. Not that it was - it was necessary to think about the unity of the nation in the face coming from the Romans mortal danger (no less than in times of Auschwitz), and new trends the nation was divided.




Return to Byzantium. So how hard (compared to Catholicism), the canons of Orthodoxy - it was an instinctive desire to preserve their culture and national identity during the collapse of statehood.

It is unlikely, of course, Byzantium could have been saved after all the final conquest by the Turks in 1453. Would have been killed and Orthodoxy, and a great icon, and architectural traditions. In the best case it would become Museum curiosities, cleared the frescoes of the Cathedral of St. Sophia in Istanbul, the twentieth century.

But the Vikings Oleg 907 nailed to the gates of Constantinople his shield. By the way, is very doubtful legend - the shield was honored and proud warrior, and what a warrior parted from him, and the more the leader? Clearly it was that the Byzantines the shield will break and destroy immediately after the departure of the Slavs... But it sounds very impressive - your shield on the gates of Constantinople...

The Holy equal to the apostles Prince Vladimir the Red Sun, knowing how much a pound down and out (it was not just the youngest son of Svyatoslav, but also from the maids, and seized the throne after a long, hard and not always clean fight), found in Orthodoxy salvation to his soul, whether for his princely power.

So, Russia in the late Tenth century Orthodox baptism took with him nearly all aspects of Byzantine culture and art. What happened to them further on what ground they were in Kievan Rus?

Oddly enough, they had not been any major changes until the XV century. Orthodox canons remained intact until the Patriarch Nikon (the middle of the XVII century), icons, too.

You can take offense to Russia, which is so poorly "developed" Orthodoxy and art with him. Can the same be proud of - how "Holy" in the integrity preserved ancient Christian tradition. But you can see - could it be otherwise? Artificial, forced transfer of Byzantine culture in the absolute vacuum of pagan Kievan Rus could not give any new shoots. Sophia in Kiev and Novgorod - purely Byzantine churches, and indeed the entire Russian cross-domed architecture of the time. Naturally - Magi temples Perun was not built, so that the synthesis architectures speech could not be.

It's the same with literature and the visual arts - how could the Russian national identity? Jumping over the fire to describe? By the time frivolously. Even with "the Word about Igor's regiment" can not understand - fake or not? I certainly want to have at least one monument originally of Russian literature of the pre-Mongol period...

Who came to Russia in 1237 g. the Mongols and did "freeze" the development of Orthodox dogma for the same reasons as in the Byzantine - Russian state was in mortal danger. And the Mongol-Tatar trends in Russian art for two hundred years, the yoke does not appear - the Mongols with art, too, was somehow not very...

With Europe at this time, the contact was very limited, and the influence of the Romanesque and early Gothic architecture can be traced only by specialists.

Under Ivan III at the end of the fifteenth century came a short period of relative stability. But only about forty years, and it's stability cannot be called - was the subordination of the outlying principalities type of Yaroslavl.

And then began the hard times. Everyone knows about the cruelty of Ivan the terrible, but in the minds of many, he appears to be a sort of hero of the film Eisenstein - stern, but fair fighter for centralized power. But in the end his half-century reign (1533-1584) Russia was just devastated. It wiped out the population of Novgorod, depopulated whole regions, the Swedes took away the access to the Baltic sea, the Crimean khans in their raids began to reach Moscow. Such Tokhtamish didn't know!

Smart and talented Boris Godunov was hated by the people and nothing to fix failed. About what was happening in Russia in the time of Troubles (early XVII century), to tell, I think not.

So where in the art could come to new developments? From drunken Polish soldiers false?

But in Orthodoxy? It remains the only stabilizing factor for the Russian national idea, and his firmness depended the fate of the country. What could there be dogmatic disputes? Recall Judea beginning of our era...

What Fedor Ioannovich (in fact Godunov) 1589. the Metropolitan of all Russia received the title of Patriarch, " dogmatics nor whatthe question was purely political in nature. The Patriarch of Constantinople received from Russia financial support (Byzantium at that time disappeared from the map), and could not recognize Russia's right to separate the Patriarch.

And only in the XVII century, when Mikhail Fedorovich and Alexey Mikhailovich, the situation in the society began to take a more or less stable, and the instinctive shrinking of Orthodoxy to set the usual canons were replaced by theological disputes and the schism of the Church under Patriarch Nikon. Before this "Holy kept the Orthodox faith" in an unchanged form not from a good life, and art, in addition to the traditional Byzantine iconography and the same architecture, the other could not possibly be. Of course, specialist distinguish the icon of the Pskov school XIV century from the Moscow school XVI century, but such diversity, both in the West was not.

In Russia, as elsewhere in the world, art has evolved according to its own laws, and no purposeful control action by the state or the Orthodox Church has not taken place - just the art of the Byzantine and the other in the XI-XVII centuries could not be.

Well, couldn't imagine Andrei Rublev, that you can write something other than strictly canonical icons. Could imagine would have written, there is no state religion couldn ordered to subjugate the will of the great artist, even under pain of death.

Just please don't make the conclusion that the Russian art because of all these reasons lagged behind the West for five hundred years. What if Orthodoxy has not developed the doctrine of purgatory (Catholic dogma 1439.), it lagged behind Catholicism? No, art and religion is not mathematics and atomic physics, the standard notion of progress is absolutely not applicable, they develop according to their own laws.

In all the world art encyclopedias Andrei Rublev and Theophanes the Greek stand on a par with Italian and Flemish contemporaries, and no one, thank God, never think to call them "retarded". If the ruble did not know oil paints or "correct" perspective, his contribution to the art did not become less he felt and knew how to convey something more important. And to learn new techniques of painting or poetry - for professionals it is not difficult to see that and showed the Russian art of XVIII-XIX centuries.




In the XVIII century, while the Germans created a classical German philosophy, Russia has created a kind of European States. Peter I and Catherine II - no more Russian Tsar was not awarded the title "Great". Won a lot. Russian Empire almost went into the borders of the future of the USSR, with the exception of the Caucasus, parts of Central Asia and the "little things" type of Sakhalin island. And somewhere become more - for example, Poland...

And what, as we said, is a strong state? Faith only in themselves. And religion, and art of the state is seen as some tools of influence.

But in the XVIII century is very "inappropriate" it became clear that the traditions and arts, and religion is much older than the state and have enormous autonomy. And then, and international contacts increased, and the West began the revolution, which also strengthens the authority of the state.

I had to do the emperors claiming control over all spheres of life, including spiritual? To fight...

With the Church (I emphasize - the Church, not religion), using its weakening after Nikon split, cracked down even the Tsar. Not only did he pour on gun bell (as we happily reported Soviet historiography). He also abolished in 1700 the Russian Patriarchate. From 1721 to 1917 the Church was ruled by the sacred governing Synod - state institution with a "secular" chief Prosecutor at the head.

What kind of development of Orthodox dogmas in XVIII-XIX centuries could be involved? Kings, of course, was not up to the theological issues, they have their missing. And would be a bureaucratic institution (the Synod) to change anything? Why give yourself extra headache? So bad...

In short, the Orthodox Church has ceased to agitate the minds of civilized and became "obedient tool in the tsarist oppression of the masses". Already looks funny lexicon of Soviet atheistic propaganda, right? But the tool is, indeed, was nothing to be done.

But the historical arena came art. "The Golden age of Russian literature", unsuccessful attempts to Nicholas I "drag and do not let go", "liberalization" of the time of Alexander II - the well-known examples. And in the early twentieth century art finally took possession of the minds.

The intellectuals of the "Silver age" has constantly thought of religion only in the context of art. I will say more - the use of religion as a tool of art. Imagine a situation where no religion uses icons, and icons - religion! But since the "Silver age" and was. A good example is the Church in Abramtsevo, built by Victor Vasnetsov. Next to her - "the Hut of Baba-Yaga", built by the same Vasnetsov. So-so Orthodox faith and Church architect...

And all the religious and mystical teachings of Russian philosophers of the time? They are the official Orthodoxy, despite the use of the dogma of the Trinity, can not be considered.

So, confirmed by the Russian proverb - a Holy place is never empty. When in the eighteenth century the Russian state was able to subdue the Church came on the scene the art and more since she never left. Moreover, in the enlightened minds of the late XIX-early XX century art took the place of religion, and disputes over religious dogma has replaced creative rethinking of Orthodox traditions such as the later didactic works of Leo Tolstoy. So, by the way, creative that Tolstoy 1901. was excommunicated from the Church...

Yes, and the novel "Crime and punishment", for example, reproduces the path of the Christian worldview, but not the Church as a writer Dostoevsky!




However, we are unfairly passed over one philosophical doctrine, which absorbed many of the achievements Suharevka by the time of German classical philosophy and given on the basis of specific Russian statehood unprecedented shoots.

"The Marxist doctrine is omnipotent because it is true". Rare primitive and potent phrase Lenin, right?

But let's not strictly judge striving for power policy, which contrasted with an excellent education and, when necessary, intelligence (which is not the same). Just once again proved that education and intelligence does not even hold all of the dirty and bloody deeds. What an enlightened Emperor Marcus Aurelius...

Speech on the other. Lenin was the first Russian politicians of the new time understood the idea that the state itself is unable to ignite the minds and ideas of freedom of the model of the French revolution or simply promises to feed the people are extremely vague and jaded - they were used and the people, and the cadets, and SRS...

What was needed was "an idealistic idea." Them, as we already know, could be just two or religion or art. What did he choose?

You could create a religious sect and defeat, as Christianity in the days of Lenin's influence and authority was not used.

Could become an ardent critic of the abominations of life (such as Maxim Gorky) and remain in the memory of posterity, but the power it does not capture the population was still less literate than they are now.

Lenin chose neither, and tried to "cheat nature" and has adopted the achievements of classical German philosophy. Indeed, in the line "Kant-Hegel-Marx clearly traced the idea of development of society and state, very useful for policy early twentieth century. And the dialectical path of development, and the Communist future of mankind has been the most valuable ideological godsend. Opponents of Marxism were opponents of the latest achievements of philosophy, that is "retrograde and obscurantist".

It sounds funny now, because any civilized person beginning of the third Millennium understands that the philosophers were thousands. Why Marx, for example, and not Kant? In the original, there are few who read, and now try to force someone to believe in the bright future of mankind, achieved by changing the socio-economic formations!

However, if it succeeded, the Bolsheviks took power and immediately faced with an invincible enemy - religion and art.

And why opponents? Because, as it turned out, to put them at the service of dubious Marxist ideas of the future was impossible.

Make adjustments to the Christian religion in the Soviet regime did not try. She was my kind of theology, Marxism, its like churches - party meeting and political information. Somehow pathetic, though, compared to the traditions of the Apostle Paul...

As for the art, even the new "socialist realism" generation of creators such as Konstantin Simonov, or Vera Mukhina's minds possessed exactly the extent to which it deviated from the ideological and served as a universal spiritual values. Not surprising - after all, the Soviet government to create their "pocket" art, stirring the hearts and minds images of Lenin at the Congress of Soviets and Stalin on the white sea canal, and failed.

And so it happened that our "old friends", religion and art, with a fake Communist ideology "massacred" surprisingly fast. It seemed to us that the Soviet regime was a very long time. Actually, what is the history of seventy years? From the "Babylonian captivity" of the Jews (VI century BC) to the final disappearance of the Jews from the map (I century BC) once passed that way in ten more.

In the end, the Soviet Union suffered the inevitable collapse, because there was the most terrible thing for the state, built on faith, not on the economy, people have ceased to believe. In Marxist bright future, of course.

Since Orthodoxy has "reversed" even Stalin. Almost completely trampled Church (in 1939. on the territory of Russia was only about a hundred temples, and on freedom - four of the Bishop), in 1943, realizing the need for a cohesive national idea, the dictator was allowed to open temples, seminaries, restored the Patriarchate. However, under the control of state security, but at least unofficially, not that at the time of the Holy Synod.

And when we started "Gorbachev's perestroika, glasnost and political freedoms, the surging flow of genuine art took away all the Marxist-Leninist ideological layering overnight - for some three or four years.

And even today the Russian Communists, yearning for the mighty Empire of the USSR, the philosophy of dialectical materialism does not remember.

Then we can finish our historical review and state:

Religion and art in the course of history have won and competitors in the spiritual world of people today do not have.

Religion and art phenomena at one level, one order, one historical destiny, and only occasionally were reversed in the consciousness of humanity.

Religion and art are closely connected with the ways of society, but they live by their own laws, and no state can these laws directly affect willed order.




We step by step approach to the most serious conclusions about the modern understanding of God's existence, and for this we have to learn yet another fundamental question.

Jesus Christ gave us a system of values - that which we now call Christian. And let it set overlaid medieval accretions, rites, canons and dogmas, but it is. Moreover - it has no power of any state, for two thousand years it has proven its viability and to take position is clearly not going to.

It turns out that this spiritual system more than any social upheaval, all rulers and governments...

But before we make the final conclusions, it is necessary to talk about the second part of our proof of the existence of God - about the art.

There is art in a single system of values or not?

We will not delve into the many philosophical definitions of the essence of art. For me personally, the most fundamental is that the work of art first and foremost a unique, original, no repeats and no copy...

My readers will notice it is reasonable that in terms of uniqueness is difficult to argue, but also the uniqueness can be different. Recall, for example, is very original and extravagant Italian artist Piero Manzoni (1933-1963), which, pardon me, sealing the cans in their excrement and sent them in museums. By the way, found that many followers, including in Russia... So what is the Bank Manzoni work of art or not?

The issue is complex, and unambiguous answer "no" would be a gross imposition reader author's personal tastes. But to talk about this topic you must have at least the following plan: if there are some General criteria for the assessment of such creations? And if banks can Manzoni at least brought under the label of bad taste and vulgarity branded as, what to do with two miles of the coast, which the artists Christo and Jean-Claude in 1969 covered with canvas? Or a series of Hannah Wilke's photographs, where she captured all the stages of his own deadly disease - cancer?

We went to a very interesting situation. If there is no art in a unified system of values - any successful (and sometimes unsuccessful) invention is a reason to include one or another creation of man to the works of art. The banks will then include Manzoni, nothing can be done - maybe a hundred years from feces no longer perceived as a vulgarity? And now social morality interprets these things already without unnecessary bigotry - got the same Manzoni in the art encyclopedia...

In short, completely deny the existence of a unified system of values in art, of course, possible. This, however, will recall the phrase that I heard many years ago: "there is no God, and there is probability theory and mathematical statistics (by phrase - known scientist in the field of applied mathematics). In our case, it sounds like: some dice (in scientific terms "random number generator") in every age choose from thousands of creators of several units and record them in the encyclopedia.

Good luck Michelangelo, Raphael, Leonardo - all here! And the other masters, painted other churches, just unlucky.

And the buyer paintings of contemporary artist may be lucky: indicates a "random number generator" to the author - will he (the buyer) grandchildren masterpiece worth a million dollars. Not indicate - sorry, no luck.

From the point of view of common sense is nonsense? Yes, of course.

All art history convinces us that the masterpieces forever remain masterpieces, and the Museum is not a casino. Complete denial of a unified system of values in art, nothing is going on.

You implicitly deny the existence of such a system of values, citing both, not less common, the opinion is now to evaluate just useless. Posterity will understand. It will be that way for fifty years - and all will be judged quite differently, and five hundred altogether.

I'd like to answer with a joke: to live to only those fifty years, and it would be better and five hundred, to see how they figured out the offspring...

But seriously: without us, it is, of course, also will understand, but that turns out to new people come with the new psychology, and evaluate all be completely new? Again, would "throw Pushkin to ship today"?

It is unlikely that someone will succeed, and it showed a bustling twentieth century. It would seem that all the values were reassessed. But look:

- after the "Silver age" and the October revolution, the art has preserved its traditions and only enriched them;

- Pushkin "ship today" and not dropped;

neither cubism, neither the abstract nor modernism did not shake our relationship to the masterpieces of the Renaissance or impressionist;

- the profession "art" did not die out and not going to die;

auctions of works of art.

So there she was, this unified system of values, and if offspring know best is only because leaving momentary passions, fashion, publicity, and remains (or is) a work of art as such. Otherwise masterpieces did not grow up in price, and fell, like most consumer goods.

And no amount of social upheaval will not recognize Gioconda two hundred grams of paint smeared on the canvas. And many, many contemporary works, despite the complaints of the type "art is dead, because the search form at an impasse", a perfect fit in this system of values.

Hence, to apply the art of the same words, as in religion: a system of spiritual values in art above all social upheaval, it has no control over nor rulers, nor the government...




In order to make a final conclusion, we do not have one, a very important component: the fate of the modern Christian ideas in art.

Indeed, the canonical Orthodox icons of the twentieth century - a spectacle quite miserable. In the best case is an exact copy of masterpieces such as "Vladimir Mother of God"in the worst - just sad to watch.

The Russian Orthodox Church, allowing the posting of the temples poster photo of saints, can be understood. Open and reconstructed hundreds of temples, money for all this must be incredibly much... of Course, when choosing what to spend money on good icons or repair the roof, the second has absolute priority. Sooner or later, of course, the poster photo giving way to something more "decent" in terms of artistic material, but not in terms of image.

Church Canon everything is allowed (we already talked about the "equal" Holiness Rublev's "Trinity" and the template Sofrinsky plant Church affiliation), but the glory of contemporary religious art does not add.

But actually in our time religion and art are closely intertwined. Here are some examples.

First, the modern Church architecture. It is especially well developed in the West - the stunning design and taste of the Church building of glass and concrete! A modern Catholic murals and sculptures? Suddenly, and to the Russian Orthodox Church in turn.

Secondly, a huge number of stylized icons and variations on biblical themes. No wonder - the eternal theme. Evil tongues in the early fifties, even claimed that the building of the University on Sparrow hills and other Stalinist "skyscrapers" in Moscow - unconscious pastiche of the Church, only a little enlarged...

But there is one example, and it is best demonstrated the close relationship of Christian ideas and an irresistible craving for art in the human subconscious. I'm talking about naive art.

- "What? - it might surprise readers. Naive art? Why? Where were the Christian Canon or ideas? There, after that not only represent, from Pushkin to drunken tractor, and also unprofessional! And that soul is Yes, but no more...

Well, let's take a look at the naive art. Personally, I prefer the term "naïve art" - it is more extensive, not all figures of naive art so naive and simple. Yes, and this kind of art is not as naive as it seems. But first things first.

First, we define its "classical" understanding. The fashion naïve art introduced in the early twentieth-century art collector Wilhelm Uhde, who found in this direction is warmth and sincerity, which is very lacking rapid search for new forms of art. All I know of two great naivistov - Henri Rousseau (1844-1910) and Niko Pirosmani (1862-1918). Rousseau worked all his life customs, and Pirosmani painted signs.

In Russia at that time too naïve art has its followers, including Mikhail Larionov (1881-1964), an experienced professional who held an impressionistic stage and only in 1907 created his own style - the so-called neo-primitivism. This is the question of whether it always naive and unprofessional naive art, and why I prefer the term "naïve art".

After the second world war, along with modernism and as if in opposition to him, naïve art reached the West and in post-Soviet times in Russia, an enormous popularity. "Grandma" Moses (1860-1961) in the United States, Ivan generalić (1914-1992) in Yugoslavia, Katya Medvedeva (R. 1937) in Russia...

For simplicity, we define the main features of naive art: it's like a poorly written big, clumsy men with angelic gaze, a strange, thrust at the viewer perspective, flat shapes, bright colors... And not leaving the viewer feeling of purity and warmth.

Popularity naivizma in our time is understandable. We have already completed a historical review, therefore, only briefly recall all of what "distinguished" the twentieth century: the unprecedented technological progress, two world wars, the nuclear arms race, environmental disaster, Auschwitz, Kolyma, Hiroshima...

The natural reaction of the human mind, imbued with the ancient traditions of Christianity, these nightmares - intuitive desire for goodness and warmth, including in art. Psyche, of course, the psyche discord, surrealist Salvador Dali fans also missing, but naïve art bypassed hard to call.

Yet stereotypes of perception naivizma as "art Amateurs" and "children's games adults" there. Naïve art is loved and appreciated, but are still slightly down.




Now let us remember the times of formation of early Christian art and contemplate Christian icons. Repeat word for word the description naivizma, only in respect of icons:

"How would ineptly written big, clumsy men with angelic gaze, a strange, thrust at the viewer perspective, flat shapes, bright colors... And not leaving the viewer feeling of purity and warmth.

Interesting, isn't it? And we found that the icon has become such a "clumsy" not from loss of skill, but because of the objective laws of the development of art.

It may be objected that the icon also is different, and we are even in this book there was said to be the icon of the village "the painter"and "the Trinity" by Andrei Rublev.

Yes, but look at the "Trinity" or any other icon, so ingeniously and skillfully executed. There, that man is not big and narrow-shouldered, well built, like Apollo? And do not put the blame on the Canon - there were times when it was installed, that is, the Canon was not yet.

So, there is an interesting parallel: the vices of the Roman Empire spawned as opposed to the icons, and the vices of the "technological age" (the end of XIX century and the entire twentieth) was generated as opposed to naive art.

Let's use was found parallel to one another curious conclusion.

Naïve art is often compared with children's drawings or the rock paintings of prehistoric people. All right, and it's not horrible.

Remember at least 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).

This is why early Christian art took such forms! The desire for goodness and spiritual purity in the minds of the vast majority of people associated with childhood, but as a draw children? Children's drawings every seen (I mean pictures of mentally normal children).

And not only now, in the middle ages, children as depicted...

Now we understand why the spiritually pure people 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...

Hence, the icons, and the paintings of artists naivists depicted... children.

It all fits, doesn't it?

What many individuals beard - so there has to be a certain minimum resemblance, here is the reality takes precedence over the subconscious. So children get the wrinkles and beards. Okay, that's what art, he can do anything.

Here it is, intuitive Christian subconscious, which does not break any governmental decrees.

Now we can understand 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 do so - read psychoanalytic studies of 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 is no longer in the IV-V centuries depict Venus de Milo and the Apollo Belvedere.

And only in the Renaissance, when the society, in turn, "tired" from the hypocrisy of the papacy and the Inquisition, the installation of the Christian subconscious were forced (too Freudian term) units "enlightened antiquity."

And at the end of XIX-beginning of XX century naïve art could not appear. Too far gone technological progress and the intellectual search for new forms, and Christian subconscious began to take their toll.

And we can conclude that the identity of the subconscious roots, historical and spiritual origins of Christianity, icons and modern naive art proves single origin of art and religion.




Let us, as is customary when proving something, briefly repeat what we learned:

1. Religion and art have no competitors in the spiritual world of people.

2. Religion and art - the phenomenon of one level in the same order, and only changed places in the consciousness of humanity.

3. Religion and art are closely connected with the ways of society, but they live by their own laws, and no state can these laws affect willed order.

4. The system of spiritual values in religion and in art above all social changes and upheavals, it has no control over nor rulers, nor the government.

5. The identity of the subconscious roots, historical and spiritual origins of Christianity, icons and modern naive art proves single origin of art and religion.

What we say phrases: "Religion and art have no competitors in the spiritual world"? "Live by their own laws? "Above all social upheaval? "They have a common origin?

What of these five conclusions can you make one General:

All these provisions show that the existence of the earth system of spiritual values in religion and in art today is the largest and most significant proof of the existence of God.

The proof is not only - for example, a science fiction writer and humanist Arthur C. Clarke (R. 1917) saw evidence of the existence of Supreme harmony, and God in the physical-mathematical formulas and equations. In particular, in the formula of Euler, connecting completely independent from each other, but very important in mathematics number as the base of the natural logarithm "e" (2:71828...) and the ratio of a circles circumference to its diameter "p" (3:14159...). Some naturalists correctly see the same thing in the device of animate and inanimate nature, the Universe, and even the structure of DNA.

But the proof of the most extensive and significant, not only for professional philosophers and theologians, but also for mathematicians, businessmen, programmers, working...

The fact that religion and art sphere, which in one degree or another, everyone faces. And if, for example, the programmer can not imagine such a subject, like chemistry, and in the churches, and museums are all. And all the books they read.

Here is the key to understanding God each of us. That same spark, without which the flame of faith in God the Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth" can not catch fire.

When you know that God somehow manifested itself in an imperfect and evil world, then life becomes much easier. Mathematically speaking, the understanding of one-thousandth part of infinity is still that the understanding of infinity.

And from this understanding it is not far to the "Kantian" hope of genuine, highest and perfect happiness, is not fully attainable in this world, but possible in the life of the age" because of our faith in God, manifesting himself on earth in the great spiritual systems of religion and art.

Therefore, there is nothing inherently diabolical or in theatres or concert halls, or in art exhibitions, or in the "secular" books...

Of course, not every piece of art belongs to the most divine values. 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 knowledge of divine truth - the purification of religion and art from the speculative, opportunistic and selfish layers.







At the beginning of the third Millennium essence of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, the divine truth, which he brought into the world, intuitively understood by 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)... it would Seem obvious to tell why?

But these things became apparent to us 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, which was built 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 VII century, creating the Koran, it is logical to rely on the old Testament prophets and the teachings of Christ. And religion to get something completely different! What is the latitude of interpretations...

And a proper understanding of the teachings of Christ can give us first in-depth analysis of the old and New Testaments from the point of view of common sense of modern civilized man.

The simplest example: many "confuse" the miracles of Jesus type of numerous healings (Matt. 4:24; 8:2; 9:2; MK. 5:41; LK. 17:14 and others), five loaves of the five thousand (MK. 6:33-44) and the resurrection of Lazarus (Jn. 11:1-44).

First of all, let us not forget that Jesus, as the Christ-the Messiah, was simply a "must" to work miracles. This, as we remember the prophets have spoken, and if Jesus miracles and did not, they would have been invented by his admirers and followers.

Note that the wonders of "doing" 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 (the "Lives of saints"). Historiography of the time, it was decided to splash thus cause all the "good" preachers. Perhaps partly right and those who see many miracles of Jesus as a hypnotic, and even a magical effect, although there should be a measure.

But 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 "content" of miracles is the most unequivocal proof of Jesus ' mission - to serve the people of goodness and love.

If this were not so, he would not only be healed and revived, but anyone and destroyed. Well, at least a couple of particularly heinous Pharisees... But no! Characteristically, when the disciples asked him to do it with the village, where they refused to shelter, Jesus said, "the Son of Man came not to destroy souls, but to save them" (LK. 9:56).

The gospel descriptions of Jesus ' miracles are one of the main proofs that Christ brought to mankind the values of love and kindness.

However, in our imperfect world, in every good now I have no less evil, and Christ has paid dearly for his teachings. That on the cross he suffered truly, is reflected in all the Gospels, and these sufferings laid the cornerstone of the Christian religion.




And what is still Jesus went to the cross? As it is now, at the beginning of the third Millennium, we can perceive and interpret the moral teachings?

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...

Actually it is not so terrible, quite the contrary.

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 - so many things there that this book is certainly not enough to enumerate.

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:

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, is 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).

Okay, 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 a number of 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 famous "sermon on the mount" he does review many of the provisions of the Law (Matt., chapters 5-7).

Maybe it gives us a reason to accuse Jesus of hypocrisy?

Nothing like this! The fact 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 is in the earthly life so he fights on this Saturday, and generally went to conflicts with the Pharisees for such "trifles"? 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.

the second is like unto 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). How to explain such an inaccurate quotation immediately "substitute" Jesus criticized the Pharisees?

Maybe this inaccuracy blame evangelists? No, this is stated in the first gospel, and if anyone knew the old Testament is the Apostle Matthew.

Actually 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. That is wished, for example, a field in the middle of your sin, because you like it if someone claimed your field? Same thing with the house and with his wife...

"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 understood 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 commit 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 really sin, and the punishment 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. The main punishment is 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 propagation of Christianity, not in the form of a complex set of doctrines, but as a moral system, understandable to everyone. Jesus and the apostles understood the need for this, but the Church for two thousand years, somehow forgot...




And the rest of the commandments of the law of Moses?

Some of the commandments directly follow from the two mentioned above (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?

The example? 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 (it is believed that "indigenous" Jews were fair-haired and blue-eyed, like most of the peoples of the ancient Near East). 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 we learned in the previous Chapter, that art, along with religion is a clear manifestation of God, then to abandon it - this is, indeed, a sin.

However, the Church, as we have said, and did not refuse, but, in my opinion, unnecessarily build on this theme mountain declarative casuistry type words of the monk Gregory (Circle):

"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, I propose to speak on a very topical theme, certainly worries everyone: 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.

The law, as we have said, is complex, multifaceted and requires many years for detailed study. But the difficulty is not so bad, but half 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:

The only possible notion of sin by Jesus Christ is the absence of love to 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, as well as punishing the sovereign.

Unfortunately, in the middle ages, the Church went along this path, 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 with the help of indulgences or, at least, of confession. And those "sinners"who would not repent or could not pay off, it was possible to burn at the stake.

In short, the complexity and flexibility of the concept of sin in the middle ages has become a powerful tool for Church-state power.

And so it happened that in our time all Orthodox churches interpret the sin is very broad and ambiguous, in full accordance with the principle of "law - that pole. And where his turn - decides, again, the Church itself.

Take the Church 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, St. Ignatius (Brianchaninov) among hundreds of other calls 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 and my judgment is to remember?.. Is it possible in lent to eat eggs?.. And to drink milk?.. And today, I gazed at a photograph of models and experienced seductive thoughts, so I now get for this?" 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 us from the standpoint of the teachings of Jesus Christ look at "traditional" sins and try to understand what they are.

And many more - indeed, sin. Murder is clearly, Yes. Theft or robbery - definitely, Yes. Fraud is clearly, Yes...

In order not to spread the story short, still suggest not to get involved in the transfer of articles of the Criminal Code (who wants to, at your leisure can do that), and still consider at least the standard "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 all sorts of fraud, theft, murder, etc? In The Decalogue? That is, the seven deadly sins alone, but "thou shalt not kill" separately?

Okay, 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 competition" in the last term is included or not?

From the standpoint of Jesus Christ of any of these concepts is ambiguous and is a sin only when it creates around the problems and inconvenience, pain and the like. But everything else, including the seven deadly sins - beautiful words absolutely nothing.

But as you know, the less people understand, the official churches (and many sects) easier to manage them for their own purposes. Including with those beautiful words.

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 helpfully fills in 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, isn't it?




I may ask a provocative question - what to do with self defense? You can, of course, to declare: "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 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.

I recall 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 the gospel of Matthew (Matt. 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, Willy-nilly, they begin to serve. And making money has a nasty feature of consuming all the time and mental strength, and sooner or later the Kingdom of heaven will be "unimportant". Under the old age, perhaps, remembering, and most likely, no. Christ is not in vain said:

"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 (riches).

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" (Matt. 6:24-33).




But, tell me, spiritually easy to "seek the Kingdom of God and his righteousness", that is to love people and wish them well, but still, what to do in practical terms?

Actually and spiritually is very, very hard. I suggest anyone to sort out in the memory, for example, neighbours or work colleagues, and I am sure that about many of them we remember very, very nasty stuff. And not growing if you are deaf irritation, very far from Christian love and forgiveness, when memories of the troubles that brought you to these people?

That is to say, artificially created state, a sort of "five-minute hate" (as in the novel Orwell's "1984"). But, unfortunately, such a condition occurs when one or other life circumstances often.

Not everyone is able at this point to call for help Christian patience and love for people. But worth a try, and if one day You have a "five-minute hate" get tortured or does not work - so, in Your heart there were real improvements...

It is in the spiritual plane. But in practice?

Indeed, 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. What the Christ did not want, it is our death from starvation or beatings.

But then who can be saved, that is, to live completely righteous? No one? Or just poor - poor, ragged, hungry people? And if the starving beggar is not divided leftovers in the garbage with the dog and pushed the poor animal, and he closed the way to the Kingdom of heaven? And not pushed would - would have died of hunger. But, on the other hand, would be used in heaven, so it seems to be too bad, let's all together we shall die of hunger... TAK?

No, and no again. Not because God created life on earth. Otherwise we would still hunted mammoths, and did not fly on airplanes. Besides, if you bring the idea to the point of absurdity - all would hurry to die, and children choked immediately after their birth, so they were in heaven, not yet had time to Negresti...

If you read the Gospels apart from common sense, that life on earth would have died in the early middle ages.

But how to reconcile common sense theology, and to answer the question: if innocent people there, who can be saved, that is, to enter the Kingdom of God?




The Church offers a simple solution to this problem: sin is atoned for the sins with good deeds. After the death (and then at the last Judgment), all the sins and good deeds will count, compare and decide who is righteous and who is not.

Saint Basil the New (X century) wrote 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...

Concerning the last Judgment, there are more modern stereotype of 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.

How to imagine the death and the last Judgment, of course, a personal matter, but "lifetime" atone for the sins of the Church is about such a 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 his sins that he considers his good deeds, so that "estimate", he has a chance for the Kingdom of God 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". It seems like the Church is encouraged, and the school taught mathematics... In the "plus" will: helping others, raising children, donations to the temple, charity... In the "minus" - intrigue, denunciations, crime...

But let's try to 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"...

So your life, right? But 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 judgement. 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 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 even talk about the comparability of certain sins and good deeds in any case come to an absurdity. I remember as a child I wondered how many old ladies need help to cross the road for one broken glass...

The problem is 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 thinking of modern man the idea of such "arithmetic".

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 did not 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.

And it is unlikely judgement - the process of arithmetic comparisons sins and good deeds. This is particularly the court's own Christian conscience, and on it any arithmetic invalid.

As for the canonical position of the Church...

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 of the penitent, it is better to postpone the confession and replace it with a common message.

In Orthodoxy this, unfortunately, has not yet been decided.




It turns out that give a true cleansing from sin, to turn the system of values and to lead people to faith in God 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, in an act of contrition to write completely truthful memoirs? Well, even if not about yourself, 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.

Crime and sin, unfortunately, in our imperfect same things as criminal and moral laws.

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.




Fortunately, General Sudoplatov, the conscience of which hundreds, if not thousands of lives - a rare case. With him is more or less clear.

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 during a working day, five times I looked at askance Ivan Kuzmich 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?

But let's not get carried away by listing the many situations in which puts people cruel and unpredictable life. In the gospel of John is one famous episode. 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.

So, in the end, who can be saved, that is, to enter the Kingdom of God? Can anyone?

You will have to repeat the last lines of quoted Jesus ' conversation with the rich young man.

"Those who 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 had in mind, saying, "what is Impossible with men are possible with God."




In the middle ages, this phrase has generated a huge reservoir of theological debate about the so-called "God's grace" - the possibility of the forgiveness of God for our sins.

In 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 many references to Scripture, was elected at the beginning of the V century Aurelian Augustine to ensure that nothing depends upon the will of man, for the last from birth apt to sin. 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. Everything that happens with people who clearly predetermined by God.

Remember Augustine on this subject debated with Pelagianism and won? Let me remind you: Pelagius declared defining free will of man and was of the opinion that man is born sinless and has the ability to choose good or evil. Augustine defended his doctrine of "original sin", after which the person is not able not to sin, and must rely solely on the grace of God.

On the "original sin" we still talk very curious about it. Now just note that the "Catholic" Protestantism, oddly enough, looks at the relationship of grace and free will entirely, "Augustinian". Calvin, as we have said, all denied freedom of will, and brought salvation solely to the unknown God's Providence. Luther approached this somewhat "softer" and believed that the opportunity to gain grace gives man faith alone.

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-spiritually considered:

"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 as least it was denounced by Calvin in 1547. Thierry was burned at the stake. As we remember, on the conscience of Calvin penalty and antitrinitariya Miguel Servet.

To readers not formed opinions about Luther as an angel compared to Calvin, say, that of Elegy, the head of the "libertine" in Dutch Antwerp, was also burned in 1544. The Prosecutor at the court was delivered by none other than Martin Luther.

Not all of the reformation was as wonderful as we now think...

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.

Orthodoxy has provided two kinds of God's grace: precedes (General and unpredictable, as in Augustine) and special (justifying a specific person by his deeds). "Grace works in freedom, and freedom in grace; they vzaimnovhodny" (EP. Theophanes).

If to break through the traditionally dark style Church-Orthodox theology, we can understand the following:

According to Orthodoxy, a certain freedom of will, that is, the choice to sin is not sin," we are all the same. 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" of predestination.

Of course, it's nice that the Orthodox Church though someone has a chance to enter into the Kingdom of God, but yet somehow I pity those who had not deigned "prevenient" grace. Suddenly they all life worked honestly, did good deeds, truly tried not to sin, but all of them will send you to hell?

Let's try to determine the possibility of forgiveness of our sins God is more true than does the official Orthodoxy.




I suggest not to go into heavy logical construction, and to give a definition of God's grace (forgiveness of God for our sins in accordance with the common sense of modernity 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 are accessible teachings of Jesus Christ - teachings of kindness and love.

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.

Then there are sins that even a Christian can not commit. And God's grace is the forgiveness of the person of such sins.

The divine system of values of goodness and love, which brought us Jesus Christ, 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.

If it be said in obwebgateload aspect, God knows the General tendencies of development of mankind and the purpose of every person's life, so God decides who is righteous and who is not, correlating our thoughts and actions with these goals.

And if we can understand these objectives and trends, driven by God?

Can, to a great extent - for this we have the teachings of Jesus Christ!

And you thought Jesus is our Savior, because from the point of view of theology, his suffering on the cross atoned for our "old Testament" sins? No, we should call him the Savior first of all for that, thanks to his teachings, we understand how to find God's grace and enter into the Kingdom of God.




It was, so to say, the theoretical side of the question.

The practical aspect of the Christian moral system can be formulated as follows:

If there is even 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 this is 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 in this approach repeatedly reduced. Completely eliminate it and to live a life without conflict - this could not be any Apostle Paul, or St. Augustine or anyone else.

But the more people truly perceive the Christian doctrine, the lower this probability.

But to reach it ever scratch or not, will be on earth the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of goodness and love, or not - we can only guess. Or to believe.

But this is a matter of personal faith of each. For example, I believe, but with some reservations: if you come Kingdom of goodness and love, whether it be perceived that way? Find him and in him their sins, their crimes, their evil? As it is, for example, in the time when Jesus of Nazareth was scourged and crucified, few people could dream of the abolition of torture, and especially of the death penalty. And now they are in the civilized world is almost universally abolished (at least formally), but on Earth the Kingdom of goodness and love still does not see...







Well, with all the sins figured out?

No, not all. In the Decalogue is the commandment with a serial number seven. Remembered how it sounds? "Thou shalt not commit adultery".

The so-called sin of adultery, of course, 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 with his mistress (lover)? Or with a prostitute (sorry, a prostitute)? Or homosexual? Or... I Think everyone's imagination will tell you what else you can include in the concept of adultery.

However, the imagination does not necessarily involve. Just 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:

"Fornication, adultery, 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 handling and playing with different sex, 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.

Let us seriously consider the sin of 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 the sin of adultery for the first time mentioned in it, so maybe there is and explain what it is?

Indeed, the Decalogue is not the whole Law of Moses. All of the ten commandments in the next few books of the old Testament are specified and discussed in detail. And so I suggest carefully reading of the Law - Moses loved 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 could see.

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 what began in early Christian times - no tale to tell, nor pen describe.

Let's not stereotype hatred of Christianity to the sexual life relate solely on the conscience of Church theologians - we have said that "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 is not.

The theological basis for this were two famous "Declaration".

The first belongs to Ecclesiastes:

"And I find more bitter than death the woman, because she's network, and her heart is snares, her hands are bands : good God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her" (the EC. 7:26).

And the second - to none other, as Jesus Christ. In "the sermon on the mount," he says:

"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).

In principle, says the Preacher could just give up, saying that his life is "vanity of vanities", and not surprisingly, he says something like... to put it mildly, "all women are prostitutes".

But the Bible is the Bible, and it waved a hand is not recommended no matter what. However, we will wait with Ecclesiastes and start with an analysis of what Jesus Christ.




A strong word, isn't it? If you even look at a woman with lust" is a sin, so what to do if "come to bed"? Not at all?

However, there is one oddity. Without the "lust", as we know, there is no sex, and children, unfortunately, too. So, life on earth would become extinct long ago. Although it would have died even earlier from the more "radical" phrase of Christ: "And there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matt. 19:12).

And if life is still not extinct, then all is not so simple, and it is not necessary to go to the hospital for surgery castration, and to Covenant to do them, and at the same time certainly not to look at women with lust.

The fact that the quoted phrase about eunuchs taken 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. 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 issue of divorce has disappeared by itself. Agree, divorce (after Christ), where "softer"than stoning (to Moses)...

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... that's just a veil for poor 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 those women... 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 universal and irrevocable marriage for the rest of my life, and even more so on mandatory 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.

Similar "soft" stance on the creation of a family became the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 7:1-17). And something for the Orthodox Church to listen to the phrase 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 return to the famous 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 there is nothing to look longingly at other women and to hurt the legitimate wife. This contradicts the main Christian commandment to love one another.

Complement: even though you're married, even if you're idle, you need to work, and not really looking at women, and even more so with lust - can and head to lose, but still "the first aircraft. This is not a joke - about the priorities in life, we will talk again in the following chapters.

In this light, it becomes clear and the position of Ecclesiastes, for which the woman is "more bitter than death". This, of course, a poetic metaphor, but in fact, if you're seriously interested in a woman and lost his head, it hurt business. And God wants us to do exactly the case, and "good God saved and sinner."

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.




But humiliated by the people, as you know, easier to manage, and the medieval Church could not take advantage of such a wonderful excuse to create a permanent human beings "guilt complex".

Christian children's "subconscious, which we discussed in the previous chapters, of course, also played a role, and the dogmas of the sinfulness of sex life fell on fertile soil. But the fact that Jesus of Nazareth is still perceived by most people as a notorious misogynist, rests entirely on the conscience of the Church officialdom.

And the "first violin" is owned by Augustine. Fair to say that he adopted many things from his master Ambrose of Milan (340-397), but the essence remains the same.

I want to ask the readers a question. What, in Your opinion, the "original sin"?

No-no, yet open the beginning of the Bible and say the first thing that comes to mind. I am sure that it will be similar to the following:

God forbade Adam and eve to eat of the fruit of the Apple tree, i.e. the tree of knowledge. But eve listened to the cunning serpent, Satan, ate herself and Adam gave. They immediately realized, "what", and they had a sexual relationship, for which they are expelled from Paradise and...

- So what "original sin"?

In this very sexual relationship - to say the vast majority.

How well established this stereotype! But actually he has no absolutely no soil.

"Original sin" and if occurred, in no case were not involved in the sexual relationship.

But first things first. Where did this stereotype come from?

Let's see what he writes on this topic Augustine 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.

Like we all imagined it, right? Indeed, the enormous influence of Aurelius Augustine and centuries-old Church tradition have borne fruit.

But all this is pure fiction!




Actually, just open the first pages of the Bible and read them to read.

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).

"The serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which was created by the Lord God. And the serpent said unto the woman, yea, hath God said, ye shall not eat from any tree in the garden?" (Gen. 3:1).

"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 happened, the people disobeyed God.




Stress - the first sin, 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 cursed earth. Adam was to eat from the earth 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".

It is extremely important the following:

"And the Lord said unto God, behold, Adam has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, no matter how he stretched forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and did not live forever.

And the Lord sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken" (Gen. 3:22-23).

About this we are very serious conversation in the following chapters. In this short excerpt raised questions about eternal life, the divine nature of people, their mission, and about good and evil.

But sex has nothing to do with it.




So, we have carefully read the beginning of Genesis and realized that only God knows where in the fevered 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, how can 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 (1033-1109), 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 we all are sinners and criminals have by right of birth. Except, apparently, "cloned", and conceived in a test tube...




And who, according to the teachings of Augustine and all mainstream churches, sinless from birth, that is, free from "original sin"?

Only Jesus Christ, for he and God the Son. And if so, he could not be born from sin, hence the dogma of the immaculate conception.

And The Virgin Mary? It is believed that the virgin could not have sex - she was sinless! And not only before marriage with Joseph, and after. It 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, by the way, went even further. Recently, in 1854, 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 Church. Already cited 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.

Wow! How "many", it turns out, knows the Orthodox Church about the nuances of family life of Mary and Joseph...

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 and the immaculate conception of Christ.

Why Matthew - Yes, because in no other gospel of 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, besides talking about Joseph and Mary, the parents of Jesus (LK. 2:27).

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;

and she shall bring forth 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 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 A.S. Pushkin (in the famous "Gavrielides") undertook this courage is, in any case, their own ideas.

In my opinion, to go into this subject is unworthy of decent people, but to no intimate details reached in the middle ages theologians inferences - even the "Kama Sutra" never dreamed of...

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).




As we have seen, Joseph was a carpenter (Matt. 13:55), and the Church's tradition speaks of him as the old carpenter. It would seem, what's the difference?

And in fact, we have here another example of "adjustment" precious gospel of the information under the pressing needs of Church theology.

Remember, it was the character of Chekhov dog Kashtanka? "Contrary to people you do not care what the carpenter candle to the carpenter". As you know, a carpenter builds a house, that is, by the nature of the work required to climb the walls and roof, putting the rafters and do other heavy physical labor. It was hardly possible for Joseph, if he is on the Church version, it was over eighty. A carpenter can even a hundred years of sitting in his quiet courtyard and grind wood products (the same legend about Joseph yoke for the oxen and scales).

So contrary to common sense and the gospel texts of Joseph the carpenter turned into a 80-year-old carpenter.

As for brothers and sisters of Jesus - Orthodox Church tradition totally unsubstantiated claims that we are talking about cousins brothers and sisters, brought up by Joseph and Mary. It appears, however, at least questionable - it is unlikely that Joseph the carpenter (and the same "Orthodox" version - the poor, the elderly and lived in a cave carpenter) had the opportunity to host an almost orphanage...

But you can invent anything you want, especially if you really want to convince people that Joseph was unable to any sexual relations with his legal wife Maria, for any sex "heinous sin".




Why medieval state Church needed to convince the people, too, becomes clear if we draw a parallel with recent - Stalin and Hitler.

Remember, these gentlemen were cultured sculpture cold, muscular, handsome men in overalls, asexual women with a paddle, and generally sought to oust the sexy cult sport and emotional mass rallies with banners and torches?

It is not surprising, because if people live a fulfilling family life (and this concept includes normal sex), it is very difficult to pull out from under the warm side of a beloved spouse and send to conquer the world.

And if a person is only able flawed like sex, is also experiencing constant "guilt complex", it is unlikely that he will be satisfied and happy in family life. This "good" - they say, it's not good for the Soviet people to read all sorts of "Kama Sutra" and erotic magazines, in our country there is no sex, quickly get in bed with my wife once or twice, and ready made children - and you had enough, go to the front to die for the ambitions of comrade Stalin...

And in the middle ages, people had to be raised to the Crusades, against heresies, the endless wars with neighboring countries - which there could be sex?

Deny it "on the vine" was impossible without it still did not give birth to children, that is, the future soldiers and future soldiers ' mothers. But to turn a normal sex "once or twice, and finish buttoning up his trousers and marching forward" Church and state is very successful.

You can laugh at the hypocrisy and secret debauchery medieval clergy, from popes to ordinary monks, but a constant reminder to people about "the sin of passionate sexuality" could not give fruit.

So, maybe that will be enough?

Life has cancelled all unreasonable restrictions on sex, so don't cancel them, and the Christian churches, and do not cease to be considered a normal sexual life of sin, and even diabolical obsession?

As we have seen, neither in the old nor in the New Testament are no prohibitions on sex was not, and could not be. And Moses, and Christ, and the Apostle Paul, in contrast to Augustine, wanted people to goodness and not trying to turn them into soulless robots.




Our conversation about the sins you cannot conclude without referring to the most important Christian ritual ablutions. Yes, it should be called the baptism to the cross this rite is not irrelevant. Only in Russian Orthodoxy emerged is somewhat strange name, but all over the world the symbolic ritual of cleansing from sin is in tune with the Greek word "baptism" is "immersion".

The ritual ablutions practiced by a number of Jewish sects in the pre-Christian era, and John the Baptist turned it in preparation for the coming of the Messiah - Jesus Christ. Whether John and Jesus were "institutionalized" - you can only guess, although in favor of this version says that they were relatives (LK. 1:36).

After the crucifixion of Christ and the apostles did the ceremonial washing procedure adopted in the bosom of the Christian Church. When in IV century Christianity became the state religion, this procedure took on a mass character and to wash, to baptize started all in a row, including in infancy. This rite is preserved up to our days.

Theological essence of the Christian baptism is not easy. The Apostle Paul said: "know ye not that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus, into His death were baptized? Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death : that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life" (ROM. 6:3-4).

Such a complex symbols in the time of the baptism of Rus was but little understood, and for simplicity, the word "baptism" has become a substitute for long phrase: "the Washing away of sins in order to attract to the Church, confessing the resurrection of Christ, crucified on the cross." Most of it sounds even easier, though not theologically - "bringing to the cross."

And in actual fact in the Russian language the basic meaning of the word "baptism" - "crucifixion"! When the Apostle Paul says: "I Salaspils Christ" (Gal. 2:19), it sounds logical. However, when immersed in the baptismal font of infants, such as pity, that they "crucified"...

But we still will, despite the linguistic paradoxes, followed the usual Russian version.

In the Nicene-Constantinople creed States: "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins".

Actually from the point of view of modern Orthodoxy these words are somewhat dubious. Baptize-that most people in the infancy, so that all sins previously cleaned? Or only from the "original sin" (as we have seen, however dubious concept)?

However, you can understand how in the creed is that language in early Christian times was baptized only in adulthood. So, by the way, still baptized in the Jordan river in Israel. The author of this book in 1999 and also received the originally Christian baptism where Christ was baptized by John the Baptist.

As usual, for two thousand years, and in Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and Lutheranism, and in various sects had many discussions about how to baptize in the name of the Father, or Son, or Holy spirit, or the persons of the Trinity, to pour water or immerse, once or three times, to be "baptized" in the "white clothes or no clothes at all...

There is a purely theological problem: Christ by his death atoned for our sins, so baptism redeems them again? And if a person is baptized, but then again he sinned, so what to do? Baptized again? And during the transition from Catholicism to Orthodoxy must "cross" or not? And so on.

Actually nowadays you can relate to baptism, and in the sense of symbolic cleansing from sin, and in the sense of the solemn procedure of adoption rights in the bosom of the Christian Church. Baptism in "irresponsible" age of course more than doubtful, but will not raise a huge reservoir of theological disputes. In any case, the rite of baptism primarily symbolic, as well as other "Holy sacrament".

Personally I have nothing against the characters do not have and treat them with due respect - this is part of the spiritual system of humanity. Of course, there is a Christian cross, and there are Nazi swastika, but in this book "broken spears" because of the symbolic rituals still not worth it.




There are far more important question of the baptism of Jesus of Nazareth.

"Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad Him, saying, I have need to be baptized of Thee, and COMEST Thou to me?

But Jesus said unto him, suffer it now : for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness.

Then he suffered Him" (Matt. 3:14-15).

Now, the question is: why Jesus insisted on his baptism, moreover, stressed the need "to fulfill all righteousness"?

The Christian Church has ever had, and the baptism was in the form of extremely clean. So the answer here can only be one: Christ began his Ministry thirty years old (LK. 3:23), who considered it their duty to be cleansed from sin.

So, Jesus of Nazareth, like all people, was not infallible. This is confirmed by the fact that he insisted on his baptism.

Thus, since up to thirty years Jesus considered himself (and, consequently, was "not without sin, no need for the dogma of the immaculate conception of his.

The latter becomes purely symbolic fulfillment of ot prophecy, what drew the attention of the Apostle Matthew: "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" (Matt. 1:22).

After that you can only repeat what has been said in previous chapters: Jesus of Nazareth - a man, as we all are.







"And the Lord said unto God, behold, Adam has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, no matter how he stretched forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and did not live forever.

And the Lord sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken" (Gen. 3:22-23).

The passage stunning capacity and number of the questions!

Propose that we begin to examine it in order.

So, after eve disobeyed God, pick an Apple, ate herself and gave one to Adam, God said, "Adam has become as one of Us, knowing good and evil".

What is the "one of Us" - is not entirely clear, let's face it.

Defenders of the dogma of the Trinity (including Augustine of Hippo, and the official Orthodoxy) suggest that the world had been created not by God, and the Trinity. The result seems to be logical that in this episode, God speaks about himself in the plural.

But we still rely on the Bible. In it, as we have seen, nothing about the Trinity, and to assume none of our business. Yes, and if we assume the Trinity anything, this episode is still version of "Us" as "Trinity" does not pass, otherwise it is not three gods, but four - after all, Adam was one of them...

In fact, the most logical option for the interpretation of "Us" is this: because God has set to protect the Paradise of the Cherubim (Gen. 3:24), therefore, 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... Nabout what is, in essence, is the difference? Importantly, and Gabriel, and Raphael and the Angels and the Cherubim in the most Orthodox, understanding of the divine essence are undeniable, and Adam has become like one of them.

So, knowing good and evil, we follow Adam and eve also be on par with them.

How many links to our divine essence, we found in the New Testament - not count, but here also the old Testament was added. Surely then we will consider ourselves "fallen creatures" and "vile vessels of sin"?

And Adam and eve have to say thank you and not to curse them. They have made a terrible burden of knowledge and paved the way for us.

And for their sin - disobedience to God - they are paid in full. Imagine how easy is it to be expelled from the garden of Eden?

By the way, the "garden of Eden" is a typical "greasy oil. The word "Paradise" comes from the Persian language and means "garden"...




Now, repeat the words of God: "the man is become as one of Us, knowing good and evil".

Good and evil... And we know with you, what is it? It seems to be, once it learned of yet Adam and eve.

Actually it's not a question of class: "What is good and what is bad". This is a serious philosophical problem, and talk about it must be emphasized. We will have an extra example that using common sense in our time you can allow even the age-old philosophical questions.

And philosophical question is why in our book - you'll see.

There's a neat word "theodicy", which means "justification of God". Not sure, need a God to be justified, but it was the work of the philosopher and mathematician Leibniz (1646-1716), went down in history and gave the name of the huge range of problems.

In short: we believe in God as the good, wisdom, and justice of 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 - call it what you want.

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?

Let's say our favorite phrase: how many philosophers have pondered on this subject, there was so much and opinions.

For example, Spinoza (1632-1677), Schopenhauer (1788-1820) and Spencer (1820-1903) with those or other variations considered morally indifferent God's power and thereby remove the question "on top" - we are, walking through a meadow, not think about the insect, while davim.

But from the point of view of a person who is on the spot these insects, such blind will not neutral, and evil - a sort of ruthless machine.

Remember, we talked about early Christian religious-philosophical direction is Gnosticism? As scholars of Eastern religions such as Manichaeism and Zoroastrianism, many Gnostics had solved the problem of "theodicy" as: good and evil, God and the devil are two completely equivalent beginning. Welcome waiting for us somewhere in heaven, and evil always prevails in our imperfect world.

This approach results in two separate, unrelated and even opposing God - one good, the second evil. In philosophy and theology this is called dualism.

But we are on a strictly monotheistic position and at the beginning of the book have agreed to recognize the one God, so that the dualistic point of view we can not fit. There are more good reason to adopt monotheism, but we will talk about it later.

Someone will probably say that you can never believe in God and consider what is happening on Earth are subject exclusively to the laws of nature, history or Economics. In these cases, the concept of good and evil into something like Napoleon: "the Rights of one who has more battalions". Add: or more money, or fists harder... Nabout no wonder we've spent so much time on a modern proof of the existence of God, and "Napoleon" option is not for us.

Let's 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 of doubt as the best of all possible worlds.

Why in this world are evil and suffering - also seems to be clear: 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.

The official position of the Church clarifies: to build the Kingdom of God, where all the righteous will live, how the Angels, in friendship, peace, love and harmony.




On this topic you can talk a lot, and a cold mind can come up with much. But don't listen to us whether Ivan Karamazov? The same, of a Dostoevsky novel. He 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?.."

Scary, isn't it? Indeed, Ivan Karamazov it was the time to bring God to the court and put him in the dock together with their parents-sadists.

Yes, there is - according to the logic of Ivan, on any dock next to every murderer, rapist, robber as an accomplice sitting God, committed, and then directed it all. And who really need this "Kingdom of God", which are terrible and incalculable human suffering?

And we are still laughing about the fine word "theodicy" - what here laughing after written Dostoevsky!




Well, let's try to figure it out. Let us ask ourselves the question: how Karamazov, and Leibniz conceived of God? And besides Karamazov and Leibniz, as we perceive God with You?

Remember, we talked about the fact that the efforts of the medieval Church the concept of God, Christ and king tied together? And if we even Jesus Christ, our intercessor before God, atoned for on the cross for our sins, often present themselves as ruthless, punishing the sovereign, then what can we say about God? God became the absolute dictator of all of our thoughts and actions.

A dictator, as it is known, is responsible for his subjects. However, as any absolute ruler. And it happened with both Stalin: while the latter was alive, he was considered the mastermind and organizer of all the victories of the Soviet people, and when he died, it was at fault in absolutely everything. Even, what is the fault was not.

Meanwhile, of course, to compare Joseph Vissarionovich with God, but according to the logic of Leibniz and Karamazov, everything is just that: 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 will feel the desire to say "Yes". Indeed, only one child's torment, but a blessed out how much - the whole humanity, billions of 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 modern humanism says: 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.

Regarding the "arithmetic" maniacs can recall the Marquis de Sade, who, besides possessing literary talent and sexual deviation, was also a philosopher. Based on the teachings of the early Christian Gnostics about illusions and unprovable world, he made a rather paradoxical conclusion: as the world exists only in my feelings and all the people around them - the fruit of my imagination, some of these "fruits" I can do whatever I want. Rob, kill, rape...

We have already said that you can invent anything. Moreover, to prove the objective existence of the world is possible only from the standpoint of common sense, and if people for some reason refuses to accept such evidence - medicine here, as they say, is powerless.

Therefore, the only possible argument against the masters such as the Marquis de Sade - what ever next "imagination" does not want to be robbed and raped, and will do the same with the maniac-philosopher. Say, today me, tomorrow I will.

So, speaking in modern terms, the doctrine of the Marquis de Sade leads to a complete "mess"do not accept even the authors of this term - "thieves in law".

And though we have no right to anyone to impose their point of view. And let every man has freedom of choice, limited government laws and moral attitudes of Christianity and the "local" morality of certain social groups. Yet the teachings of Jesus Christ along with an elementary understanding of peace in the household, "neighborly" sense dictates that we call the modern understanding of humanism. "Arithmetic" of the Marquis de Sade, fortunately, has been the lot of very few.

Why do we remember about humanism, solving the problem of "theodicy" - the possible guilt of God in all crimes and sorrows of the people?

Here's why: because in accordance with the modern understanding of humanism human life is sacred, a man in his actions enjoys considerable freedom. Otherwise, the "human material" soulless machinery of history, society or any higher power is nothing sacred is not represented, and any politician for their own purposes could with impunity to destroy any number of people.

Remember how we once talked about the divine nature and the freedom of the will of the people? Here we come to it yet, and "philosophical" side.

But the free will of people automatically eliminates the guilt of God in our troubles, misfortunes, sins, crimes and indiscretions.




And if we talk about our freedom in purely theological terms, it follows organically from the disobedience of Adam and eve.

Of course, if there is an alternative "to disobey, disobey no", means that you have freedom of choice. Could disobey, he could not disobey...

Indeed, disobeyed. Many religious scholars because of this, 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."

In fact, nothing terrible, and even more deadly, in disobedience of Adam and eve there.

God is in fact allowed, as it is, and "provoked" is disobedience, isn't it? Well be there sins and crimes of billions of people - but it Adam and eve just might and stricter ban, and knowing their curious nature, something the tree of knowledge of good and evil fence...

The latter, of course, is a joke. But the first sin of mankind God was deliberately made.

Want proof of this? Of course.

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, personally, do not even curse, and quite peacefully "sent" from heaven populate the rest of 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 for the sins of the generally gave mankind the flood and spared only the righteous Noah, kind of "softness" in respect of Adam and eve suggests that their disobedience of God was conceived and deliberately admitted.

't stand any criticism of the "official" version of the Church that God threatened Adam is not physical, but spiritual death, and Adam, after disobedience died spiritually. Nothing of the sort - after of the knowledge of good and evil Adam, as we have seen, acquired divine essence ("the man is become as one of Us"). So a spiritual death...

There is one more "stereotypical" version of Adam before the fall was immortal in the physical sense, but then ceased to be.

In the first place, God forbid everyone to live as much as was given to Adam (930 years), and most importantly, Adam was not immortal and before the fall - otherwise God is not feared that he, after partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge shall eat the fruit from the tree of life, and will live forever (Gen. 3:22).

So God, allowing the disobedience of Adam and eve, gave people a certain freedom.

Where, in any specific actions for human ends this freedom and begin a divine necessity and inevitability - the question is entirely philosophical, and beyond the scope of this book. But on the question of "theodicy" ("justification of God") can confidently say:

We may not consider God as a force that controls every action of every person - then we need to blame God for all our sorrows and misfortunes, and he does not deserve.

 Every person has the freedom, sufficient to independently answer for their sins.




Offer from General philosophical concepts of good and evil to move on to more specific issues.

What is good and bad from the standpoint of modern man and of humanity? And win it ever good, and will people to do evil, and will there be on earth the Kingdom of God - the Kingdom of kindness and love?

The answers to these difficult questions, we can find only through the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Jesus knew that the Kingdom of God is only through a specific person, through his spiritual orientation, the desire to do good and unwillingness to do evil. Stress - a specific person, and not a society, a nation or humanity as a whole.

And it also can prove.

Remember the third temptation of Jesus when the devil he was offered all the kingdoms of the earth (Matt. 4:8)?

It would seem - take, conquer, and plant the good, fight evil and build the Kingdom of God in every country, city, home and family. It smells, of course, the Leninist-Stalinist dogma of "the victory of communism in one country and then around the world," but has not received a Stalin - so maybe Christ would have happened ...

But Jesus refused, and argued: "the Lord thy God, worship, and Him only shalt thou serve".

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 in the legislative and Executive order, why we follow Ivan Karamazov expect from him or from God the Father, to heaven descended lightning and struck the torturers small child?

No, while the torturers still desire them to be their nor hell, nor lightning will not scare that convincingly showed the legendary incinerate cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:24), whose inhabitants are massively indulged in homosexuality, and rape saradush travelers. Well, was on the ground after Nashestvie divine fire a few hundred less aggressive libertine, but not extinct they?




But why it happened, what is happening around us evil? Moreover, why each of us feels a certain temptation to do?

To understand this we will ask another question related to the same third temptation of Christ by the devil (Matt. 4:8):

- Who's he, the devil, and what he had, so to say, the legal right to offer Christ all the kingdoms of the earth?

Deception on his part is unlikely: not the "caliber" was the Son of God, Jesus Christ, the devil tried to deceive him and to offer him the Kingdom, without a real right. And then the temptation would be 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.

So who is this devil?

The result - either the Supreme ruler of the earthly kingdoms-States, or the States themselves, with their social injustice, oppression, money, armies, police, corruption...

From the point of view of the sophisticated modern man to imagine the first as something disreputable - that is, setting a kind gentleman with a beard, horns and hoofs, and does evil hands of presidents, Ministers, oligarchs, generals and other "powers that be"?

It is unlikely that all so primitive, and personally I prefer the second interpretation. However, as someone tells imagination, you can imagine the devil in the form of Bulgakov's Woland, the essence remains the same.

The devil, indeed, has enormous power in the earth States, their economies and politics. Suppression, coercion, power structures, political intrigue, bribery, corruption, bureaucratic tyranny, war...

What's the tears of one innocent 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 "Karamazov" 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! This is the case, 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...

Let us fervently denounce the imperfection of modern States. Each of us has experienced it many times myself.

Whoever speaks of "honest, logical and respectable" polity, reminds me of... No, the "Utopia" of Thomas more and the teachings of Marx-Lenin-Stalin, he reminds me too. But even more - an episode from the book "White Fang" by Jack London.

The "adapted" for children editions book starts with a more or less idyllic childhood pictures of White Fang, and actually 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. "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."

That's the kind of "relationship," fearful in its complete naturalness, consistency, honesty and decency.

We will spend quite obvious parallel: "the Kingdom, founded on the blood of innocents", which was so earnestly said Ivan Karamazov, is a modified model of a wolf pack, and does not belong to God and the devil.

Wolf pack is a useful and necessary 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".




And I propose to talk about good and evil only in the context that we came to the humanistic, Christian spirituality (speaking theologically, the Holy spirit) with strong instincts of a wolf pack, nowadays often referred to as "social relations".

The Darwinian theory of the origin of species in nineteenth-X -X centuries, so vehemently opposed and speculative biblical creation God of the world and of Adam that is still in our minds that things are absolutely incompatible and mutually exclusive. How six billion years or six days - is there a difference?

Moreover, when setting the "stem" platform, the Bible clearly "loses" to Darwin. On the side of the last - biology, genetics, embryology, paleontology, archeology and many other Sciences, to challenge that is just silly.

While the first side is "only" a few pages of the book of Genesis, frankly legendary and largely contradictory.

There is, however, a "but"that Darwinian science has not yet given a satisfactory answer. From dinosaurs to monkeys for several tens, or even hundreds of millions of years, and from monkeys (or, let's say, Neanderthals) to albert Einstein - a few tens of thousands.

And if you take the "civilized" the period of human development - from Ancient Egypt to the present day - if not get some "funny" time period, six to eight thousand years. By the way, surprisingly coinciding with the ancient chronology from the creation of the world and Adam, for which we, for example, 2000 and 7508 year.

Again, six, seven or eight thousand years separate us from the creation of Adam, if God created the world in six days, or one day God is billions of years is not the topic of this book. Yes, and stupid, as we said, to deny Darwinian evolution and anatomy, and physiology, and embryology convincingly say that we really descended from apes. Though not directly from chimpanzees and orangutans, but from some common ancestor with them - no matter.

It is important that the negligibly small time interval from APE-like species has been unprecedented growth in spiritual and intellectual abilities, unexplained by any Darwinism.

God I so wanted, or the aliens have arrived and learned something - everyone responds to this question in the measure of their faith, but Darwin and monkeys here at all at anything.

And Engels with his book "the Origin of family, private property and the state, for which a monkey into man turned work, there is also nothing to do with this. All animals in varying degrees, work for a livelihood, and why the monkey work turned into a spiritual man, with a fantastic fast - inexplicable without the intervention of some external force.




The Apostle Paul wrote:

"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 teachings of the Apostle Paul, our spirit lives by the same laws of God, 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 clarify: the flesh of our lives according to the laws inherited "by inheritance from our ancestors, that is a monkey. Or rather, wolf. Monkeys in a natural jungle occupy the very highest step (the hunting of tigers, leopards and Boas), and the wolves is a better best example.

And how is solved in wolf pack problem of good and evil?

Flock does not know what is good, but evil people are completely organic, natural and attractive in its own way. "Basic instincts" are well known, and brilliantly simple - preservation and procreation.

Every wolf from birth to instinctively know: outside 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, and then the "break" you. And don't forget that in order to one day win the opportunity to "multiply", you need the strength and health.

Rudyard Kipling tale of Mowgli is a typical example of giving an animal of honesty and integrity "of the human person. Remember how they wished each other "happy hunting"?

And identification of any kind, smart and talented king or President, with the conductor of the divine goodness (and even more with the Anointed one of God) 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.

And any story that the "good" wolf pack that the ideal government structure 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.

Thank God that Christ refused to control kingdoms, otherwise we had followed Marx to argue about whether the transformation of the state-the social system of slavery dictatorship of socialist democracy, whether from slaveholding democracy in a socialist dictatorship.

But from the point of view of Christ and his teachings - any state lives under the laws of the wolf pack and therefore is evil. Yes, while we are alive, "animal" nature, "state" evil is necessary to maintain some order in the world, otherwise Christ would not come to a compromise with the authorities (Matt. 22:21). But the essence remains the same.

The development of civilization convincingly demonstrates that the laws of humanism gradually supersede the laws of natural selection, although it is, unfortunately, too, can be challenged - remember how recently quite civilized German nation that gave the world the greatest philosophers, one maniac sent to burn Jews in Auschwitz and Treblinka.

Why God, shaping our spirituality, did not want to eradicate the "animal" nature, and gave them to co - exist, he, so to speak, know better. Without it we would not we, and therefore discussions on this topic is absolutely futile.




So, good - God and Christian spirituality, evil - terrestrial public and social order, along with Economics and politics.

I will say, these concepts are not comparable in scale? You say, God is something powerful and global, but politics is a "rat race"?

From the point of view of philosophy, maybe these concepts and are not comparable, but from the point of view of the individual - even as comparable.

Now, it would seem, is not the biggest city in the world - Moscow, with a population of about ten million people. Imagine if we imagine the true extent of this "administrative-territorial unit"? Got in the car and one and a half hour tour of the ring road?

And... let's try to build all Muscovites in one line. God forbid, of course, that someone has decided to implement it in practice, but in theory: if one person stand on one meter, the length of the rows will be...

Yes, you don't mess up the zeros: 10000 (ten thousand) kilometers. From Kaliningrad (königsberg) to Vladivostok!

Imagined railway, on which a week or two go by train, and next to each sleeper is a resident of Moscow? And everyone has their own life, family, work, inclinations, affections, habits... the Mayor of Moscow, for example, stands in the Lithuanian border, the Vice-mayor of Chelyabinsk, and the author of this book is somewhere between Chita and Khabarovsk. It is unlikely, however, it can be done - until the last reach Vladivostok, to take his place in the ranks, the first die of hunger...

This, of course, a joke, but if you want you can imagine and rank of the Muscovites, and the crowd of one hundred and fifty million Russians, or a billion Chinese. To calculate a rate of one person per square meter...

That such a "transcendental" arithmetic.

Imagine yourself in person at this scale, and let's ask ourselves - if our lives are valuable from the point of view of the state machinethat manages such unimaginable masses of people?

Yes no not valuable. That's a million people - it is force...

And what is the head of state to understand this mass of people? And to predict trends and to determine the laws of its development? Hardly it is easier to predict than the laws of nature, and even God.

This stumble is not only the President but also philosophers. For example, the great philosopher-ethnographer Lev Gumilev (1912-1992), in developing his theory of "passionarity"forcing ethnic groups to actively develop and conquer the surrounding country, "did not notice" Alexander the great: I really wanted Lev Nikolayevich to conduct on earth's surface line "passionate tremors", and the great conqueror any one has not got...

Anyway, Gumilev methods peoples of the Middle of Mongolia to the postponement on European soil are somewhat naive and strained. For example, Tolstoy took the Roman Empire of Justinian (VI century) to the decadent "isolates persistentam" only because she didn't fit into the "standard" historical period of 1,500 years. But Justinian restored the Empire almost old boundaries, defeated the Kingdom of the Ostrogoths in Italy and the vandals in Africa and wiped out those ethnic groups with the face of the earth. Wow "isolate-persistent"!

This is another example of the magnitude and neproschityvaemosti earthly kingdoms.

In addition, gumilevskaya "passionateness" any ethnic group is still closely linked with the state and above all leads to expansion territory. And then far to the Zoological term "habitat", so that giving the States even a spectacular "high" mechanism as "passionateness"does not change their "wolf" nature.




No, not for nothing that Jesus offered the Kingdom of the earth is not God but the devil. None of the earthly kingdoms (empires, republics, etc) are not able to build the Kingdom of God is not on its territory, much less to someone else.

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 feel the desire to do evil. More specifically, to violate the Christian precepts of goodness and love.

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 should oversee to kill only those "who have" - 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 cannot imagine a social system without money, power, police and even the army. Indeed, even if all States make peace and open borders - as well as aliens attack? I may be Christian, but if it starts to "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? Me, please love on the ruble, and good for two? Then there will be a measure of love, and that her people will buy shoes and clothes? 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?..

Something is there we went. Don't knit yet that the Christian concept of commonness with the harsh economy and politics. Although of course, specific people, 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 separate 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 the displacement of Christianity's spiritual base (the love of power, violence, money), and doubtless a consequence of 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 no need to talk, I'm sorry if God in tears tortured child, and must fight to 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 from the fact that two thousand years ago, he suffered for Christ, then our task is that this child has become easier thanks to us, calling themselves Christians. Followers Of Christ.

That means we need to fight for good, and just as Jesus Christ - the good and the personal example, for evil, as we know, produces only evil.

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 discussed in the previous Chapter, 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. And faith in God.



So what is the Christian belief in God, and why is it we so need?

We have many times repeated the word "monotheism monotheism, for the sake of it, we had to give up even the dogma of the Trinity.

We were taught in schools and colleges (and still teach, and even in modern philosophical encyclopaedias written), that monotheism was historically and psychologically due to the strengthening of the monarchies and the thrust people to "strong government".

Again we are confronted with the medieval stereotype of the "God-king, the king-God". But this position does not stand historical criticism. And pagan kings of many Oriental despots-worshippers enjoyed a cult, no less than one God, and the Roman emperors, instead enthusiastic about monotheism, fought with him all the forces...

We have already talked about this stereotype, is hopelessly out of date in our humanistic and democratic era. But here's the question - if almost all of the absolute monarchy gone, so maybe monotheism time there?

No, not time. I propose to prove it "on the contrary".

Remember, we talked about dualism (Manichaeism, Zoroastrianism, Gnosticism), "perfectly" the critical question of good and evil are fighting God and the devil from the beginning of the existence of the world, and who knows who will win. I apologize to those dualists who believe that someday God will win...

In any case, the dualistic approach, resulting in two almost equivalent forces - God and the devil. Hence, any human being tempted to "negotiate" with the devil.

What did Faust in the book by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832).

Let me remind you lived respectable old doctor who has studied philosophy, theology, and medicine, and law, and all thought - and then-what?

God, what has reached Faust, was quite enough, but the most Faust - no. And then the devil, Mephistopheles, "argue" with God that will take advantage of human weaknesses doctor and seduce Faust in the way of learning.

The plot is known. Signed a drop of blood the Treaty of Alliance with the devil, the second youth Faust, "organized" Mephistopheles his tragic romance with Gretchen, endless wanderings on Walpurgis night and the Sabbath, Emperor in the victory over the enemies, try to build an "ideal" city and, finally, the death of Faust.

And "happy ending" - Faust's ascension to heaven, despite the fact that he had "tarnished" his contract with the devil.

It's all the external side of the great works of Goethe. But there are some fundamental "plans", 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 in all his actions and words reflected an independent mind 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.

And let Faust by Mephistopheles has enormous possibilities, but how he uses them? No. The most that he can do is turning the novel (in other words I can find) with caused by the Mephistopheles spirit of Helen. Soon, the spirit disappears, but Faust from this, as they say, neither heat nor cold.

The city on the dried area of the sea, which he in the end of the book started 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.

There you are, doctor Faustus, to enter into an Alliance with the devil! He and the devil, that nothing good man, and especially mankind, not to bring.

Thank God, it was Faust's sorry and still picked up at the sky, and only on formal grounds - Faust still remained a strong personality and never for a moment did not stop nor knowledge, nor the activity.

But could not take it, and, unfortunately, also would have been right after the contract with Mephistopheles 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.




But in a pragmatic and terrible 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's a 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 (1919-1977) 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?

No, and no again. Reread the poem and Galich, and Goethe's "Faust".

And if anyone doubts the words of poets, even listen to Jesus of Nazareth. In his teaching, good and evil are clear Parallels not only with God and the devil, but with the basic Christian concept of eternal life - heaven and hell. This is directly related to each of us.

And so you do not have any desire to laugh and say that the concept of heaven and hell (and with them, and eternal life) is hopelessly outdated, let's talk about them in the next Chapter.







Our conversation about eternal life, hell, and Paradise will begin a serious problem, which can be called "the fundamental paradox of Christian doctrine".

The fact that in the Gospels there are many phrases of Jesus, at first glance, questioning the 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).

Wow phrase, eh? Hate father and mother, but otherwise will not be able to be Christians! Take from the poor and give to the latter rich! As all this be interpreted in the light of the personality and teachings of Jesus Christ?

And stunning intransigence of the story of Jesus about the beggar Lazarus? Just do not confuse it with Lazarus, whom Christ raised.

"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).

Oh, and another pair 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).




Flagrant paradoxical discrepancy quoted words of Jesus Christ and his teachings about kindness and love!

But this is just about the standard, stereotypical notions of Christian "life of the age" - heaven and hell. You can say, it is well known that the righteous will be in heaven to partake of peace and happiness and the wicked will be forever tormented in hell without any hope of forgiveness and salvation, and there is no grace of God will not help them...

It is in the Gospels. And the revelation of John the theologian", better known as "the Apocalypse"? When you read hair stand on end. And how much speculation was on the theme of "Apocalypse" does not count. I think everybody remembers the last ten years, at least two or three "loud" predictions of global catastrophe, but a dozen more "local".

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: 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, 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 beloved 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 deaths of these unfortunate indirectly to blame for Jesus of Nazareth? It may seem that the blame - the concepts of hell and the catastrophic end of the world the New Testament literally stuffed. This gives rise to many historians (and even theologians) to represent Christ as the bearer of the old Testament, and even the Persian-Arab prophetic tradition. Remember how in "Tales of 1001 nights" dervish-the witches cursed bad viziers, and even dealt with them with the help of the Jinn?

Yes and many of us, unfortunately, has developed certain stereotype perception of Jesus as a person: went to Judea what a shabby, poor prophet with eyes glowing a sickly glow, and called thunder and lightning on the heads of the unjust rulers of the earth. "Mol, I get to you, the thieves, the corrupt, and murderers, and don't get in this world - so that you certainly will not hide, you will be in hell each pan, a particularly bad - a cauldron of boiling water. Or boiling oil, because it hurts!.."




The result is deplorable. Few modern educated people seriously believe in hell, and in heaven, and in the end of the world. Under the earth, as we know, oil is in heaven - the stratosphere, above the space where fly astronauts. And predictions of the end of the world all simply tired, especially when at the turn of the Millennium it was repeated several times in the year.

Then we helpfully and 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... Can all this be called in one word - mysticism, and this word does not need to invest a disparaging sense. It is difficult to deny that some actually can become healers, and psychics, and even visionaries. Hardly gives anything in the plan to achieve happiness and harmony, but they probably know better.

Fair to say that the attempts to impose Orthodoxy methods "mystical contemplation" has been known since early Christian monasticism. It is called the beautiful Greek word "Hesychasm" (calm, silence) and is practiced in some monasteries and parishes.

The essence of Hesychasm is the following: if a certain way to focus that long to pray, fast and perform a number of other regulations, sooner or later, you can enter into a state of spiritual awareness of God, Christ, the devil, the Heavenly Host and all Christian concepts. Can "prointuichit" the date of his death, eternal life, the true essence of things... you Can heal, to talk, to remove the damage, cast out devils, in short, do everything that is capable of psychics.

A main goal of quietism - "deification" of man in life, after which the problems of heaven and hell, of course, be solved by themselves.

In 1341 Gregory Palamas, Archbishop of Thessalonica, "legitimized" Hesychasm as "authorized" methodology of the Orthodox Church. Moreover, already in the XI century there was a set of practical guidelines as to achieve a state of mystical awareness: how many times prayers, how to breathe, where to look, in what posture to sit... Than not meditation?

Moreover, there is also a theological justification of Hesychasm - the Transfiguration of the Lord. As you know, Jesus and his disciples went up to mount Tabor, and shone with a wonderful light " (Matt. 17:2), thereby giving the earthly people the potential to contemplate the divine light.

Immediately, however, the question arises - what Christ has revealed no more divine light? And the Word (doctrine)? And the resurrection? And, finally, the Holy Spirit (not as a third God, and as a Christian spirituality)? That's really ambitious and massive manifestations of divine light, and Hesychasm as the preserve of the few most "advanced" of the monks, and so they remained.

Of course, the "professional contemplatives" - Athos, Pskov, or the Trinity-Sergius elders - could not develop their own practices, including isihasticheskie. But these methods have remained a purely local phenomenon. Few people know that Hesychasm seriously engaged Sergius of Radonezh, nil Sorsky, St. Seraphim of Sarov and Pavel Florensky - the Church is silent about it intelligently, so as not to "confuse" the faithful. It is significant that many thousands of "white" clergy are very few priests are blessed to Hesychasm.

Hesychasm more elitist than philosophy, and similarly remains beyond the perception of the vast majority of people.

There is one "but" - in any "mystical contemplation" is extremely difficult to distinguish reality from hallucination, but the truth from fiction. To remove this problem, the Church has to base isihasticheskie knowledge on the same theological doctrines such as the Trinity and the God-man, and all that in them is not fit, take "demonic obsession". In this approach, cognitive sense of Hesychasm generally comes down to no.

In addition, the West does not accept isihasticheskie practice in principle, and we cherish the hope for the future unification of all Christian churches. If for this purpose we had to abandon the dogma of the Trinity as against unwarranted complication that prevents understanding of Christian denominations, the Hesychasm not exactly fit into the Christian religious worldview.

In short, while the Church debate about the fundamental validity of Hesychasm, the vast majority of Christians as enjoyed and enjoys medieval concepts of heaven, hell and the end of the world, while knowing the outdated and false stereotypes pans, boilers and devils.

But as you know, the Holy place is never empty. The inability (or unwillingness) of Orthodox churches "modernize" the understanding of eternal life leads to the fact that modern people having access to any information, just makes you dizzy from the abundance of alternatives. Zen Buddhism, magic, chakras, astral - please! These books are piled shops 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 clear, logical and relevant, while "we" are still the devils in hell and angels in heaven. Devils with tails, angels with wings.




Against stereotypical notions of heaven and hell rises not only common sense to modern people. The desire of the medieval (and modern) Church to keep believing in the fear of hell torments brought, except piling horror, to a clear theological absurdity.

Indeed, if sinners in hell forever will be unimaginable torment (St. Augustine wrote that hell is stronger than all known 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 sins of mankind suffered on the cross for several hours, and some petty thief for his minor sins eternally burn in the hellish fire...

Because of this passion of Jesus of Nazareth become bare abstract character, losing its importance for the formation of the Christian worldview of the people.

And when you read (and not Gregory the theologian, and the modern Church books) something like: "This great God's mercy for sinners, what in hell they are waiting for the strongest physical torments, for they distract from the pangs of spiritual", any normal person want to forget this nightmare casuistry, like a bad dream.

From psychology we know that when the horror becomes a kind of "border admissibility, it ceases to be a horror, and can even take a humorous form. How many stories is known about heaven and hell do not count, but because the book in our theology, then give the so-called "patristic" joke.

Many people in life have sinned. He died and is standing in front of the gates of Paradise, which protects the Apostle Peter.

Peter said to him: "You in Paradise can not, you have such and such sins". The man says: "are not you the same Peter, who three times denied Christ? What right do you have to forbid me to enter Paradise?"

Peter was confused, he called the Apostle Paul. The man speaks to him: "art thou not he, Saul, who participated in the stoning of St. Stephen? What right do you have to forbid me to enter Paradise?"

Peter and Paul called Apostle Thomas, and people and him: "art thou he doubting Thomas, who had to put his fingers in the wounds of Christ, to believe in his resurrection? What right do you have to forbid me to enter Paradise?"

The apostles thought long and called Jesus Christ himself. A man and says to the Lord: "have you Not called to love one another and infinitely forgiving neighbor? How can you send me to suffer in hell? So, you don't love me and don't forgive?"

About what the decision ultimately accepted the Savior, the joke is silent. But judging by this "theological" joke fathers understood the glaring contradiction of the Christian doctrine and the pains of hell for sinners.

How can we once again recall the words of Ivan Karamazov: "And what harmony, if hell: I just want to hug you want, I don't want to suffer more."

Indeed, analyzing the concept of heaven and hell, we are faced with a jumble of medieval stereotypes that scale inferior to all those about which we spoke earlier. While these stereotypes may be buried in the main component of Christianity is our hope for the goodness, love and eternal life.




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, but with one important proviso.

When we criticized the doctrines of the Trinity and the God-man, we stood on a strictly theological positions, and could not shake neither Augustine nor Aquinas, nor any of the modern Church leaders for us was the Holy Scripture, and the historical results of the review, and common sense.

Same with our interpretation of Christian morality - for theological critique, we were practically invulnerable.

And in the case of hell and the end of the world against us, a great number of biblical texts. And hell fire, and the torments of hell, and all the other "horror movies" " please open the first three Gospels almost any page, and find confirmation of this. I'm not talking about the "Revelation".

Therefore, our reasoning in this area is appealing primarily to common sense, although for all arguments, we will seek and theological base.

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 is an unimaginably long time - five or six billion years. Dinosaurs lived a hundred million years ago, the Neanderthals tens of thousands of years, but Christ is all-two thousand...

And actually in the scale of human civilization - a lot, a lot. From the ancient Egyptian pyramids before 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 the OAINN Theologian in the revelation (Apocalypse) described all sorts of horror 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 "had" to 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 - hell bad" 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.

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 universal goodness and love.

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, sin), 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 is very simple. Christ said: "By their fruits ye shall know them" (Matt. 7:20). That is, speaking the language of business, 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).

And the "bottom line" of the earthly Ministry of Jesus of Nazareth were many healings, raising of Lazarus and notice, not a single case of causing harm to people. We have already said that when the disciples asked Christ to destroy the village, where they were refused shelter, Jesus said, "the Son of Man came not to destroy souls, but to save them" (LK. 9:56).

For comparison, here is an episode from the life of the old Testament prophet Elisha (student of the famous prophet Elijah), glorified by 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 Elisha? I would say, radical.




It is noteworthy that 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.

Much more typical of what the Apostle John, writing in the mid-sixties I century terrible "Revelation", in twenty or thirty years came to the fourth gospel, in which nothing is said about the torments of hell! Everything is much smoother:

"'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).

This "softening" of the position of John the theologian is not accidental.

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 ginnom the walls of Jerusalem, which at the time of Jesus and John were thrown urban sewage and which is constantly burning fire, as in many modern landfills.

And ominous apocalyptic Armageddon (Rev. 16:16) is actually a small valley in Israel, where 642 g. BC there was a bloody battle of Egyptian troops with the Jews and was killed king Josiah (4 cars. 23:29).

In short, 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, his beloved disciple, the Apostle John, found it possible to leave behind the fourth gospel all frightening words about the hellish fire, two thousand years later, the more it is possible to interpret heaven and hell within the context of the personal spiritual experiences of each of us.

Note that the Church gradually coming to similar positions, though with the caveat that it's still some specific state of man after death, that is good then it will be very good, and the bad - very bad.

Actually, a Paradise for man is the spiritual implications of good, hell - the consequences of evil, not only after death but also in life.

What is good and evil, we already know. What mental anguish are far worse than physical, we also know, though, as suggested by some scholars, "distract" sinners from spiritual suffering by physical fire - still too harshly. It's like that in the personnel Department beat laid-off workers, so they are less upset because of the dismissal.

But what maniacs, scoundrels, bloody dictators, and just bad people at heart is hard - well-known fact. About what they can expect in the face of death, we still talk.

And "end of the world"?

If you still try to speak on a global scale, perhaps, this is the end of earthly imperfection, the cessation of evil on earth and building what we call the Kingdom of God. Which, incidentally, is not the second coming of Christ, not only as a great and terrible thunder, and as a teacher, waiting for the triumph of his doctrine?

So, Jesus ' words about the hellish fire and other "horrors" are to be interpreted by us as a passionate and persuasive appeal to the full intransigence in the spiritual plane. No spirit of compromise with evil, no Pact with the devil, even the most astute and deftly drawn!

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 no wonder Jesus said "Give to Caesar (the Emperor - SZ) Caesarand to God what is God" (Matt. 22:21).

But in our hearts no 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 (riches)" (Matt. 6:24).

Hence, monotheism, strict Christian monotheism, and nothing but one God and values of goodness and love, our faith cannot be. Otherwise painfully strong is the temptation to negotiate with the devil, that is, lie, fornicate, and bring friends for money and power - as well as something happens?




I can ask a reasonable question: if we have heaven and hell interpreted in spiritual terms, it means that eternal life, no?

Generally speaking, it is a matter of personal faith of each. But personally, I am in eternal life certainly believe. I can explain why.

In the book of Psalms is often cited location:

"I said ye are gods, and sons of the most high -- all of you; but ye shall die like men, and fall like any of the princes" (PS. 81:6-7).

So says the old Testament. But after coming to earth of Jesus Christ, much has changed. So, to understand this, we need to talk about how to actually had to start a book: about the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

Strong stereotype ragged dervish with an unhealthy gleam in his eyes, isn't it? But it is not.

Being 12 years old, Jesus spoke in the temple of Jerusalem with the sages, and all that heard him were astonished at His understanding and answers" (LK. 2:47).

Perhaps during the speeches before crowds of people's eyes blazed Jesus really oratorical fire, otherwise he might have succeeded in the short term (less than three years) to become a famous preacher. But you must admit, oratorical fire and unhealthy sheen is not the same.

As a preacher, he became so famous that his "affair" took not any smaller regional authorities and the Jewish Supreme Council - the Sanhedrin.

"Then gathered the chief priests and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the Palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and they plotted to take Jesus by trickery and kill him; but they said, not during the feast, lest there be resentment among the people" (Matt. 26:3-5).

Would do this "honor" ragged dervish? In no case.

By the way, oborvannost Jesus - yet another unfounded stereotype. Even such a small detail, as "without seam, woven from the top throughout" the tunic of Jesus (Jn. 19:23), we can also say a lot. Such clothes could afford only very wealthy people - is it easy to manufacture entirely on the loom coat, that is a difficult form of clothing with sleeves?

Old and cheap clothes Jesus was not - remember how after the crucifixion by Roman soldiers divided it by casting lots? (Matt. 27:35). So, was that divide, and the Romans, much more secure than the ordinary inhabitants of a poor province.

And the word "dervish" to Christ does not apply - this was a man with remarkable organizational skills. He managed to create a cohesive group of followers, not running away after his death and continue the work. The traitor Judas is not in the bill - such people can be in any organization.

Group "Jesus of Nazareth with the apostles" had considerable Finance and strong support in many different cities. During the three years of his preaching activity of Jesus managed to bypass almost all of Israel and adjacent regions. He was in the Dash, and Sidon, and in Magdala, and in Nain, and at Caesarea, and in Samaria, and on the East Bank of the Jordan. On his native Galilee and Jerusalem, I do not say.

Great organizational work! Now in some editions of the Bible even print a map of Jesus travels to Israel and the surrounding countries.

And leaned Christ, paradoxically, to... publicans. Yes, the collectors of taxes and duties is a serious force in modern - tax Inspectorate.

Apparently, a "relationship with power structures" replied the Apostle Matthew, a publican.

"The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say: here is a man who loves to eat and to drink wine, a friend of publicans and sinners" (Matt. 11:19).

"And when Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down next to Him and His disciples" (Matt. 9:10).

By the way, have you ever wondered why Jesus went into the temple of God and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves" (Matt. 21:12), and none of the merchants did not dare to confront it?

I tried to be small shopkeepers to resist the "friend of publicans, all the more so with Christ at this time was the Apostle Matthew...




Now tell me: if Jesus Ben Joseph of Nazareth, business, practical, intelligent, educated, financially secure, well-known people in the country, absolutely voluntarily went to the cross - does it mean anything?

So, very much.

First, as we have said, Jesus knew that his death on the cross is a powerful engine to further promote his teachings. Jesus knowingly died for his cause.

Secondly (and this is important):

Jesus of Nazareth by his own example showed us the possibility of resurrection.

And his doubts, and his prayer in the garden of Gethsemane "to get past the Cup," show that this has given him a hard time. And the fact that he was able to overcome the doubts and go to the cross, convinces us of the validity of his decision.

And since, as we have argued long and hard in the first chapters, Jesus is the same person as we are, for us, his resurrection is a guiding thread in our earthly life.

Stress - precisely because the essence of Jesus of Nazareth is similar to ours. To God, then apply the concept no death, no resurrection...

"Christ is risen from the dead, the death of death defying", "Christ is risen - he is risen indeed!"

And that we have every year at Easter when the words themselves represent? Well, Christ is risen, and risen, the holiday, and the holiday procession, banners, on the TV all night Easter service in the churches of the crowd...

And if you clear perception of this holiday ritual of husk, the most important thing in it is an annual reminder of the example, which we all gave Jesus Christ.

If I had my way, I would also set up a holiday calendar anniversary Sunday, April 9. Or "the day of remembrance of Jesus of Nazareth" - 7 April, the anniversary of the crucifixion. Although it is unlikely that Christ needs to be the "day of memory" is about him and so humanity can remember.

No wonder we are in the beginning of this book spent a lot of time to make sure consubstantial us and Christ. If we are Gods, and he is God. If we, the people, and he is a man.

The Apostle John, as we remember, all of us, who converted to Christianity, called "children of God" (Jn. 1:12).

The Apostle Paul all who believed in Christ, in his Epistle called saints. So we, like the Apostle Paul, can safely stand next to do not only with Jesus Christ, but also with Nicholas of Myra, St. Sergius of Radonezh, Seraphim of Sarov...

So, we have a great chance of resurrection and the future life.

"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).

And yet the Apostle Paul said:

"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).

Then, as they say, nor subtract or add.




We have already said that the infliction of the evil people can not make a person truly happy. As fabulist Krylov said, "Tom's story we hear examples of darkness". And criminals and dictators, and unscrupulous businessmen, and the bandits usually personal life, and the heirs of the very few people are lucky... Dbut in General, this is a nervous thing - making money and social career.

But it is, so to say, emotions. The problem is much deeper.

We talked a lot about Ecclesiastes, about his "vanity of vanities, and most importantly - about the fact that Jesus Christ showed us that not everything is so terrible and there is a system of values, which is worth living.

Do not understand the genius of Ecclesiastes?

And maybe he was telling the terrible word "vanity and vexation of spirit" is not about all?

Remember: he has made great works; I builded me houses; I planted me vineyards : I made me gardens"... he had a huge number of large and small livestock, and other vital goods, and transferring all its wealth is far more space than if it was just "the way".

Then the preacher said "vanity and vexation of spirit" about the lives of people in the "material" values!

"I hated life, because otherwise I have things that are done under the sun; for all is vanity and vexation of spirit! And I hated all my labour which I had taken under the sun : because I should leave it unto the man that shall be after me. And who knows if he would be wise or foolish? And he will dispose of all my labor..." (the EC. 2:17-19).

What will happen after death, the employee ephemeral values money and power - can be read at the same Ecclesiastes:

"...The fate of the sons of men and the fate of animals - a lot: how they die, so die and these, and have all one breath, and man has no preeminence above a beast, for all is vanity!" The EC. 3:18-19).

That's the last judgement, and hell, for it is unlikely that such a man before the face of death will "confess with their mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead". What could be worse fate prepared for the Preacher?

And Christ said:

"He that heareth My word and believeth on him that sent Me, hath everlasting life, and shall never come into judgment, but has passed from death unto life" (Jn. 5:24).

There is a difference between the participation of people of whom Christ said and Ecclesiastes? Huge.

Naturally, there is no completely "good" and "bad" people as black or white. But to understand the fundamental difference between material and spiritual values, good and evil, heaven and hell should everyone.

Thank God, none of us does not require a one-time decision like this: "Monday begin to live according to Christian laws." We have plenty of time. But not infinitely many.

The main thing is freedom of choice, and that we have it - a great happiness.

Personally, I choose to believe in God, good and eternal life. And let not easy to refrain from causing others harm, but I believe the game is worth the candle.




So Jesus of Nazareth by his example proved that believers in God and trying to do good things will come to eternal life. But what it will be?

For this to at least some understanding, it is necessary to recall the passage from the book of Genesis, which we analyzed in the previous Chapter:

"And the Lord said unto God, behold, Adam has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, no matter how he stretched forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and did not live forever.

And the Lord sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken" (Gen. 3:22-23).

About the divine nature of people, about good and evil; about eternal life we have already spoken. There was one phrase which says, why Adam was expelled from Paradise, "to till the ground".

Note that in Paradise and Adam was with the same purpose (Gen. 2:15), so that the cultivation of land (work, activities - let's call whatever you like) - in any case not a punishment for sins, and the natural destiny of man.

I think, it is not necessary to discuss in detail what is meant by the cultivation of the soil. This cultivation of potatoes, and forging metal, and construction, and writing computer programs, and books, and raising children, and so on and so on and so forth.

And here's a stereotype of another paradox: in order to force a man to work honestly, for some reason decided to "lure" a Paradise, where he after death will forever rest. But tell me, if people honestly worked all his life and received from the labor of the moral and material satisfaction, the pleasure whether he will ever relax? It is unlikely.

Of course, you can relax, but ever - so yourself. Or "stereotypical" Paradise for people radically changed psychology (and not for the better), or they go insane from boredom and idleness. However, the madness, too, means the replacement of psychology...

We actually talked a lot about how the medieval Church ruled the state powerless subjects with purposeful interpretations of Christian teachings. Before us another similar situation.

How to make a slave work well, as a soldier to fight well, paying him a salary and without creating conditions for a normal life? Properly, promising him a reward after death in eternal rest and prosperity. Easy to understand, convenient and, most importantly, cheap.

But in our time, when work, thank God, is becoming less and less servile, we can and should take a future life, not as an eternal idleness, but as a full and challenging activities in some other, more perfect world.

Today, between this and "the" world is no connection, but maybe someday she will appear?

And then we are on the issues, who is "there" that makes you see past the people we were from outer space "out there" or green gardens, we will be able to answer is not in line with a priori faith, "mystical contemplation or speculation, and on the basis of a perfectly reasonable knowledge.

Our common sense says: may not be that all of our earthly labors in vain, and God we after death were not needed. We, with our huge accumulated life experience and professionalism!

In theological terms, too, it all fits. Adam was created for the cultivation of Paradise (Gen. 2:15). Then he was expelled from it for the cultivation of the earth (Gen. 3:23). What will he do, earning a return to Paradise? Naturally, continue to cultivate it.

So "they" will work, and the complexity of the problems - and what is life without them? This is not life, even if it is "the next century".

As we can see, not everything is outdated in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith, since there are such wonderful words as "resurrection of the dead, and the life of the next century. Amen."

Finally we note that the word "Amen" does not mean "the end", as translated from the Hebrew - "so be it" or "indeed".

A "gospel" in Greek is "good news".

So let us rejoice that through Jesus of Nazareth, we indeed found a way to conquer death and gain eternal life.







In this book, we had to address many important theological themes, so it will be useful to bring together our main conclusions.

The main purpose of the book is to purify Christianity from a huge number of medieval dogmatic accretions and make the basic aspects of life, personality and teachings of Jesus Christ are clear to everyone. The main criterion in our approach to the age-old theological questions is a common sense person of the late XX-early XXI century.

Considered in the first Chapter of the gospel of information about the life of Jesus of Nazareth, we concluded that the most fair and compromise in both historical and theological terms are dates in the life of Jesus: 7 January 4 g. BC-7 April 30 g. B.C. the Exact date of the crucifixion, 7.04. 30, can be considered fully proven historical fact.

Analyzing the historicity of Christ, we realized that in a few decades I century could not appear in a few 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 when, with many a chronological and conceptual contradictions. Many other findings also suggest that the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is undeniable.

The same applies to the old Testament prophecies about Jesus Christ. Evangelicals, of course, some things could "invent", but we are referring to Jesus Christ, thereby recognize him as the Messiah, recognizing all the old Testament prophecies.

At the end of the first Chapter we have paid great attention to the teaching of the Apostle Paul, who 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 one of God, a man with some wonderful abilities, ranked in the heavenly hierarchy above the highest of the archangels, "the right hand of God".

In the second Chapter we have begun to analyze the formation of key Church doctrines associated with the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

In the II century, to distinguish it from Judaism, Christians needed their "own" God. Then began Jesus to call God.

Justin the Philosopher, summing up the situation theological base, identified the expression of St. John the theologian, "the Word was God" from the Greek philosopher often used the term "Logos" and declared Jesus Christ, God the Son, the logos, the Divine Reason, which gained flesh and came to earth.

At about this same time there were philosophers, Gnostics, which is absolutely unfair believed that Christianity is too simple and axiomatic, and if it does not splash all sorts of sophisticated philosophical concepts, serious people will not perceive it. Unfortunately, Justin the Philosopher, while remaining within the framework of Christian theology, his doctrine of Christ-the Logos actually created another Gnostic teachings, which the Church uses to this day.

In the same Chapter we examined the Arians - the mass heresy "of all times and peoples", and reluctantly concluded that the IV century during the struggle with Arianism gone a choice between a relatively clear and precise positions of the philosopher Origen (Christ is God, but we are also Gods) and Bishop-"monarhianina" Paul of Samosata (Christ - people like us). And the defeat of Arianism was a lesson to us: do not get involved in scholasticism, let's defend common sense...

However, in parallel we noted that Arianism saved Rome and the Western European civilization from destruction by the barbarians. Without exception, the "barbarian" peoples became just Arians.

But at this time the person of Jesus Christ hid behind vague notion of God the Son, "the uncreated and consubstantial with God the Father."

In the "counterweight" Arianism was developed doctrine of the Trinity, turned Church theology in a spectacular complete system, completely self-contained and detached from any reality.

The dogma of the Trinity was for the medieval Church is extremely advantageous, since the giving of the Holy Spirit the status of a separate divine person allowed the Church, his "guardian", to be guided in their actions not on the teachings of Jesus Christ, and their own theological development and order Councils.




In the third Chapter we, in spite of fundamental differences with the teachings of Aurelius Augustine, recognized the immense scale of his figures and suggested to consider the beginning of the middle ages not from dubious fall of the Roman Empire, and from Augustine, the founder of the medieval world.

We conducted a detailed historical analysis of the theological currents IV-V -I centuries, when it was necessary 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". This dogma, declaring Jesus the God-man, was a momentary political compromise at the time useful in a bitter struggle for power in Church and state.

After analyzing this article, we saw that the presence of the God-man in two different "desires, wills, energy and acting" means "split personality". So came the final deliverance of the Church hindered her real Jesus of Nazareth: the dogma of the Trinity Sani and alienated from the people, and the dogma of the God-man has turned into a lunatic ....

In the fourth Chapter, we have carefully analyzed the Scriptures and did not find in it no evidence for the dogma of the Trinity and the God-man. Here is one sentence of the Apostle Paul: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5). A short and clear answer to all questions, and for any scholastic delights she places are not leaves.

Further, we noted that in our time the dogmas of the Trinity and the God-man are outdated and in need of radical revision, because otherwise you lose the sense of the example that Christ gave to humanity, going to the cross for his teachings of kindness and love.

After all, if Christ is not man, but God or God-man, then what is the example? For the vast majority of modern people may think (and think) as follows: "On Christ and God, 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 people come to Church, listen incomprehensible set of old Slavonic chants and all.

But if you would make an image of Christ is clear to everyone! 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 the mysterious medieval rituals and dogmas...

So our only chance for a victory of common sense - the search for spiritual support only 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 the Trinity, or God - man-well, we'll have to do without them. The basis of theology, and especially the Christian faith, they cannot be due to their absence in the Holy Scriptures.

The rejection of these doctrines could be the basis for uniting all Christian denominations and the creation of the Church itself, which we say in the Nicene-Constantinople creed - "one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church".

And the Trinity could stay the same category of purely philosophical and historical attractions, as, for example, Sofia - "God's Wisdom". The latter also had a convincing case in the canonical Scripture, and the Church renounced the cult of Sofia at the beginning of the second Millennium. As we have seen, do not worry if this does not happen, and 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...




In the fifth Chapter we have developed a modern proof of the existence of God. The need for such proof is long overdue. Immanuel Kant believed that without God, humans would have no hope for happiness, everything would be "vanity of vanities" (as in Ecclesiastes), and to live it would be at all sad. Let's add that "godless" position has another serious flaw: to answer the question, "vanity of vanities" is your own life, have only to ourselves, that creates a strong psychological discomfort.

Orthodoxy considers proof of God's existence harmful and preaches the need for genuine and uncomplicated "faith. And, indeed, genuine and uncomplicated "faith can give hope for happiness in the life of the age" and to support the man in all his endeavors.

But where to get them at the beginning of the third Millennium, this very "uncomplicated" faith? If anything people and learned a few thousand years of civilization, it is reason. And as any farmer (especially Russia) are not averse to reflect on the overall prospects of life on earth, "uncomplicated" faith, even of it does not have to wait, but from the educated people - and even more so.

And Christ is in full compliance with the common sense to speak of faith as the need to love God "with all thy heart and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind" (Matt. 22:37). Hence, proving the existence of God necessary.

First, we noted that after the collapse of hopes for a perfect socio-political and economic future of humanity were the two great religious systems that somehow touches everyone - it is a religion and art.

In the course of historical analysis of the relationship of these two systems both in the West and in Russia, we have made a number of conclusions:

1. Religion and art in the course of history have won and competitors in the spiritual world of people today do not have.

2. Religion and art phenomena at one level, one order, one historical destiny, and only occasionally were reversed in the consciousness of humanity.

3. Religion and art are closely connected with the ways of society, but they live by their own laws, and no state can these laws directly affect willed order.

4. The system of spiritual values in religion and in art above all social changes and upheavals, it has no control over nor rulers, nor the government.

5. The identity of the subconscious roots, historical and spiritual origins of Christianity, icons and modern naive art proves single origin of art and religion.

Of these five conclusions we did have one in common: all these provisions show that the existence of the earth system of spiritual values in religion and in art today is the most significant proof of the existence of God.

Thus, one of the most important problems of mankind on the path of knowledge of divine truth - the purification of religion and art from the speculative, opportunistic and selfish layers.




In the sixth Chapter we discussed the main aspects of the moral teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and showed that the gospel miracles of Jesus have become one of the main evidence that Christ brought to mankind the values of love and kindness.

The most fundamental point is that the only possible notion of sin by Jesus Christ is the absence of love to 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". Any complication of the notion of sin is profitable only dishonest people.

On the issue of repentance, we noted that 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.

Speaking about the modern understanding of God's grace (forgiveness of God for our sins), we stated that there are sins that even sincere Christian believer can not commit. And God's grace is the forgiveness of sins is the man.

The divine system of values of goodness and love, which brought us Jesus Christ, 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. If it be said in obwebgateload aspect, God knows the General tendencies of development of mankind and the purpose of every person's life, so God decides who is righteous and who is not, correlating our thoughts and actions with these goals.

And if we can understand these objectives and trends, driven by God? Can, to a great extent - for this we have the teachings of Jesus Christ! And we should call him the Savior first of all for that, thanks to his teachings, we understand how to find God's grace and enter into the Kingdom of God.

At the end of the sixth Chapter we have formulated a practical aspect of the Christian moral system: 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.

In the seventh Chapter , we continued to talk about the moral teachings of Christ in the aspect of the so-called "sin of adultery." Analysis of Scripture has shown that none of the humiliation of women, nor about the undesirability of sexual relations in the teachings of Christ we are not talking.

After analyzing the concept of "original sin", we realized that sexuality he nothing had.

In this regard, we asked the question: life has cancelled all unreasonable restrictions on sex, so don't cancel them, and Christian churches, and not to cease to be considered a normal sexual life of sin, and even diabolical obsession? As we have seen, neither in the old nor in the New Testament are no prohibitions on sex was not, and could not be. And Moses, and Christ, and the Apostle Paul wanted people to goodness and not trying to turn them into soulless robots.

At the end of the seventh Chapter we considered the most important aspect of the rite of baptism. This ceremony in any case primarily symbolic, as well as other "Holy sacrament". Personally I have nothing against the characters do not have and treat them with due respect - this is part of the spiritual system of humanity.

But the principle for our study is the fact that Jesus of Nazareth insisted on his baptism, that is, like all people, was not infallible. So, no need for the dogma of the immaculate conception of his.

And we repeat the previous chapters: Jesus of Nazareth - a man, as we all are.




"And the Lord said unto God, behold, Adam has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, no matter how he stretched forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and did not live forever.

And the Lord sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken" (Gen. 3:22-23).

This passage from the book of Genesis, stunning capacity and number of the questions, we analyzed in the last two chapters, devoted to the problems of good and evil, heaven and hell, the end of the world and eternal life.

Having considered the philosophical term "theodicy" ("justification of God"), we concluded that the free will of people automatically eliminates the guilt of God in our troubles, misfortunes, sins, crimes and indiscretions. We may not consider God as a force that controls every action of every person - then we need to blame God for all our sorrows and misfortunes, and he does not deserve.

Every person has the freedom, sufficient to independently answer for their sins and crimes.

Answering the question, why on earth is there evil, we realized that in the third temptation of Christ by the devil (Matt. 4:8), the latter had the full right to offer Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth, for he was something of a "Supreme ruler" of these kingdoms.

And we came to the conclusion that the good God and Christian spirituality, evil - terrestrial public and social order, along with Economics and politics.

After analyzing the ratio of the Darwinian theory of the origin of species and the Bible that God created the world and Adam, we came to the conclusion that they are quite compatible, except for one thing: six to eight thousand years ago from APE-like species has been unprecedented growth in spiritual and intellectual abilities, unexplained by any Darwinism. God I so wanted, or the aliens have arrived and learned something - everyone responds to this question in the framework of their faith.

Importantly, the coexistence of the divine nature of our spirit and "monkey" (or rather, wolf), the laws of the flesh and creates the problem of good and evil. The first can be interpreted as "help the weak", the second as "killed by the weak."

And we began to talk about good and evil only in the context of humanistic, Christian spirituality (speaking theologically, the Holy spirit) with strong instincts of a wolf pack, nowadays usually referred to as "social relations".

Therefore, no state is unable to build the Kingdom of God - the Kingdom of Christian kindness and love. 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 feel the desire to do evil. More specifically, to violate the Christian precepts of goodness and love.

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 should oversee to kill only those "who have" - what kind of Kingdom of God?

Therefore, the task of Christianity is not utopian (happiness of mankind, or one separate country), but very real - to make it easier and a specific person, and the people around him.

Clicking on the concepts of good and evil, the concepts of heaven and hell, we are faced with "the fundamental paradox of Christianity" is a blatant inconsistency teachings of kindness and love with the eternal torments of hell for sinners.

The resolution of this paradox is that already at least a third, or even half a "conscious life" humanity has lived under the sign of Christianity. For two thousand years we have learned a lot and only a "habit" continue to perceive stereotypical Christian doctrine of heaven, hell and the end of the world as "believe" in the middle ages.

But, relying on the common sense of our age, we were able to conclude that the old Testament principle of evil for evil retribution (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, hell for sin), allegedly backed by uncompromising sayings of Jesus, or his personality, or his business, or his teachings do not have the slightest relation.

Actually, a Paradise for man is the spiritual implications of good, hell - the consequences of evil, not only after death but also in life.

And the words of Jesus about the hellish fire in our time are to be interpreted unambiguously is a passionate and persuasive appeal to the full intransigence in the spiritual plane. No spirit of compromise with evil, no Pact with the devil, even the most astute and deftly drawn!

And the main conclusion of this book is about eternal life: if Jesus Ben Joseph of Nazareth, business, practical, intelligent, educated, financially secure, well-known people in the country, absolutely voluntarily went to the cross for us it means a lot.

First, as we have said many times, Jesus knew that his death on the cross is a powerful engine to further promote his teachings. Jesus knowingly died for his cause.

Secondly, Jesus of Nazareth as his personal example has shown us the possibility of resurrection.

And since, as we have argued long and hard in the first chapters, Jesus is the same person as we are, for us, his resurrection is a guiding thread in our earthly life. Precisely because the essence of Jesus of Nazareth is similar to ours. To God, then apply the concept no death, no resurrection...

But Jesus Christ on his path was difficult, very difficult. Not less difficulty waiting for us Christians, if we want not only to be called Gods, and find true eternal life.

To do this, however, it is not necessary for everyone to go to the cross - just live life as befits a Christian. And if I have all the same for their cause to ascend to Calvary - that is, I hope to master this way of the cross.




After a brief overview of the contents of this book, move on to the actual conclusion.

As they say, our years - our wealth. The same can be said about humanity, which for two thousand years since the beginning of the Christian era have learned a lot.

All our life is a continuous reassessment of values. But then given to man and mankind, their years and accumulated by generations of experience to understand that there are eternal values. And one of these values in the Christian era was the belief in one God and faith in Jesus Christ as the teacher of goodness and love.

And now, when humanity has the means of self-destruction in the form of nuclear arsenals that can turn into a desert ten of these planets, like the Earth, the presence in the soul of the people of Christian values can and must save humanity from destruction.

And for each of us, Christianity is not a religion or ideology. It is a spiritual reference point on which to build attitude of modern people.

If someone does not believe in God and eternal life, you may believe that Christ is constantly judging us throughout our life on Earth as we, for any act instinctively checked against the Christian worldview.

But, as we have seen, faith in God, in "the afterlife" and in the teachings of Jesus Christ does not die, and tighter bond with the common sense of civilized man, the seeker of peace and warmth. But in the modern world to place blind faith in the old medieval doctrines must come to a reasonable, sensible and understanding of true Christianity.

More than a thousand years ago St. Augustine formulated his famous thesis: "I believe in order to know". But humanity a long time ripe for a return statement: "I know, to believe."

Russia needs this more than any other Christian country, because the entrenched forms of Byzantine Orthodoxy does not allow people to deeper understanding of Christianity and to undermine their faith in God and eternal life.

So, in Russia the main alternative medieval dogmas may become Orthodox Protestantism. And as a religious movement, and as a modern spiritual system.

And as with the "Catholic" Protestant Luther and Calvin - five hundred years have passed, we are able to give Orthodox Protestantism, more appropriate moral and intellectual demands of modern people.

This can be a serious step to unite the thinking people of the Christian world under the sign of the "one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church". And Russia, as the Keeper of ancient Christian tradition, could play in this process a key role.

But first, let's carefully read the New Testament. For our faith and our spiritual salvation is enough that taught by Jesus of Nazareth and his contemporaries of the apostles. Their teaching is simple, accessible to everyone and does not require the medieval scholastic layers.

So help us God.


  Sergey Zagraevsky


To the page Theology

To the main page