Prof. Dr. S.V. Zagraevsky
Jesus of Nazareth: life and teaching
Published in Russian: Moscow, Alev-V, 2000. ISBN 5-94025-004-1
ANNOTATION TO THE BOOK
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 everyone’s 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 2,000 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 European culture. And from the European culture to Christianity - one step, they were formed in parallel during those same two thousand years.
Russia And we rightly assigned to Europe - not from an excess of jingoistic patriotism, but because most Russians followed orthodox orthodoxy, claiming the ancient and primeval Christian tradition.
Yes, and freedom of opinion in Russia is now comparable to European. God grant that for a long time ...
I would immediately say that we will have to theological discussion. Unfortunately, the word "theology" modern man is above all a huge yellowed volumes, written in the Middle Ages, bearded old men in a language understood only by himself.
But, thank God, not the Middle Ages, and to make the basis of Christian theology, simple, logical and understandable - one of the purposes 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. The Bible, The Bible and the Bible again ...
On this subject there is a great "Holy Fathers" anecdote.
One holy father, the young theologian gave his book - a commentary to the Bible. After a while he asked was whether it is useful comments.
- Very, - said the Holy Father. - In order to understand it, I now have more to read the Bible ...
Not to be similar to the young hero of the anecdote, a solemn promise absence in this book "abstruse" language. If something the reader will not understand this criticism primarily addressed to me. I battled the principle of "what incomprehensible, so solidly." Not for nothing that Voltaire said that the importance of - the mask of mediocrity.
Our conversation goes on is not a new topic: Who is Jesus Christ - God or man? Or God-man (church tradition)? Or legend? Unfortunately, the latter claimed not only the Communists, but also some serious Western scholars.
And what is the teaching of Christ? Religion, philosophy, dogma or spiritual system? And on what aspects of it makes sense to focus our attention?
To understand this, we have to take into account the views and theologians, and philosophers, and historians. But consider - is one thing, but to evaluate - is another.
Evaluation criterion we may be only one: the common sense man late XX - early XXI century.
The twentieth century brought us not only unprecedented technological progress, two terrible wars, Chernobyl, Auschwitz and Kolyma. He brought and extremely wide range of views on any subject from any area of 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 could express this: the life and personality of each person is sacred and everyone is entitled to his opinion.
And one of these "small" own opinions as emerging era of common sense, as a family "nests" - the political map of the world.
And do not forcibly bring people's opinion "common denominator" and lead them to the next bright future - all the same uvedesh not there, the common sense of our time antiutopichen.
Unfortunately, this antiutopichnost tends to degenerate into nihilism and discredit the many moral values, including those about whom Jesus spoke. But then we have already "passed" over seventy years of domination of communist ideology, therefore, where our common sense has all chances to win.
Note that Russia no longer "lead to a bright communist future" very recently - what is the history of fifteen or twenty years! But 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 of impartiality and objectivity.
We, fortunately, are free and the communist extremes such as "religion - the opiate of the people", and from the church of censorship since the Russian Empire, and of religious euphoria of the first years of its post. So let's enjoy it while it's too late. Russia's political system is unpredictable, and, lo and behold, once again begin to "tighten the screws ...
Thus, the main goal of our book - Christianity as possible to clear from the huge number of medieval dogmatic accretions and make the basic aspects of life, personality and teachings of Jesus Christ understandable to everyone.
The absence in most Western countries, the Soviet government and comprehensive ecclesiastical censorship predetermined enormous progress philosophical and theological thought, in particular, on the question that interests us.
However, the great thinkers of the so-called "liberal theology", Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) and Karl Barth (1886-1968), had a vision of peace and psychology, as unlike in our time, as, for example, at the XIX century.
The fact that half a century ago, people have not been disappointed in the communist ideas. The latter, penetrating to the West in a slightly modified form (such as the struggle for the rights of Africans), caused a set of theologians, philosophers, writers and the desire to reconcile communism with Christianity and make some general conclusions about the rosy economic and political prospects of life on Earth.
Such fundamental antiutopistov like George Orwell, author of the great novel "1984", was enough.
In the Russia of the twentieth century philosophers theologians Florensky (1882-1937), Vladimir Lossky (1903-1958), Alexander Men (1935-1990) and many others tried to create on the basis of orthodox orthodoxy modern philosophical system. We shall have occasion to elaborate on this, but so far only say that in the end, they were influenced by a small circle of specialists, but to the mass consciousness came incompletely and indirectly - through church officials, determining what can and what does not.
However, in the West the idea of "liberal theology" on the way to millions of believers waited much better fate.
It is not surprising. The fact that theology (theology) - the science of religion, and only about her, and philosophy are much more diverse and traditionally elitist. Therefore, any attempt to synthesize 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.
As a result, Christian churches - and the orthodox faith, and a little less orthodox Catholicism and Lutheran, and Anglican - have their own theological development, live by their own laws and dictate the faithful what they consider appropriate. 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 the dozens of diverse philosophical and theological teachings.
That's why our book can be useful both for professionals and for people who are familiar with Christianity to popular pamphlets such as "Summaries of Faith", a colorful album or conversations with the parish priest.
First, let's just from this angle look at the modern image of Jesus in people's minds.
Of course, many people, so many opinions. And yet, I suggest you hold yourself among friends and acquaintances an elementary "poll": Who is Jesus?
A "without thinking" is likely to be: "God."
Then, after some hesitation: "No, all the same people, and God - it is something more global, the creator of the world and Adam" ...
Then the respondent (speaking in Russian, the respondent) would think and say: "Son of God". Maybe, remember the phrase "God the Son" or "God-man. A priest or a church theologian may also call "the second hypostasis of the Trinity.
The vast majority of answers that way, and in this sequence.
Then I ask another, more complicated question - what is the Trinity?
I will answer: "What's so difficult? All students, even during Soviet times knew that it was God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit. "
All right. 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: "Divine Person, the third hypostasis of the Trinity."
And the next question then is not so simple. We'll remember it, you and I have to think over it for the first few chapters:
- What are the relations between them and us "ordinary mortals" are three of the above God?
And to think really need to, because there is another issue altogether challenging and even more provocative:
- God, as we know, one. This first commandment holy, and the cornerstone of the Christian religion. And we have just listed the three - Father, Son and Holy Spirit ... We have 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" - not "a manifestation" and personality ...
But there were no less complex issues. For example, what is Christian morality? And the "original sin? A sin in general? And waiting for us there eternal life? And if you wait, then in hell or in heaven?
Anyway, there is a God? And you can prove it or not?
Let us work together to understand and seek answers to the myriad issues that face us, and puts Christianity and common sense of our era.
I remember the Scriptures
A biography of Jesus Christ with varying degrees of detail they know everything, so we will dwell only on those episodes of the Gospels, which may be useful for understanding his personality and teachings.
To criticize the gospel of 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 - all would have been very smoothly, and any conflict would be argued ...
So our challenge - not to criticize the gospel, and evaluate the information contained in them in terms of Christian dogma, historical context and common sense of our era.
So, let's begin. Jesus Christ was born ...
That's the first problem. When Jesus was born?
Officially, it is believed that at the junction of a BC (before Christ) and 1 AD Anyway, chronology is exactly and 25 December 2000 or January 7, 2001 like it must have been fulfilled 2000 years since the birth of Jesus.
Well, let's consider the well-known fact: Jesus was born in Judea, King Herod (reigned 37-4 BC). Having heard from the Magi about the birth Jesus saw in this a threat to its imperial power, Herod ordered to cut all the babies around Bethlehem (Mf.2 16). I think any reader knows the principle of reference to the Bible and that "Mf.2, 16" means verse 16 of Chapter 2 of the Gospel of Matthew.
So, so inhuman act of Herod immortalized his name with a minus sign. Note that the historical accuracy of "beating babies" is questionable.
First, this act somehow not reflected in the Jewish annals, which have been faithfully recorded much less global action king.
Second, Herod the Great was a very clever and subtle, though brutal policy. Who is he, indeed, destroyed in the first suspicion - so that potential pretenders to the throne, including his wives and sons. But such a touching behavior was typical for most of the despots.
And in the "good sense" he was famous that the treaty with the Romans who have won Judea in 63 BC, and "test" for his country the status of a protectorate, that is, full autonomy under a 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 king, when it was built a huge, contemporaries by its magnitude temple (the famous "Wailing Wall in Jerusalem has remained exactly the Temple of Herod), and flourished, not only Judah, but also the numerous Jewish communities in major cities of the Roman Empire.
"Naperekos" in Judea, everything 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 ...
Nevertheless, we have "Herod" - damn. These are the paradoxes, an institutionalized tradition! We have them in this book is to recall and remember ...
But the "beat" Herod babies or not, the birth of Christ in his reign can be considered indisputable.
So, Herod the Great died in the spring of 750 years from the founding of Rome, and the monk Dionysius Small (VI century), his chronology of the "Christmas" started from December 25, 753 (easier to conditionally accept 754) from the foundation of Rome.
Translated into chronology of Dionysius, which we still use today, Herod died in 4 BC Translation is very easy: if 1 AD - 754 from the foundation of Rome, then 1 BC - 753, 2 BC - 752, etc.
Accordingly, Christ was born not later than the spring of 4 years before Christ.
It turns out the calendar paradox - two thousand years anniversary of Jesus took place much earlier than 2000.
And as for how sounds absurd phrase "Christ is born at least 4 years before Christ, I do not say.
So in 2000 we actually celebrated the only round date very strange chronology, introduced in 525 by the monk Dionysius small. What he did not read the Gospels?
Is this not - he was the most educated person, 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 us try to understand, he could not for no reason, no reason at all so wrong with the year of the birth of Christ ..
For this, first try to figure out when Jesus was crucified, because the crucifixion is known about much more than about birth.
All the evangelicals - and Matthew, and Mark, and Luke, and John - converge on the fact that he was crucified on Friday (Mf.27, 62, Mk.15, 42; Lk.23, 54; In.19, 14) . But what specifically?
This Friday occurs on one day of Passover - remember, it was taken at Easter to let the offender, and instead of Christ released Barabbas?
The first day of Easter - 14 of the month Nisan (first month on the Jewish calendar), as in the Old Testament says: "In the first month, the fourteenth day of the month the LORD's passover" (Lev.23, 5).
All the Evangelists, except St. John, suggests that the famous Lord's Supper, the last supper of Jesus before the crucifixion, was just the first day of Passover: "Then came the day of unleavened bread, which was due to slaughter the passover" (Lk.22, 7). On the same say and Mark and Matthew (Mk.14, 12; Mf.26, 17).
So the Last Supper took place on 14 Nisan as Christ was crucified the next day ie 15 th.
The words of John the Evangelist on the bottom of the crucifixion: "Then it was a Friday before Easter (In.19, 14) contradict the ample evidence of other evangelists of the Easter character of the Last Supper, so there is likely to have the philological inaccuracy - John could talk about Friday as One of the days of Easter.
On this subject, perhaps, one could argue, but the inaccuracy of the Gospel of John in the middle of the II century drew attention to his disciple Polycarp, and led the debate on this subject with the Roman bishop. Note - Polycarp was not to defend a point of view of his teacher, John, and received dating of Matthew, Mark and Luke, which was not personally acquainted. This largely confirms his objectivity.
In the end, thanks to the dating of Polycarp's Supper 14 th of Nisan, and the crucifixion of the 15th, already in the IV century conventional wisdom, and on its basis so far calculated the date of the Christian Easter.
It was a small (unwitting pun from Dionysius the Small) - relate the Jewish calendar of the Roman (European) and see in what, 15 Nisan accounted for Friday.
Dionysius did so by putting restrictions on the form for certain well-known fact that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate procurator of Judea (talked about this, even the Roman historians Tacitus and Josephus), and Pilate was procurator from 26 to 1936 AD
It turned out that in these years were only two Friday 15 Nisan - 30 and 34 years. Was left to choose one of them.
So, 30 or 34 year?
In early Christian times existed 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. This said even the famous writer and theologian Tertullian (ok.160-ok.240).
What happened in values! Not everybody 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 - and here I must! You can even apply to this situation, a well-known anecdote:
"Who was Tiberius? - Minor political figure, who lived in the era of Jesus Christ. "
So, we know what are the Emperor Tiberius (his image in the scandalous film by Tinto Brass "Caligula" is taken from The Life of Twelve Caesars Suetonius and accurately transmitted), and certainly never would he not demoted for the Procurator somebody a penalty, the more of a preacher. Besides, the Roman emperors are extremely hostile to the emergence of new religions and cults.
Nevertheless, in the Middle Ages was taken to provide the bloody rulers harsh, but fair. It is not surprising that the "loyal subject" of Dionysius the Small a desire to choose the date the crucifixion, closer to the dismissal of "good" emperor "bad things" procurator.
And further including the famous tradition called the "age of Christ."
Highlight the important evidence of Luke: "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea ... the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness" (Lk.3 ,1-2).
Since then, John the Baptist began to baptize people. After a while (what specifically - Luke did not say), and Jesus was baptized, that 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 15 th year of Emperor Tiberius, Jesus was about 30 years. The previous emperor, Augustus, died in 1914. Turns out that Jesus was about thirty-years until 1928.
Serving Christ most fully described the evangelist John. Jesus began his preaching for a few days before the Jewish Passover (In.2, 12). Then he mentioned three Easter (In.5, 1, 6,4, 11,55). Thus, with the first Easter to the last (tragic), passed three years.
Hence the famous "age of Christ" - thirty years before the baptism (according to the Gospel of Luke), plus three years after (the Gospel of John). Thirty-three years.
So, before Dionysius the Small (and in front of us) got a problem: if we choose as the date for the crucifixion of 1930, the ministry of Christ did not "fit" of three years, even if he was baptized in that same 1928, when he began his work John the Baptist.
And if you choose 1934, it happened to a large "reserve", as Jesus would be baptized, and later, in 1928. For example, John began to baptize in 1928, and Christ was baptized only in the 31-m. Why not?
Dionisy and chose in 1934. According to his calculations, everything was "normal" - Jesus was born at the turn of a BC and 1 AD, he would be in 1934 was full of 33 years.
And about the fact that Christ was born when Herod the Great, Dionysius could and forget. Maybe he did not know the date of death of King Herod. Or maybe (most likely), he preferred to focus on the testimony of the 15 th year of Tiberius' reign 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, ie not later than 4 BC Can we define "lower limit" the date of his birth?
Little, very little evangelical about Christmas. Some researchers are even trying to rely on the testimony of the "Bethlehem Star" (Mf.2, 2), involving highly divergent data on comets, meteor streams and the "parade of planets". But these astronomical phenomena occur almost every year. Have we nothing more can not help?
No, there is another crucial witness Luke: "In that year came from the Emperor Augustus commanded to make a census of all the earth. This was the first Quirinius Syria (Lk.3, 1-2).
Censuses in the Roman Empire were necessary for the efficient collection of taxes, and therefore held periodically, every five years, with each new censor (so called consistent with the Rome office). Any census was legitimate in the form of imperial decree, that withholding the information had a form of violation of the 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 (some Roman sources - Quinctilius) became the procurator of Syria in 6 BC This narrows the range of possible years of Christ's birth to two years: 6-4 years. BC
A year of the crucifixion?
While in 1934, we could not fit into the "age of Christ" - if Jesus was born in 4 BC, he was in 34 AD would have turned 37 years old (for those who will be with a calculator to check these calculations, I remind you: "zero", there was, after 1 BC immediately followed by an AD, so if we "turn" the beginning of an era , then from the calculation should take one year).
It seems that should be taken as the year of the crucifixion in 1930, but what to do with the evidence of Luke about Jesus 'ministry began in 1928 - in the fifteenth year of Tiberius' reign? "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea ... the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness" (Lk.3 ,1-2).
Does not fit Jesus' ministry in two years. Besides, the "age of Christ" then get 32, and if he in 1928 was thirty, then he was born in 3 BC (Do not forget to deduct from the age of "zero" year)? And we found that after 4 years BC He could not have been born.
What can we do?
It turns out that only a carefully reread the history of Rome, at least the same "Life Twelve Caesars Suetonius. Tiberius became co-regent in August during the life of the latter, not in 14, but in 1913! Moreover, "answered" Tiberius is for the province, that is for the Jews, his reign began precisely in 1913, and the 15th year of the reign was not 28, and 1927! In the Roman Empire was not yet an established tradition of transmission of imperial power by inheritance, and this "joint rule" stressed the continuity of the reign of Tiberius.
So we have "found" that year, which we lacked. Take a calculator and think:
In 1927 Jesus was about thirty years. Accepted without any "about" - was 30.
He was crucified after three years, ie in 1930. So, at the time of the crucifixion he was 33 years old - the age of Christ. "
Subtract from 33 in 1930, consider the "zero" year and get 4 BC, when Herod the Great birth. All fits!
Hence, we can say with reasonable certainty:
The Birth of Jesus: 4 BC
Crucifixion: 30 AD
In fact, we can say more precisely. At the beginning of the XIX century astronomical tables was deemed that 15 Nisan 1930 corresponds to April 7.
So, Jesus could be born and in the second half of the 5 BC, and in early April, the BC In any case, the death April 7, 1930, as they say in the obituaries, "followed by a 34-year-life, although the words" death "and" obituary "to Christ is hardly applicable.
So we have the opportunity to observe another tradition and leave the generally accepted date of Christmas: Catholic - December 25, Orthodox - January 7. Since the Great Collegiate Dictionary in 1997 "legitimized" 4 BC as the most probable date of Jesus' birth (and more modern encyclopedia is repeated), then take "orthodox" version.
Thus, the most fair and compromise as a historical and theological terms are the dates in the life of Jesus: 7 January 4 BC - April 7, 1930 AD
The exact date of the crucifixion, 07.04.1930, may be regarded as fully proven historical fact.
In any case, once again count the following years: if Jesus was born at the beginning of 4 BC, then a year later he turned in the top 3 BC, 2 years - in 2 BC ., 3 years - in 1 BC, 4 years - in 1 AD, 5 years - in 2 years, and so on. As we see, in order to find out the age of Christ in any of our era, we must add 3 years. In early 1930 he was 33, and in early 1997 - 2000 years.
However, most people still perceive as self-evident and that Christ was born a few years before Christ, and that anniversary is celebrated at the turn of 2000-2001. For example, the publishing house "Terra" in 1999 released a huge colorful that "Chronicle of Christianity" (remittance German edition). Everything as usual - in the beginning of the book refers to Jesus' birth in 4 BCE, but in the end - on 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 BC In Bethlehem, a small town near Jerusalem.
Christ Jesus in his lifetime no one but students did not call, it's not the name and not a nickname. This is the Greek translation of drevneevreyskogo words "Mashiyah" ("Anointed of God or Savior), better known in the transcription of" Messiah ".
So, Christ - the Messiah or Savior.
Recall, incidentally, one tradition, embodied in reinforced concrete, marble and plastic in the center of Moscow - Cathedral of Christ the Savior. In translation from Greek gives' oil carnival "- Temple of the Savior Savior. Long-suffering church is called illiterate ... but so, to the word.
Jesus walked in the footsteps of their "earthly" father, Joseph, and prior to their preaching activity carpenter (Mk.6 3). Despite the somewhat prosaic profession, he was descended from King David, which was in Judea fairly frequent occurrence - the country was small, David had many sons (2 Tsar.3 ,2-6), for a thousand years, his family very much branched .
Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Mf.2, 1), but grew up and lived for many years in Nazareth (Mf.2, 23), a small town in 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", "eyes" - "son of Joseph" (in Aramaic - "ben Joseph"), and on special occasions - "Son of David" .
When you move to another locality was added to the name is usually the name of their hometown. Hence the name, which was written on a plate, nailed to the cross - Jesus of Nazareth (In.19, 19).
Generally speaking, the word "NAZARETH has additional meaning - a man who devotes himself to the Lord" (Sud.13 5), and a resounding "Nazareth NAZARETH was used disciples of Jesus in order to emphasize his messianic nature. But in fact, the usual rules of the Jews Jesus was called Jesus of Nazareth (Lk.4, 34). In more modern translations - Nazareth or Nazareth.
All this means the same - the origin of the town of Nazareth. Therefore, in order not to depend on translators, I propose that the most indisputable option - Jesus of Nazareth.
So, Christ is officially "passed on the documents" Jesus ben Joseph of Nazareth.
He himself often referred to himself on the Old Testament tradition - the Son of Man (Mf.10, 23; 16.28; Lk.9, 56, 19.10, etc.)
In order to understand on what specifically the tradition of Jesus of Nazareth drew in his preaching activities needs to be done rather extensive tour of the Old Testament.
This digression will be useful for us and for the understanding of 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 - "legendary". This is the beginning of the book "Genesis", the first book of the Pentateuch, written, according to the canonical tradition, the prophet Moses in the middle of the second millennium BC This part covers the events from the creation of the world by God and Adam to the resettlement of Jews (then still nomadic pastoralists) in Egypt. From these legends, however, 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 define them along the way - after all this is the nationality and religion of Jesus Christ.
The ancient nation of self - "the Jews". It is derived from Eber, the forefather ancestor of the Jewish people, Abraham (Byt.11, 16). The full name of the last Jew was Abraham (Byt.14, 13).
Name of the State of Israel went out of Jacob, the grandson of Abraham. Israel - the second, the honorary name of Jacob, meaning "wrestler with God." James, as we recall, in his sleep wrestled with God and was not weaker than (Byt.32 ,24-1928).
Jacob-Israel had twelve sons, from whom the twelve "tribes of Israel" (to put it bluntly, childbirth). When Moses led the Jews from Egypt and they won the "promised land" - Palestine, each tribe received its territory. Judah, one of the sons of Jacob were the most numerous and wealthy.
In the tenth century BC King David established a unified state with its capital in Jerusalem, shortly before the Jews conquered by a hostile tribe, 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 rest of the tribe).
In the I century BC Romans, not sophistry, 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 Abraham was a Jew, is not avraamizm or evreizm, and Judaism. Jews in Europe began to call the Jews, too, "with the light hand" Romans.
Note that Jesus was from the tribe of Judah (Mf.1, 3), that is, he himself had every right to call and a Jew, and Jew.
The second part of the Old Testament - "legal" (the remaining books of the Pentateuch).
Moses, moreover, that led the Jews out of Egypt, where they were oppressed in every way, gave the Jewish people and the law of the Decalogue (ten commandments of the Holy). The law is unrealistic to tell because of its extreme complexity, and the Ten Commandments (Ish.20 ,2-17) know almost everything. Nevertheless, they briefly recall. We are on the Decalogue is a lot to say.
1. God is one.
2. Do not make idols (idols) and do not be anything that is in heaven, on earth and under the earth, and wherever else.
3. Do not say the Lord's name in vain (we often say in Old Church Slavonic interpretation - "vain").
4. Do not do any business on the sabbath day.
5. Honor your father and mother.
6. Not kill.
7. Do not commit adultery.
8. Not steal.
9. Do not bear false witness.
10. Do not wish anything that is thy neighbor's.
The third part of the Old Testament - "historical".
The books of Joshua, Judges and Kings - in great detail and objectively written history of the Israeli-kingdom of Judah from the time of formation (ca. XIV in. BC) to death (VI century. BC). As is known, the heyday of the Israeli-Judean kingdom reached in the tenth century BC with King David (the end of XI century. - approx. 950 BCE) and his son Solomon (965-928 BCE)
But at the end of Solomon's reign began a gradual decline, ending the capture of Jerusalem by the Persians in 586 BC and the destruction of the temple. Many Jews have been stolen in 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 - the "literary". These are remarkable monuments of speech and thought, as the book of Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon, it also may include most of the "apocrypha" - books that were not included in the Jewish canon.
Canonical books were written, according to Christian tradition, during the heyday of the Israeli-kingdom of Judah, and it is 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 ...
In order 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 respect, the book of the Old Testament - Job, and Ecclesiastes.
Canonical Jewish tradition attributes the book of Job is not komunibud, and Moses himself, but clearly that it was written much later, probably in the same time of Solomon.
The essence of the history of Job about imagine almost everything, but it will be useful again to recall it due to unexpected conclusions.
So, once lived a righteous and pious Job, strong, healthy and rich, and all he had - and the herd, and children and the house.
One day Satan came to God and invited to experience the righteousness of Job. Satan's argument was as follows: Job is righteous, because he had everything, but he lishis all this - even when he begins 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 scraper rend 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.
Leitmotif of complaints was as follows:
I Do not righteous? I Do not bring God the regular sacrifices, not to offend anyone, etc.? For what God has sent me all these misfortune?
According to a famous anecdote, God replied: "Well, I do not like you!" Indeed, after long conversations with friends of Job that is right and what is not, God comes in a cloud of Job, and said absolutely amazing things :
- And how do you know, Job, that God wanted, he thought of a righteous man? Are you trying to understand and calculate the view of God? The one who makes the rivers flow, wind blowing, the sun rises and so on (a listing of what God is doing, takes a lot of pages). And do not try to - still do not understand. So what are you, Job, setuesh? We must be God - he did you wipe the dust, and no victim and innocence will not help.
Indeed, the right to joke about - not like you, and that's it.
Then God, as in a fairy tale, sorry Job - in fact that it still did not curse. 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 very paradoxical: why live righteously? Because we can never understand that you need God and that he believed for righteousness. The main thing - do not curse God, and the rest - do what you want ...
In fact, of course, so-so output. It seems not only to nihilism, but also on a complete denial of any spiritual values. But what do the words of the song you can not 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 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 does it profit a man of all his labor which he taketh under the sun?
One generation passeth away and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever ... "
And so on - the book can not recount, it can only read. Nevertheless, even these first lines show that a book written by a man who does not believe in anything and with 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 a masterpiece of Ecclesiastes in the biblical canon. Fortunately, still included by adding at the end of 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 in the book of 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 wants? People - come the new generations and forget about us ...
Before Jesus Christ, who gave a convincing answer to these sad matters, it was still far away.
However, at the time of Moses and Solomon, few in Israel, asking himself such questions as the foundation of the Jewish religion was a belief in God does not help 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, without waiting on God for help in the fight against the invaders. Not surprisingly, the decline and death of states have created the Jewish people have some spiritual vacuum, which could fill 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 arrival is devoted to the latter part of the Old Testament.
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and twelve "minor" prophets are written in the VIII-VI centuries BC
In VI. BC Judea was conquered by the Persians. Then, as we said, the Jews managed to briefly restore state autonomy and to 516 BC even rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. In IV. BC Judah conquered by Alexander of Macedon, then ruled by the Egyptian Ptolemy after them - the Syrian Seleucids, in the II century BC was a popular uprising led by Maccabees and the short period of independence (140-63 BC), then the Roman occupation, the restoration of autonomy when Herod the Great and her denial.
At the time of 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 to 1970 BC, when after yet 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 - a hope.
On arrival of the Messiah (Savior) said almost all the Old Testament prophets. Prophetic tradition in the West have always been very strong - even in the Psalter of David, which belongs rather to the "literary" part, there are many prophecies. And in the Pentateuch Moses periodically serves as a predictor of fate of his people.
Prophecies about the Messiah were very specific, even called the indicative dates. Latest leave room for interpretation, but the Messiah, surely should have been:
- To be a Jew (Byt.22, 18; Chis.24, 17);
- To be called Jesus' (Zah.3, 1);
- Come from the kind of David (Is.11, 1; Zah.13, 1);
- Be the Son of God, conceived by God, the Virgin (Ps.2 7; Is.7 14);
- Called the Son of Man (Dan.7 ,13-14);
- Come to the people (Var.3, 37);
- To be born in Bethlehem (Mih.5 2);
- Take Adoration of the Magi (Is.60, 3);
- Go to Egypt (Os.11, 1);
- Be relevant to the city of Nazareth (Sud.13, 5; Is.11 ,1-2);
- To perform miracles and heal (Is.29, 18; 61,1-2)
- Telling a parable (Is.77, 2);
- To enter Jerusalem on a donkey (Zah.9, 9);
- To be sold for thirty pieces of silver (Zah.11, 12);
- Torture and execution (Is.53 5; Ier.11 19; Dan.9 26; Ps.21 ,17-19);
- Rise and rule the world (Ps.2, 8);
- Bring the world New Testament (Ier.31 ,31-33);
- To judge all people (Is.42 ,1-4);
- Save the people of Israel (Is.25, 8).
I think the comments here are irrelevant. Before you have a scheme, which was consistent with the Messiah ("Anointed of God, Savior, Christ in Greek). And if Jesus ben Joseph of Nazareth did not meet at least one of the above "requirements", his messianism would be jeopardized.
Evangelists, of course, some trivia and could "invent", but we are referring to Jesus Christ, thereby recognize him as the Messiah, recognizing all the Old Testament prophecies.
Therefore, I propose that we spend time debating what "wise men" worship 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 much more serious problems.
Perhaps a review of the Old Testament was a little tedious, and still need more long pause and remember the history of the New Testament. He is much shorter than the Old and consists of the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, General epistles, and Revelation (Apocalypse).
Canonical Gospels (biographies of the recognized church of Jesus Christ), four - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Around and consistency of their writing, and questions of authorship tense debate so far. Not surprisingly - in the original no book of the New Testament did not reach us.
More than just "bad luck" from the Gospel of Matthew. He was in the XIX-XX centuries due to the large number of references to the Old Testament, proving the identity of Jesus the Messiah, considered almost a result of collective efforts beginning of II century, ie, the last time of writing.
If granted to the author of a Bible, you can not connect it with St. Matthew and argue that the first gospel was a short Gospel of Mark, and professional historians, theologians, Matthew and Luke wrote in his base his Gospel, brightly-colored details and references to the Old Testament . This position, incidentally, reflected in the magnificent "Chronicle of Christianity" in 1999 (we have already mentioned folio).
In fact, everything is much simpler. For the Apostle Matthew, by profession a 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 education in human beings, because they are not picking up rulers of Judah, 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 Roman emperor and Roman law.
Of all the disciples at the time of his death, the apostle Matthew was the most educated, and only he was capable of "hot pursuit" to write his sermon and parable.
Hence, perhaps, a certain "economic" and "disloyal" deviation parable 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" (Mf.27, 25).
However, the latter can be interpreted in different ways, and it is doubtful that the crowd screamed such a complex and intelligible words, and children still thought in vain ...
But in any case, the publicans did not like people, and people did not like tax collectors - a similar situation and with most modern tax inspectors. Note that among the apostles after Jesus' death, Matthew was once an outcast, and soon disappeared from the historical scene.
Another argument opponents of authorship of Matthew - 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.
Authored Mark (student of the Apostle Peter) and Luke (disciple of the Apostle Paul), all more or less clear. This mid-first century. Judging by the fact that "Acts of the Apostles, the continuation of the Gospel of Luke, written in Rome shortly before the Jewish pogroms (persecutions) Nero (1964), the Gospel can be dated no later than early sixties.
Accordingly, the Gospel of Matthew, at which rely heavily and Mark, and Luke, could be written at any time from 30 to 1960
Apocalypse, the most widely read and the lemma of the Bible, was written after Neronoffs 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 before. But many generations so badly wanted the first book was just "Revelation" (based on it so far is calculated the probable end of the light) that has replaced the desired reality.
The Gospel of John, already belongs to another era - the end of the first century.
John the Evangelist, the beloved disciple of Jesus, the son of a fisherman, had a weak basic Jewish education, but then apparently had the opportunity to work closely in touch with Greek philosophy, as in the sixties in exile on the island of Patmos, and later lived in Ephesus. He began to write his works, being already an old man, seeing and 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. Apocalypse, as we said, dates from the mid sixties (it has a clear reference to acting while church groups), and the Gospel of St. John the Theologian wrote no less than twenty or thirty years later. Sufficient time for evolution and style, and outlook.
And the name John in the West was not so very often, not that we have derived its name Ivan, considered somehow primordially Russian.
So, get up on the side of the church tradition and note that the sequence of 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 examine the Old Testament, in those days required a much longer time than now - the interpretation were mostly oral and extremely confusing.
And Jesus was not enough to know from the Old Testament only the Law of Moses - it was required to clear reference to the great number of prophets and prophecies, he's declared himself the Messiah, the Savior of the Jewish people!
Bitter historical irony - that behind him and his people did not recognize. In spite of some Old Testament prophecies that the Messiah will first be executed (Is.53, 5; Ier.11, 19, etc.), and only then will rise and will rule the world, at the beginning of our era the vast majority of the Jewish stereotype of the Messiah as a something of fire, rumbling and striking Roman occupiers.
And Jesus was "only" son of a carpenter, who died a shameful death. Stress - death, disgrace to the Jews far more than the Romans, for "cursed God just hanging on the tree" (Vtor.21, 23). Besides 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 is association with the Judea and Judaism. How many times it was used anti-Semites! From this fact one step away from the famous phrase "Christ crucified, 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 ...
In fact, the statement "Christ crucified, the Jews" is wrong first of all formally - the crucifixion never had a Jewish death!
All executions in the West produced by the Mosaic Law, which provided for hanging or beheading, and for certain crimes - stoning.
The Romans captured Judea in 63 BC, gave her the king Herod the Great protectorate status to complete autonomy, but from 6 AD Judea became a commonplace province, and the right to execute belonged not Synedrion (Council of Jewish high priests), and the Roman Procurator.
Sanhedrin could give something like recommendations, and, of course, in the case of execution of Jesus, this collective body to assume a significant share of responsibility. The chief priests, however, also can be understood if one carefully careful reading of the Gospel of John:
"Then the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council, and said: What do we do? The man many signs. If we let him thus, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation.
One of them, named Caiaphas, being high priest that year, he said to them: you know nothing and do not think that it is better for us that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation perish. These things he said not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the people, not only for the people, but also that the scattered children of God gather together "(In.11 ,47-52).
It turns out, not so Caiaphas and midges, as it is depicted in Bulgakov's novel "The Master and Margarita".
Incidentally, the Pharisees, as it may be amusing, were very progressive course in Judaism and considers its main 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 (Deyan.23, 8). No wonder it is usually debated with the Pharisees Jesus - they had at least some "common ground", but more orthodox sects considered ideologically harmful any theological argument.
But due to the fact that, as opponents of Jesus often spoke exactly the Pharisees, a paradoxical tradition that the Pharisee - a synonym for infamy, as Herod - cruelty.
In any case, how would Jesus feel about the various representatives of Judaism, not the Sanhedrin had him executed, and the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate, and certainly not by the Law of Moses, and based on Roman law.
And with the right in Rome was clear: you are a citizen - you have all civil rights, including those you can not torture, and execution can only "cultural" - cut off his head. You have no citizenship status (as most people in the provinces) - you have no rights, you equated with the Roman slaves. And for the last Roman law provided the possibility of torture and crucifixion, and subjected to what Jesus (Mf.20, 19).
Yes, and Christ led to execution, and mocked him, and nailing to the cross of the Roman soldiers (Mf.27 27).
So Christ was crucified by the Romans. I hope none of the readers have an incentive to make this reproach to modern Italians.
Thus, Jesus of Nazareth was crucified April 7, 1930.
Note that the cause for which he went to the cross, was not much chance of a historic triumph, and therefore does not cause perplexity to his requests to God in the night before his arrest in Gethsemane, "carry past the cup (Mf.26 , 42; Lk.22, 42).
And his cry on the cross "My God, My God! Why hast thou forsaken me? "(Mf.27, 46). The tragic truth of his words leaves no doubt - it's almost a verbatim quotation from the Psalter (Ps.21, 2), which further states: "Far from my salvation, my words at my cry. My God I spoil the day - and you do not hearest me at night - and I have no reassurance "(Ps.21, 3).
It would seem that Jesus knew everything, went to the cross consciously - and suddenly these words! What's going on in his mind at this moment dying?
On this occasion, resolutely discard one of the answers to the question of who Jesus is. Evangelists are so vividly and with different angles and describe his doubts, and his habits, and his weakness, that version of that Christ - the pure legend, long ago no one seriously considers.
However, long ago? Even in the early XX century, this question could not be completely closed and semi-official Soviet "scientists" denying historicity of Christ, relied not only on ideological idiocy, but also a number of serious Western scientists such as Arthur Drews Hermann Rymar and David Strauss . Latest in 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 go into a dead-end, let's just realize:
For several decades, I century could never have come so many literary geniuses - the authors of the New Testament, together invented such a complex character, like Jesus, have agreed among themselves on key theological issues, but describing it in their own way, with many of the chronological and semantic contradictions ...
But back to Jesus.
Reasons to doubt the future he really was. Students were not enough, nor talented organizer, or "charismatic" none of them did not shine.
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? (Mf.26 ,69-75).
John, son of Zebedee, who is also the Evangelist, the beloved disciple, has been very strong in the written word on paper, but as an organizer was weak. Written, 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 eldest of the sons of Zebedee, but in fact he joined the "movement" is only after the crucifixion of his older brother and took the place of honor in the community only as "Brother of the Lord" (Gal.1, 19, Acts. 12,17).
Nevertheless, after the death of Jesus, Peter and James, his successor. In fact, Christianity was a sect of Judaism, one of the many existed in Jerusalem at the time.
The founder of this sect, Jesus of Nazareth, had no chance to stay in the memory of his people, nor Christ, nor even a "small" Old Testament prophets such as Zechariah - in fact he had written nothing in its wake left.
Besides, it was then formed a hard Judaism, the Jewish nation rallied in the face of mortal danger, not less, than in times of Auschwitz. New religious movements and sects dividing the nation, mercilessly persecuted the Sanhedrin (In.11, 48), and subconsciously rejected patriotic part of society.
Nevertheless, James and Peter strongly believed that preaching should be only in Judea, and only among the Jews. In short, there was virtually no chance.
On the failure of their work said that when in Jerusalem in 1962 began another revolt against the Romans, the Christians - the preachers of non-violence - were "under the distribution" as traitors and conciliators, and a crowd of rebels, Jacob was killed.
But in the early thirties, I century on the historical scene appeared 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.
History of Paul's surprisingly interesting and unique: a man, unknown to Jesus, originally an active opponent of Christianity, who participated in the stoning of St. Stephen (Deyan.7, 58), some time later took the Christian ideas and fully dedicated himself 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 make Christianity practically the entire territory of the Roman Empire. He was remarkable for the fact that, apart from the Christian Church, a Christian theology.
By the beginning of the 60-ies of the first century, Christianity was already a coherent religious and organizational system.
Despite the declarative denial of strict adherence to the Law of Moses, the image of Jesus Christ in the theology of the apostle Paul's little different from the Old Testament Messiah. The only difference is that, according to Paul, Christ came to save not only Jews but all mankind.
Paul was an idealist, but a pragmatist (concept, as we see, is quite compatible, even at that time), and understood that any complication of the image of Jesus Christ only to hurt the young church.
His approach is well suited to Jesus as the Savior, Messiah, the anointed of God, a man with some wonderful superabilities occupant of the celestial hierarchy, a place above the highest of the archangels, "the right hand of God" (in modern terms, right).
By the teachings of Paul, the first coming of Jesus Christ confirmed that the Old Testament fulfilled, the Messiah came.
And how to interpret their suffering and punishment? It's very simple - he saved us in the spiritual plane, atoned for our "Old Testament" sins, suffered for us and ascended into heaven. It is no longer ruled by the Law of Moses our spiritual world, and faith in Jesus Christ, that is, in fact, that our Savior - Jesus. And we must first perform covenants of Christ - to love one another and do good to others.
Incidentally, referring to this, he declared the Jewish circumcision is not obligatory for Christians. Practical Apostle understood that for circulating the Gentiles it was too burdensome, and painful, this procedure as an adult ...
Then, in full conformity with the Gospels taught the apostle Paul, Christ ascended into heaven, gave us time to have it believed, and to live according to his commandments, and then he will appear a second time, and all ask. And then it will be Judgement Day. How much time do we have until the second coming of Christ, known only to God (Mf.24, 36).
The main theological merit of Paul - he's managed to convince Christians that the next coming of the Savior could not happen today or tomorrow, and probably 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 connection with the apostle Paul had to overcome the resistance not only the Roman and Jewish authorities, but "senior" fellow Christian, especially Peter and James.
Paul's idea that Christian teaching about 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 did not take. Moreover, the rights of the apostle Paul considered they did not recognize.
Here's what he says on this subject in his letter to the Galatians:
"When Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him, because he was to be blamed.
For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles: but when they come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing the circumcision. Along with hypocrisy and other Jews, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation.
But when I saw that they were not directly act on the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, not Jews, for which the Gentiles obliged to live on the Jews?
We are Jews by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles, however, learn that 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 works of the law is not justified no flesh.
If, however, seek to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? Nothing.
For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
Law I died to the law, to live for God.
I am crucified with Christ, and yet not I, 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, and if the law an excuse, then Christ is dead in vain "(Gal.2 ,11-21).
As we 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 the saying goes, "not at all good."
Logical and consistent position of the Apostle Paul, certainly played a role in the fact that this brilliant organizer by the end of life have managed to create church communities in many major cities of the Roman Empire. Moreover - perhaps even convince the apostle Peter was right and make him head of the community in Rome.
The latter, however, very doubtful, although the Popes still consider themselves the successors of Peter, not Paul. In the official lists 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 years). Beheaded. It looks like the truth, because crucify him had no right - it was though a Jew, but a Roman citizen. The city of Tarsus in the province of Cilicia, the birthplace of Paul, gave this "saving" status.
True looks and a legend that the apostle Peter, too, was at this time in Rome, but had no Roman citizenship, "lucky" less - he was crucified, with his head down. But let's 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 not tied to a cross, 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. That is why Christ and suffered "only" a few hours.
For those who are tied to the cross, torment lasted several 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 amicably believe that a fundamentally new interpretation of the essence 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, hold out for many centuries. And now this principle advocates enough ...
John, as we talked about safely transferred pogroms of the sixties and "escaped" a reference to the Island of Patmos, and later settled in Ephesus. He survived all the apostles, and died in another era - at the junction of I and II centuries.
We have almost completely quote the introduction to the Gospel of John, initiating all subsequent interpretations of the essence of the Church of Jesus Christ. Recall that this Gospel is written by twenty or thirty years after the death of the Apostle Paul, when the church was already a large and diversified organization.
So, carefully read the following:
"(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 were made through Him ...
(5) And the light shines in the darkness and the darkness comprehended it not.
(9) The true light, who enlightens every man that cometh into the world.
(10) in the world was, and the world through Him, and the world knew him not.
(11) came unto his own, and his own received him not.
(12) But as many as received Him, to believe in His name, he gave power to become children of God,
(13) Which is not of blood nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
(14), and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten of the Father.
(17) For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
(18) God no one has ever seen, and only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath "(In.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 look at the entry to the Gospel of John eyes of modern man, not prone to artificial complication of 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, are only the numbers of verses from the first chapter of John's Gospel, that is, each digit must be in the front pristavit "In.1, ...".
Word and Light in the beginning there were only God (1).
God has not been seen (18), then he was the Word (knowledge, scientists). This is why the "Word was God" (1).
Word of God brought us the Son of God, Christ. It is in Christ has acquired its own flesh (14), ie specific expression. Christ was the Light for us (9). It has given us of God (18). Thanks to his appearance began our real life - "The world was, and the world 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're all that spoke the Word of God through Christ, we become "children of God" (12).
Hence, we believed, become the same as Christ. Indeed - we all were born "not of the flesh ... but from God" (13). In any case, we find that Christ - the same people as we are.
Probably enough. We carried out a heroic act: the size of our comments did not exceed the size of material commented.
What becomes even more complicated? Despite the "blackout" style of St. John the Divine, clear and objective of the mission of Christ, and its nature and essence of all other people.
However, we too well, we are looking from a distance of nearly two thousand years and much can be understood in accordance with the common sense today. And the reaction of the provisions of the Gospel of John then, at the beginning of II century AD?
God or man?
The beginning of II century was the beginning of notorious persecution of the Roman emperors on Christians.
It is believed that the Christians from the Jews began to distinguish the emperor Trajan (reigned 98-117), which gave a response to the request of the writer Pliny the Younger, in 111-112 years. governor of Bithynia, what to do with widely distributed 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. Tawhid (Monotheism), ethnic Jews Roman Empire has endured. Tolerance on the conquered peoples was the principle of Roman policy, although Herod the Great over the entrance to the Jerusalem temple had yet to depict the Roman eagle, and the pogroms in Rome were not infrequent.
But to treat the set of "indigenous" Romans in the monotheistic religion - this was too much. The emperors were the high priests of pagan religions, and here "some" Jesus of Nazareth ...
A "rules of law" as it is known that the pole. Flight II-III centuries, then grown and waned depending on the personality of the Emperor, and the "legitimacy" when Christians were fed the lions observed very conditional.
For example, when "an enlightened philosopher Marcus Aurelius (ruled 161-180) were toughened laws against the Christians and believers killed in several cities of Gaul (France). When Detsii (reigned 249-251) the church in general was on the verge of death, but under his successors persecution almost subsided. The next strongest surge of terror occurred in the late reign of Diocletian in 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 before that it was still far off.
The beginning of persecution in the era of Trajan shows that at this time the number of followers of Christianity and the sphere of influence spread beyond the Jewish sect. One day the emperor noticed and began to fight - it says a lot. Nero something during their anti-Jewish pogroms 64-65 years. not yet distinguish Christians from Jews and destroying all in a row.
So in the end I - beginning of II century sect of Christianity has turned into an independent religion-imperial scale, and grappled with the 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, then who? Jewish Jehovah?
In order to understand the long explanation of the Messiah need to know the Old Testament. He was in Judea, not every known ...
In the II century, to be different from Judaism, Christians needed their "own" God. Then began Jesus called God.
Naturally, with God the Father none "reversed".
Questions like: "How to monotheism (monotheism) may be two of God?" In the early second century had not yet 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 essence of Christ sooner or later should have been required.
He began to develop St. Justin (Justin), philosopher, or the Martyr (c. 100-165), later executed along with six of his disciples. By the way, with the same "enlightened" Emperor Marcus Aurelius.
In the 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 dogmas of the Church of the Trinity and the God-man, but took a really detective color. The debate lasted for centuries, and continue to this day.
If we have to ask ourselves in detail to trace the formation of the dogma of the Trinity from at least Justin philosophy to St. Augustine ("only" 300 years), we would get a bulky volume, it is absolutely unsuitable for the reading - the texts of the medieval scholastic 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 both common sense and from the realities of life.
If the same be said of language characteristic of scholasticism, its essence is as follows: firstly, that the main task of scientific research relies in finding a firmly established and the various issues are equally applicable schematic concepts, and secondly, in that, given an exaggerated importance to some general concepts, followed by the words denoting these concepts, resulting in extreme cases, an empty game concepts and words replaced the real facts on which these concepts are distracted. "
Feel the difference between "plain language" and scholasticism? Not surprisingly, if we analyze the last above, resulting in unreadable is unimaginable dimensions.
If we remember the arguments about the God-man from Augustine to John of Damascus (V-VIII cc.) And the discussion of the Trinity period of separation of Churches (IX-XI centuries.), We get another of the same volume.
Of the disputes on this subject in the "dark Middle Ages» (XI-XV cc.) Bulky volumes, however, will not work - for fear of immediately pleasing to the stake, few professional scholars dare to wipe the key tenets. But the Reformation (XVI cent.) Provided material for an entire collection of works on the theme "What is the Trinity and how to fight it."
A dogma of the Trinity in one, one separate the Russian Orthodox deserves laudatory ode! Do not undergo any changes, do not succumb to any of heresy over sixteen centuries (381 years before the present day) - amazing!
But I, unfortunately, can not write odes, and luxury in the form of bulky volumes can not afford. So invite only informative to consider the key points of the formation of the dogma of the Trinity and its "younger brother" - the dogma of the God-man. It is necessary for our proper understanding of Jesus Christ.
But before considering recall given at the beginning of the book question:
- God, as we know, one. This first commandment holy, and the cornerstone of the Christian religion. A Trinity includes three - Father, Son and Holy Spirit ... We have that, polytheism, that is paganism?
So, Jesus Christ in the beginning of II century had to declare God and does not incur charges dvubozhii. The challenge, to put it mildly, uneasy, and frankly, insoluble.
"Cancel" God the Father and put in its place of Christ no one could - too it contradicts the gospel, not to mention the Old Testament. But as you know, if you think of something very necessary, it will be thought out no matter what.
And Justin Philosopher invented the following: referring to the familiar passages from the Gospel of John "the Word was God" (In.1, 1) and "The Word became flesh" (In.1, 14), he interpreted them literally, and declared Jesus Christ ... Word.
Absurdity of such an approach at that time was obvious, 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".
In Socrates "Logos" mean "true word" (the logic of the source and criterion of objective knowledge), in Heraclitus - a reasonable start nature, Plato and Aristotle - the true essence of each thing, and in Justin - The Divine Mind, which went on flesh and came to earth in the face 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.
Logos from the ancient Greeks, as we have seen, was considered something of a higher reason, so this identification in the context of Christian doctrine is actually a recognition of Jesus as God. More specifically, God the Son. It seems to be "the Son of God" and "God the Son" - sounds almost identical, but actually received a key difference.
Ecclesiastical Theology II-III centuries it went on this path.
Writer and theologian Tertullian (ok.160-ok.240) believed that the coming of Jesus to earth in one form or another existed, but in unity with God the Father as the "inner word. After birth, he became "a word pronounced.
In the books of Tertullian was present and the Holy Spirit that has led some church theologians to declare him the father of the dogma of the Trinity. But in fact his teachings to the Trinity had nothing to do, and the dogma has appeared in a hundred years after his death. O Holy Spirit, Tertullian, indeed, he wrote, but only as a Christian spirituality - the divine power, "alternates" of Christ on earth after his crucifixion. This was discussed in the Gospels (In.20, 22), so that Tertullian was simply stating known fact.
The philosopher Origen (ok.185-254) thought the terms of the 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.
We note that Origen, in a sense laid the foundation for the dogma of the Trinity, calling the Father, Son and Holy Spirit divine hypostasis. But Origen analyzed the relationship primarily of the Father and the Son, as a result of recognizing God in the absolute sense, only the Father. Son of Origen, is the second God. Holy Spirit, in turn, descended from the Son, and treats him in much the same as the Son to the Father, without being God.
If we translate spoken language with philosophical and theological concepts into the language of common sense, then all logical Origen: Christ is born of God the Father, created and left us with the Christian doctrine - the Holy Spirit.
There remained the "slippery slope" issue - as in monotheism were the two of God, and to ward off accusations of paganism, Origen calls all the other people as gods (remember the similar position of John the Theologian - In.1, 12). And the soul of Jesus, and the souls of all people exist forever, before the world (the so-called doctrine of pre-existence of souls).
In short, Origen began with the recognition of Jesus as God, and graduated from the recognition of the Gods of us all.
Of 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 "down to earth.
People in the III-IV centuries. longer seen as gods and were called "created beings" Monarchianism and Arianna - representatives of the two famous heresies, and the V century and the Orthodox Church as a whole.
You'll see, there would be no monarhianstva and Arianism - there would be no doctrine of the Trinity, and the official position of the church eventually would have stayed clear and clear line of St. John the Divine - Justin - Origen: Jesus - God the Son, but we are also gods, and the absolute God is only one God the Father.
This, of course, can also attract the charge of paganism, in spite of the emphasis on the "absoluteness" of God. "Relative" of the Gods, then, apart from Christ, is many billions of ...
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, formed exactly in the fight against Arians and Arianism, in turn, emerged from the wreckage monarhianstva. What past is never found again ...
If I had to return the former, it would have had to start from the end of II century.
Around this time, finally formed a so-called "Apostles' Creed (a set of core Christian canons, who had not, however, no relation to the Apostles), which is relatively easy to follow, although no claim to any theological revelation of the essence of Jesus Christ.
We give it in its entirety:
"I believe in God the Father Almighty;
and in Jesus Christ, His Son, our Lord, born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried, the third day he rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, sitting on the right of the Father, from whence he cometh to judge the living and the dead;
and the Holy Spirit, the Holy Church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the flesh. "
In this "symbol", as we see, everything is logical, and slippery skillfully circumvented. The only confusion - with two raznokontekstnymi references to the Holy Spirit, but he was the Gospels has been interpreted very ambiguous about what we still talk.
Then the Holy Spirit is the essence of very few people cared, with Jesus Christ could not understand ...
Justin, Tertullian and Origen, "crossing" the Bible with Greek philosophy, were still more theologians than philosophers, and beyond Scripture almost did not go - not for nothing that the majority of the clergy took it to their views.
But many philosophers II-III centuries, absorbed by Christianity as a "fashionable" idea, could not help but try to build on its base "full" philosophical system. How many exercises for this purpose "insertion" in Christianity? In 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 - the science of knowledge). Gnostics were called a variety of philosophers, "have adopted" the Scriptures. The most famous of them, Valentine and Basilides, who lived in the beginning of II century.
What did the gnostics did not invent anything! And the "Demiurge" and "Archon", and "365 astral angels", and "panspermia", and "Sofia with her husband willing," and "Pleroma", and "Achamoth" - this whole farrago has found a place in their teachings the central figure on whom "konyunkturnym" reasons is Jesus Christ.
Jesus declared that the ghost, the "fragrance of the Holy Spirit", the "new eonom" ... the Gnostics world turns out to be a solid illusion, the terrible abomination, the real punishment, then consisting of three levels, of the 365 areas, of the 30 "eons ...
The Gnostics believed that Christianity itself is too simple and axiomatic, and if it does not paint in gay colors all sorts of "featured" philosophical concepts, serious people did not perceive.
This view has been very tenacious, and when you read the contemporary philosophical writings, which mixed the concept of God, Christ, the Trinity, the Absolute, Nirvana, Shambhala, karma, magic, occult and many other things - first of all recall the Gnostics who underestimated the tremendous ability to respond to Christian Spirituality 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 St.. Sofia, unhappy mother martyrs Faith, Hope and Charity, but greatest Byzantine and Russian churches - Sophia of Constantinople, Kiev and Novgorod - were dedicated to it "God's Wisdom". However, in Russia the cult of Sophia lasted a relatively short time and still in pre-Mongolian time was replaced by the cult of the Virgin.
"Sin" Gnosticism even Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovyov (1853-1900), very fond of them to incorporate in their teaching, along with the canonical Christian concepts and some Gnostic, primarily the same residential building. According to his feet and went Florensky (1882-1937).
And those who name Helena Blavatsky (1831-1891) is familiar from books about meditation and astral may be curious to see what it actually tried to synthesize the religious and philosophical thought of mankind, using the concepts and practical techniques from various cultures of West and East. At that eventually proved to be like her so-called "theosophy"? Right, on Gnosticism.
Fortunately, already in the II-III centuries, bishops, and princes, and "ordinary citizens" understood that the metaphysical philosophy - is one thing, the Christian religion - is another.
A 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, the masses of the Gentiles.
Question: "To worship the Christians"? - Answer: "Jesus Christ." Short and clear.
That is why St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (ok.130-202), a brilliant analyst of the Holy Scriptures, declared that any theory of the origin of Christ as the Word, the Logos of God the Father is unnecessary and even harmful, because they complicate the understanding of believers, the Christian religion. Is God the Father, God the Son - and all for the faith is enough. Irenaeus clearly regarded Christ as God, charges dvubozhii it is not disturbed.
So it happened that in the III century established more or less stable balance between the positions of Origen and Irenaeus.
Most theologians and bishops maintained the line of Justin, Origen: Christ - God, but people are also gods, and "absolute" God is only one God the Father.
Most "ordinary" priests preached by Irina: Christ - the second (and even the "main") God, and no comment.
Nonetheless, many clerics with Irenaeus and Origen did not agree and put forward trudnoperevodimy slogan, something like: "Hold on for the monarchy!"
Simply put, they understand that the church will sooner or later will 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 - the Earth's people, which operated the divine power. Hence the name "dinamisty" - from the "dynamo" that translates from Greek as "force".
Almost like the Apostle Paul, simple and logical, but more prosaic - the people have ceased to be called children of God, and became known as "created beings".
It is believed that the first "Monarchianism-dinamistami" were semi-legendary Theodotos-tanner and Theodotos banker, who lived at the intersection of II and III centuries. And in the middle of III century is headed for a Christological namesake of the apostle - Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, is absolutely real and very colorful personality.
The latter, consisting of a good relationship with Zinovy, queen of Palmyra and Syria (a vassal of Rome), made Christianity already in the III century the state religion of the local (Syrian) scale, was a rich and luxurious, even the combined office of bishop with a high post in the Syrian government. True, the opponents of Paul Samosata claimed that he got a swelled head, considered himself a great man, and even in some of the hymns in honor of the Savior put your name.
Nevertheless, in trezvomyslii it was difficult to refuse, you see, would prevail, his point of view, everything could be completely wrong ...
But we have already said that the church was more necessary than Christ - God and the teachings of Paul of Samosata in 269 at the Synods of Antioch branded as heresy. Recall that the cathedral had already called the meeting of top representatives of the church.
Curiously, at the Cathedral of 269 personally attended the Roman emperor Aurelian. I thought about it, firstly, 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 see, even then some emperors cared subtleties of Christian theology.
The so-called "Monarchianism-modalisty" (from the word "mode" - a way in) saw in Jesus the God-Father, who took human form, walked on earth and was crucified.
During that appeared Sabellius, Bishop Ptolemaidsky, who lived at the beginning of III century. On himself, we know almost nothing, but the "cost" of his teaching Church enjoyed so far - namely Sabellius (not Tertullian or Origen) first entered into the relationship of the Father and the Son of the third hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, and told all of them consubstantial.
But it did not save the Savelli, and he was posthumously named a heretic Synods 261 and 262 years, since the "consubstantial" in his understanding meant the complete unity - 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 "modalistov" very reminiscent of early heresy II century Docetism (from the Greek "dokes" - "to seem"). We used to have not paid due attention Docetism because he did not have a clear line, a clear leader, and broke up into a number of local flows, many of which are in Gnosticism.
Briefly the essence Docetism can be expressed as a negation of 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, and could not believe Docetism few people seriously.
Since we began to consider the most famous early Christian heresy, we note that in the II-III centuries for them yet no one burned. On Christianity periodically hit by persecution, and the role of the Inquisition were the Roman emperors, killing all the Christians in a row. Who, of course, was caught ...
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 invite further controversy 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 being sentenced to Synods of Antioch 269 deprived the dignity and the power kicked out of the episcopal house, and all because of the persecution at that time died down, the rulers of Syria consistently patronized Christianity, and the place was "warm."
By the beginning of IV century monarhian all dispersed, and to the flourishing of the Church under Constantine the Great Christian doctrine came from the "Apostolic" Creed and the relatively simple, albeit vague understanding of Christ as God the Son.
On the charges of dvubozhii church answered with quiet reservations about the same divine essence of other people, and possibly lacking Origen.
Note that Origen was not a cleric, and its not like many church theologians such as the famous preacher, Bishop of Patara Methodius (d. 311). Clear dogma had not yet, but already there is a common view 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, incidentally, has since ruled the world, more than a thousand years, and almost all the medieval philosophers, as we know, were either priests or statesmen.
Unfortunately Origen! Not only did it during the reign of Detsii imprisoned and tortured, and after the death of Decius was not released, and he died in prison in 254, when the kind of persecution and ended, and the church became richer and "stand up".
His teaching then another and comprehensively defamed in the VI century, when Origen understanding of people as the gods became the claims of the church to interfere in state domination.
Bet! Of course, interfere. On this subject there is an interesting analogy.
What do you think, why in the armies of most countries, especially human humiliated? And the so-called "hazing" has nothing to do with it - the humiliation inherent in the very military system.
First of all, as is known, a soldier dressed in identical form and bring to the parade ground, where long and hard to teach a variety of constructions, marching step, "eyes left" and other things seem to be useless from the standpoint of common sense and military art.
Indeed, it would seem, cause soldiers - to
shoot, run "march-throws, digging trenches, throwing grenades ... A march,
why? The coordination of train movements - so be crawling on their bellies, in
action 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 that time has already passed more than a hundred years, and drill, and now there. And the right would only "ceremonial" shelf, but it's on the parade ground keepers and every one who wear shoulder-straps.
In fact, a cruel drill drill is under a centuries-old foundation - to create a soldier's subconscious feeling that he is a pawn, whose life does not belong, and sometimes small.
Left dress! In that light, quick march!
Actively patriotic individuals, shouting in 1941-45 "The Communists, forward!", Are 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 what they have 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 based on the dull compulsion.
Well, what is evolving into Origen's teaching these principles? Is it appropriate to remind the soldiers on the parade ground of their divine essence?
- No! - They said in unison in 553 BC at the fifth ecumenical council, and was posthumously condemned Origen as a heretic.
At St. John the Divine, the first recognition of people by the gods (In.1 ,12-13), of course, no one dared not aim a blow, so that Origen was "extreme" and three hundred years after his death.
But a short time the church enjoyed Willed St. Irenaeus calm in theological matters. Replaced monarhianstvu half a century later came the most widespread heresy of all time - Arianism, but age is radically changed. 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 AD, this "iron lady" at eighty (!) Age has taken a difficult journey to Jerusalem and the relatively hot on the trail ("only" 300 years later) found a Golgotha, and dug up the cross, supposedly the same as it was believed that at Calvary after nobody Jesus was executed.
It is unlikely, of course, the cross was the same. Forty years after the execution of Christ, in 1970, Roman was taken and destroyed Jerusalem. All over the city and outlying areas on the crosses were hanged many people, probably at Golgotha, too.
But in any case, thanks to Helen. And for the strongest political move - the acquisition of the Cross. And, of course, for the fact that raised such a wonderful son.
Constantine, true Christian humility did not differ, seized power in a civil war has destroyed all contenders for the throne, and then beheaded and his successor of Crispus, and the young Empress Fausta (Crispus, Constantine's son by his first wife, allegedly tied up the affair with his stepmother Fausta , for which he pays).
But Christianity, Constantine the Great in the territory of the empire in 313, the "Edict of Milan" legalized.
And in 318, against the background of 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 most 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 benefited greatly from the popularity of Arianism.
Arius was based on "dynamic" monarhianstvo Paul of Samosata, but with small differences arising on 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 - a man and the Logos - the divine substance, given to him by God.
Arius, knowing what the outcome of the once mighty bishop of Antioch, Paul of Samosata, so far gone and did not deny the identity of Christ and the Word-Logos. He followed the line of Justin - Origen, with the only difference being that claimed that God the Son is not eternal, without beginning is not - 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 Aria, Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, defended one of the teachings of Origen, became by the time the official position of the Church: Son, born "before all time, if only because it is eternal and without beginning - how to define the beginning, when there was no reference time?
From the perspective of a modern understanding of eternity, such a dispute does not make sense, since both events, "the birth of the Son of God" and "the beginning of all time, infinitely removed, and the opponents are trying to determine which of them happened before. Which of the two infinitely large numbers anymore?
Nowadays, one need not be a mathematician to understand that such a question is incorrect.
But if we reject the theological and mathematical delights, the Arians intuitively understood that, because it is a relationship between "Father-Son", then the Son, in any event came later the Father, and, as Ari said, "there was a time when it was not .
I think, intuitively the same understanding and opponents of Arius, but the 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 personalities: the Father - eternal and primal, the Son - "less than" eternal and not the original. So, no casuistry could not disguise the fact that there were two different God, and to avoid accusations of paganism had to assume the viewpoint defamed in 269 Paul of Samosata, and recognize that Christ - the person.
Arius so far not dared to go, and coined the term "podobosuschnost Son to the Father" - something between the divine "consubstantial Son to the Father" and human nature.
However, the masses and the ordinary priests Arian teachings still was perceived closer to what Christ - the same people, like everyone else.
- Why we fight for? - 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 their achievements in the struggle for an orthodox church "modestly" nicknamed the Great.
This is also the nickname awarded by his disciple and follower of Basil of Caesarea (329-379). And 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 "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, and "great" patriarchs and was not at all. Another "lifted aloft" a few very ascetic monks, and that's all.
It turns out that three of the four "great" theologians have become famous in the fight against Arianism, and it says on the extent of the latter.
In the fight against Arieh distinguished, though not with the best hand, and even more famous St. - Nicholas, Bishop of Myra (260-343), also known as Nicholas and Myra, who is also the patron of sailors Netherlands St Nicolaas, 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 for many bishops, and sometimes the majority, just their names church historiography intelligently ignores for quite natural reasons - "woe to the vanquished. On the side of Arius, for example, were Lucian (Chapter Antioch authoritative theological school), Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea ("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 to stay a little Gods.
Very impressive, and most importantly, promptly said Basil of Caesarea: "God became man so that man might become God."
In relation to people in the end as something bad happened: when in the middle of IV century, it was necessary to appeal to "the broad masses of working people," Athanasius and Basil of all the known gods, but as a defeated Arianism, this quickly forgotten, and people already in St. Augustine , just fifty years, were "vile vessels of sin" and "creatures". And let the "creature" - only the church interpretation of the concept of "created being, anyway, for every person it is insulting and demeaning term.
Nevertheless, 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 this deprived the aria is the only chance of winning - 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 of God the Father.
In the IV century irrevocably passed when choosing between relatively clear and precise positions of Origen (Christ - God, but we are also the gods) and Paul of Samosata (Christ - people like us).
However, irrevocable right? However, do not get ahead of ourselves in 1700 years. We are talking about Arianism, and would like to see 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, fundamentally irresolvable logical, piling more and set policy.
Politically, it looked as follows.
When Emperor Constantine the Great in 324 after his victory over Licinius seized the eastern part of the Roman Empire, he collided with a complete discord in the minds of bishops and, above all ordered to stop the "empty arguments". The debate did not stop. Then Constantine convened the famous Council of Nicaea Natalie 325, and personally it presided.
Despite such a solid Chairman, that Nicaea was happening - is difficult to convey. A good illustration of the "dean of law and order" at the Council is that Nicholas of Myra in front of the emperor and the bishops in the heat of the argument ran to Arius of Alexandria, and gave him a slap, what was even for some time deprived of the episcopal dignity, and imprisoned in the Tower. Yes, mentioned even in the official book, The Life and Miracles of St. Nicholas, Bishop of Myra. "
How then Nicholas remained in the memory of the descendants of a good Grandfather Frost - another historical paradox ...
Nevertheless, after a heated argument to defeat the enemy's aria, and the latter, along with several bishops were excommunicated and banished.
At the Council adopted the Nicene Creed. Its main difference from the "Apostles" Creed was as follows: after the words about the Son "of the Father" appeared "uncreated, consubstantial to the Father." The divine nature of Christ (as he nesotvoren and consubstantial with God the Father, it is God) was more or less institutionalized.
The winners were called by the word "omousiane" ("omous" in Greek means "consubstantial"). It is curious that the position of Arius was called "omiusianstvo" ("omius" - "podobosuschnost").
How many human lives were broken due to one letter ...
So if you find where the word "omousianstvo" - re-read it carefully, 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 yes even "Catholic" - "universal". In the year 1054 and shared the title, but let's not get ahead.
So far omousiane, who won at Nicaea poskromnichali, and rightly so: they were to have a lot of tests.
Their main tenet of the Son is consubstantial with the Father "does not hold water: it was still in the 269 year proposed at the council which condemned Paul of Samosata monarhianina but was rejected for obvious contradiction - as two individuals, father and son may be" consubstantial "is so to be one God?
Moreover, the term "consubstantial" enjoyed "the opposite" monarhianin - "modalist" Sabellius! And in his understanding of "the Father and the Son consubstantial", as we recall, meant just one person that was no less absurd - it means that Jesus, praying to God, praying to myself ...
- Why we fight for? - Asked this time the Arians and win over the Emperor Constantine the Great. In 328, the Ari and his associates were returned from exile, and in 335 a council at Tyre Athanasius deprived of the episcopal dignity and sent back to where he returned arias.
Sam Arius of Alexandria died in 336 BC, but his cause lived and occasionally won. After the death of Constantine in 337 omousiane led by Athanasius returned from exile and received the episcopal chair, but not for long: arianin Eusebius, Patriarch of Constantinople, in 339, Athanasius again "demoted". The latter went to Rome, to Pope Julius, who acquitted him on the Cathedral 340
In order not to bore the reader the details of political intrigue, which both sides were woven around the emperors, say only that Athanasius again demoted to the 355, the Emperor Julian the Apostate in 361, he returned his episcopal chair, but a year later selected as the mid sixties Arianism almost universally prevailed.
Relatively short time. Athanasius of Alexandria (the Great) died in 373, 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 - from 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 Arians to the finish by Emperor Theodosius I. Also, incidentally, named "Great."
Emperor Theodosius the Great acted decisively: he had called together in 381, the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople and heard all sides, he declared:
"Consubstantial" is the imperial law, all the department transferred supporters "consubstantial" Trinity, adopted the Nicene (Nicene-Constantinople now) Creed with a few additions about the Holy Spirit, and all the issues 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: in 385, were first executed heretics. "Bad luck" Pristsillianu, Bishop Avilanskomu (modern Spain), and four of his disciples. They are under the guise of Christianity preached the doctrine of Basilides, Gnostic philosopher early II century.
This, of course, was not good, but the death penalty hardly deserves. Fair to say that the beheading Pristsillianu produced a strong negative response in the Christian world the end of IV century. He would know the Christian world, are waiting for the execution of dissidents in the near future ...
By the way, you noticed in the ruling Ecumenical Council 381, the appearance of the dogma of the Trinity? As it has become "consubstantial Son to the Father," we shall soon see, but for now we note that the Emperor Theodosius the Great, even by force could not "close questions" Arian neither immediately nor over the next several centuries.
The fact that the yard was a different era - the end of IV century. Remember what happened in the V century? " That's right, under the blows of the barbarians had fallen Western Roman Empire.
In the year 455, we have been taught in school, the barbarian Vandals took and destroyed Rome, whence came the word "vandalism", and in 476, the barbarian Germans once again took altogether destroyed Rome, and with it, and empire.
In fact, nothing of the sort - the barbarians never destroyed Rome and destroyed the empire.
Leo I the Great (pope at 440-461) for, and received the appropriate supertitul that "negotiated" with the Vandals and saved the temples and the people of Rome from destruction. Robberies, murders and rapes, of course, took place, but without it taking cities has never evaded, especially in the Middle Ages.
Another tradition - remembering the bloody pictures of school textbooks, we equate the taking of Rome to the last day of Pompeii. Vain.
The fact that the barbarians in 455 Rome, had not been washed off the land, evidenced by the fact that a few years later, at the same Pope Leo the Great, Emperor Valentinian III recognized for Rome, "the primacy of the apostolic throne, backed the merits of St. Peter, the dignity Rome and the council decrees, that no one dared to something ill, contrary to the authority of the Roman chair.
Strange wording for the rubble ...
And the barbarians were behaving strangely: in 476, Odoacer Teuton, has once again seized Rome, deposed the last western emperor, Romulus Augustulus minor himself became the ruler, but not the emperor, and the signs of the imperial dignity collected and sent to Constantinople to the east emperor.
Atypically intelligent behaviors for "wild Hermann ...
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 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. However, Rome was saved Christianity.
Christianity has taken all the barbarians in the second half of IV century, and therefore behave decently towards Rome, it is also a Christian, spiritual values. Significantly, the c barbarians "negotiated" is not the emperor or the Senate, and Pope Leo the Great.
Yes, the historians are well aware, but ...
Remember, somewhere in the church literature you met fanfare over the fact that Rome and the Western European civilization was saved from destruction by the barbarians primarily Christianity, and that is one of the greatest services to humanity and the Church of its most significant victory?
Hardly met, and here's why:
Rome and the Western European civilization was saved is not Christianity at all, but concrete Arianism. Without exception, the "barbarous" nations became just Arians - and the Ostrogoths and Visigoths and Vandals, and Burgundians and the Lombards.
It is not surprising, because Arianism was much clearer rustic and illiterate barbarians than unimaginably complex provisions Nicene-Constantinople Creed.
On the latter, we'll talk, and as the Barbarians, they have Arianism survived until VI - VII mid-century, and only the pressure of the Pope scored a political and military Weight francs accepted Orthodox Christianity, made the "Arian" people to accept the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed Faith.
A good example - the famous Frankish king Clovis (466-511), a special cross is in orthodox Christianity, because he had a war with Arianna Lombards (current Lombardy).
Most policies. It is unlikely that the leader of the Franks thought about the relationship hypostasis of the Trinity ...
So why still the notion of the Trinity?
To answer this question, we will have a short time left "big politics" and return to the theological disputes of IV century.
We stopped at that Athanasius of Alexandria "and his comrades" struggled with Arians and preached omousianstvo - consubstantial Son of the Father. It formed the basic relations between the two alter ego - God the Father and God the Son, to which was added to the 325 definition: "born nesotvoren.
The son is born - in the Son. But nesotvoren - by then, and God. Consubstantial with the Father - there is no accusation dvubozhii, once the essence of the Father and the Son is 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-Constantinopolitan Creed, so far only ask the reader to think about how you can be born and still uncreated, and how two individuals can be consubstantial enough to make one God.
By the way, you actually remember talking about in this book? Do not overshadowed Jesus of Nazareth numerous theological refinements?
Even as screened, is it? It is not surprising.
It was during the struggle with the Arians person of Jesus Christ hid behind vague notion of God the Son, "the uncreated and consubstantial to God the Father."
Omousianam (supporters of "consubstantial Son to the Father") required to shift attention from the Arians emphasized by the person of Jesus on the scholastic God the Son. We saw that it was extremely difficult, needed a "fresh idea", and her late thirties IV century put forward the same Athanasius of Alexandria, and in the sixties-seventies developed Basil of Caesarea and Gregory Nazianzen.
The last reason sverhpochetnogo title "Great" was not deemed worthy (though, "Gregory the Theologian," sounds good too), although he ultimately defended the ad by God the Holy Spirit, is very specific meanings in the Gospels, but is usually interpreted as a Christian faith or spirituality. For Gregory, the Holy Spirit equally with the Son proceeds from the Father, just nesotvoren and consubstantial with the Father.
That turned out Trinity.
Question of the Holy Spirit, just appeared, was in the forties and fifties IV century "trump card" in the political game of two omousianskih (defending "consubstantial Son to 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, as well as our "friend" - the bishop and theologian Athanasius of Alexandria. On the side of the latter rose and "promising youth" - theologians, Basil of Caesarea and Gregory Nazianzen.
Macedonia and I, and Paul I have omousianami and active fighters with Arians, but that their relationship is better not to have. 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, but I Macedonius it was from 342 to 346, then from 351 to 360 years.
Between them "wedged" arianin Eusebius (patriarch 339-341), and in 360 BC was the patriarch of a long Eudoxius again arianin.
What was the heat of political struggle, can you imagine?
Omousiane fought against the Arians, in their free time battles fought among themselves, and Arians stayed in confusion, not knowing from 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 just the Holy Spirit, turned in the third hypostasis of the Trinity.
Macedonia considers its erection in the rank of third God unnecessary and redundant. Athanasius, Basil and Gregory advantage of it and moved into the mainstream debate pure scholasticism, which, as professional theologians, were stronger.
Of these "titans omousianstva" until the early eighties he lived only a vigorous and impressive Gregory Nazianzen. It just succeeded in becoming a 379, patriarch of Constantinople, to win over the Emperor Theodosius the Great.
And you thought in 381 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 ...
Intrigues intrigues, but business is business.
The dogma of the Trinity did not win just because at the right time in the right place (near the emperor) turned out it was St. Gregory the Theologian, and not one of the Arians or Dukhobors (then so called followers of Macedonia, do not confuse them with the Russian sect of XVI-XIX centuries).
Trinity suit and the emperor, and the majority of bishops: at the time she was in a dogmatic term stabilizing a compromise and politically - to work on the image "of the Christian church.
Athanasius, Basil and Gregory, having developed and defended the dogma of the Trinity, "killing two birds with one stone":
First, they built the Holy Spirit, that is, the Christian religion, headed by the church, the cult on a par with Jesus Christ.
Secondly, they brought Christian theology to the very effective "ternary" 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 and love. What's there - and the three heroes, and a fairy kings always had three sons, and anecdotes of our time before the final acute premise often is repeated three times ...
No wonder why the three. The triangle is known, determines a 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 finished system, completely self-contained and isolated from any reality.
The fact that this system together with the concept of consubstantial "was based on the heresy of a century ago - the doctrine monarhianina," modalista "Savelli, there is little anyone cared about.
The third God, the Holy Spirit, has been very useful for both state and property claims of the church - his "keeper".
Why - explain.
Jesus Christ, as you know, reasonably rejected three diabolical temptation. On them, almost word for word, they say, and Matthew, and Luke.
"Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil, and he had fasted forty days and forty nights, and finally he was hungry.
And the tempter came to him and said: If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
He answered him: it is written: not by bread alone will man live, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.
Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the temple, and saith unto him: If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written: His angels charge over thee, and in their hands they shall bear thee, nor foot against a stone thy foot.
Jesus said to him: is written: Do not tempt the Lord thy God.
Again the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them, and said to him: all this will give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
Then Jesus said to him: Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written: Worship the Lord your God and Him alone and serve.
Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and ministered unto him "(Mf.4 ,1 10).
Very, very not like the official Church in the Middle Ages to remember these temptations, and even now the church theologians to try to "ignore".
Not just because this episode is a serious argument against the dogma of the Trinity: what is the devil suddenly began to tempt an omniscient and omnipotent God the Son, which existed "before all time," the uncreated and consubstantial to God the Father "?
And not just because there is a contradiction in translation: until the end of XIX century in the Russian translation of the Gospel of Luke was not written "Get thee behind me, Satan" and "follow me, Satan," that is "changed his mind, Satan and start with me to serve God. "
Incidentally, this is one of the arguments against the analysis of the Bible at harmonies, letters and words - only God knows what other errors have crept in a long chain of translations, even the New Testament, not to mention the OT. But it's still little things do not change the overall effect.
Index - the Church did not like to remember the diabolical temptation because of their profound symbolic meaning. Let us reflect:
In the first temptation (make stones bread) Jesus Christ gave up worldly pleasures.
In the second (jump from the roof of the temple) - from cheap "pretentious".
In the third (control kingdoms) - from the government.
And turned out really ugly for the majority of clergy precedent. They would have to be on Jesus and renounce wealth, "showing off" and power, but wanted so much and hoping to live, and wear clothes embroidered with gold, and manage the states ...
What they were doing? Rewrite the two Gospels, throwing huge chunks of text about the temptation? Unrealistic.
A saving idea for the church was just a 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 that the Holy Spirit must renounce worldly pleasures, kingdoms and other "useful" things?
A Sacred Tradition? How I wanted the church to order councils, popes and patriarchs "quoted" on a par with the Bible! Naturally, already in the IV century a "spiritual" interpretation of the Trinity - the Old Testament (God the Father), the New Testament (God the Son) and Holy Tradition (Holy Spirit). Convenient, right?
- "God the Son let them rule the sky, and we are custodians of the Holy Spirit, we shall reign on the earth!" - Proudly told Popes in unison with all the patriarchs and emperors of Constantinople, also considered themselves 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 the end of this chapter, but until we get ahead.
Only take this opportunity to give the definition of Trinitarian: it is the whole range of issues related to the theological dogma of the Trinity. Accordingly, the Trinitarians - a supporter of the Trinity, antitrinitary - enemy.
So, briefly repeat the essence of the dogma: a Son, and Holy Spirit are Gods, descended from God the Father, but nesotvoreny and consubstantial to the Father.
Let's see how this dogma allows us raised in the beginning of the book "provocative" question:
- God is one, is the first commandment holy, and the Trinity comprises 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 - so all three consubstantial hypostasis.
Son and Holy Spirit should be the Gods (that is, as we know, the church was very necessary) - then nesotvoreny.
Traditions 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 a son, and became the Holy Spirit.
As the saying goes, all sisters on earrings ...
And together they produce a compromise system, dictated by the momentary political situation in IV century. Moreover - a system in which wishful thinking.
However, on this we still talk in the analysis of the Nicene-Constantinople Creed. While you can still think a little as three separate divine personalities can be so consubstantial, which make up one God, and how is it that the Son is born, but the Holy Spirit comes, but they nesotvoreny.
It is unlikely, however, think of something ...
No wonder why the church almost immediately after the development of the dogma of the Trinity, in the early V century, was forced to take a position formulated by the blessed Augustine of Hippo, Bishop Gipponskim (354-430): you must first believe, then think.
Literally: "I believe, to know."
Augustine of Hippo - a landmark figure in theology.
He lived in the south of the Roman Empire (in the modern Algeria), in his youth was a pagan, led an appropriate lifestyle, and only in 387, thirty-three years old (in the age of Christ), was baptized into Christianity. In 391, he became a priest and as early as 395 BC - 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, has successfully fought with 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" fusion of theology and philosophy.
Secondly, Augustine "has finished" donatizm - even during times of religious 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.
Naturally, the vast majority of priests did not suit, Donatists strongly persecuted, but finally donatizm branded as heresy was only in 411 BC Carthage Cathedral of St. Augustine, defending his position that God's grace operates independently of the sanctity of a clergyman.
Of course, do not do it Augustin - would have made someone else, and yet it turned out that it is at Aurelius Augustin lay the blame for the huge number of clergy abuse, as in the Middle Ages and in modern times. And a secret vice, and financial machinations and political intrigue, and more, until the duty-free vodka and cigarettes, the Russian Orthodox Church in our time.
Do you think I dramatize? Not at all.
Naturally, no dogma can not force a person to be holy. And yet, if the above church hierarchy "hung" donatistskoe of the necessary personal holiness of priests - you look, from the many unsavory acts that would keep them.
Laity, and even more traders live by the same rules, and the priests still have to live on the other, but something quite wrong turns ...
Well, God is all the judge. Let us not digress from the topic.
Third, Augustine won Pelagianism. Roman monk Pelagius (c. 360-after 418) announced determining human free will and the opinion that people are 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 can not avoid sin, and must rely solely on God's mercy, which is known to be unknowable.
This dispute is rather a philosophical than a theological plane, but it is not surprising that the struggle with Pelagianism Augustine ended in victory for the first - remember, we talked about that demeaned people are easier to administer, and there's some "free will" ...
Augustine of Hippo - a prolific writer and theologians: nearly one hundred large-scale "research papers". And what is the scope of problems!
This Augustine has created such "visiting cards" of medieval spirituality, as the doctrine of "original sin", the transfer of sin through the women through the "passionate sexuality," "the only salvation of God's grace, about the knowledge of good solely by the grace of God, of a single authoritarian church on faith as the only key to the knowledge of the world, the origin of evil and the devil ... On this we have yet to speak in the following chapters.
How would we feel about, for example, Athanasius of Alexandria and Gregory Nazianzen, in his life had to endure many hardships and unjust accusations. Sometimes, they even found themselves on the verge of excommunication.
From Augustine nothing like this happened. He was able to feel the surprising position of senior leadership in the Church (post gipponskogo bishop formally was very modest), and gradually became a theologian, "the service" any urgent needs of officialdom.
Not surprisingly, the teachings of Augustine found the place and future Inquisition and witch trials, and 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.
We should not, of course, 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 a saint, but the greatest of the Church Fathers. But the Orthodox Church recognizes the blessed Augustine - to rank lower than a saint. Duda, "blessed" - is just an official title, not more.
But Augustine of Hippo the title so "stuck" in certain "non-theological" encyclopedias even write his name instead: "Augustine of Hippo." Moreover - in Russia so termed foolish, and I, for example, as a child because of this thought that Augustine, too, was something of a fool.
Well, not whacky Augustine taught to believe, but then still think. Orthodoxy, not recognizing the "dogmatic development, on theological themes to think does not recommend in general, and offers a completely subjugate the mind faith. No wonder we do not like and proving the existence of God, and logical reasoning on the subject of Christian dogma. Believe it - and all.
That did not love the Orthodox Church of the founder of medieval philosophy. Unfortunately, not for the fact that the fault of his teaching thousands of women in the Middle Ages were declared witches and burned after the terrible torture at the stake.
Nevertheless, let us recognize the immense scale of the figures Aurelius Augustine and we will not argue about what he has brought more peace - good or evil. I personally think that the second ...
For all of the above, arose a business proposition. We start from afar.
The Middle Ages, as we know, we believe the end of V century, when the Western Roman Empire fell.
First of all, the division of the empire in the East and West in the 395 was purely administrative and not first. Even Constantine at the beginning of the century, as we remember, fought against Licinius in the East.
We have already said that Rome in 455 no one destroyed in 476 AD is also nothing particularly horrible happened, and the fall of the Roman Empire or formally, or in fact did not exist. Just after a partial seizure Christianized "barbarians" 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.
The army, weapons, uniforms, clothing, titles - all in Constantinople remained a Roman even three hundred years. Language as it was two - Latin and Greek - as they existed still very, very long time.
Furthermore - "barbarian" rulers of the western part of the empire (Kings Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Burgundians, and others) is honored to receive the title of Emperor of the Roman patrician and the status of "provincial procurator. No exceptions were not already upomnenny chief Germanic Odoacer, or famous King Theodoric Ostrogoths.
The very concept of "Eastern" and "West" of the Roman Empire after 476 years again ceased to exist: Emperors of Constantinople, naturally, became known as a Roman, claiming the succession and on the western part. Yes, and territorially they had the right - they have a few hundred years remained enormous possessions in Italy.
But the Emperor Justinian (ruled 527-565) completely destroyed the Goths and Vandals, together with their kingdoms, to restore the Roman Empire almost within the IV century. For many who have heard of the famous Roman general Belisarius may be the news that he had lived and fought in the days of Justinian.
And only in the beginning of IX century, under pressure from Charlemagne (742-814), crowned Emperor of Holy Roman Empire, Constantinople, the emperor refused the title of "Rome" and became "orthodox".
By and large, these legal subtleties unprincipled. We just got used to treat the history of mankind as a continuous redistribution of cards, and unconsciously trying to divide history into periods are not spiritual, and political-administrative.
So maybe give priority to spirituality? Or not enough fighting yet? Or, at least, not playing in a tin soldiers?
Yes, the capture of Rome, a coup or a revolution - an event that has the exact date of it is easy to count. But we're chronology of 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 than most contentious fall of the Roman Empire? And why the end of V century? The first taking of Rome by the barbarians, the Visigoths took place in 410 ...
Perhaps it is better to see when the transition took place in Rome and the Barbarians from paganism to Christianity?
Formally, this process began in 313 after the Edict of Milan "Constantine the Great, in fact, he lasted almost the entire IV century. Even after Constantine was not all so smoothly, and was "anti-Christian" emperor Julian the Apostate (reigned 361-363).
On this occasion, I want to partially rehabilitate Julian the Apostate, branded as unsavory nickname.
His "defection" was reduced to what it is:
- To equate the rights of Christianity with Paganism (in a modern way, "established freedom of conscience");
- Forbade Christian priests to teach in schools and shut them access to public office ("separate church and state and school - from the Church");
- Heavy handed excesses of Christian bigotry as the destruction of pagan temples ("struggled with vandalism").
Christianity, he really did not like, but quite civilized. Was he, like Marcus Aurelius, "in combination" philosopher of ancient Greek school and never missed an opportunity to enter into debate with Christian theology. Especially, by the way, his irritating "miracles of Christ, which is also not surprising - he was a convinced atheist.
But we withdrew from the theme (involuntary pun with Julian the Apostate).
The turning point of historical epochs - especially change in the psychology and attitudes of mankind.
Marxist "transition from the slave system to feudalism", perhaps logical, but even more blurred over time than the transition from paganism to Christianity.
The Christianization of the barbarians, as we said, occurred at the end of IV century. That shift to the Middle Ages. Completion of this transition is "crowned" the teaching of St. Augustine, who laid the foundation of theology, philosophy, culture and even life of the Middle Ages.
So, there is a suggestion: consider the beginning of the Middle Ages is not of dubious fall of the Roman Empire, and of Aurelius Augustine, the founder of medieval philosophy.
And if you consider the beginning of the Middle Ages is traditionally on the taking of Rome by barbarians in 455 and 476 respectively, it must be reluctantly admitted that neither the military nor the state's point of view, no change has not happened. The Roman government and military systems had existed for centuries.
The formal dates of the Middle Ages, thus, may be:
- 354 a year, the birth of Aurelius Augustine (historical justification - the middle period between the Cathedral of Nicaea 325 AD and Constantinople 381);
- 430 a year, the death of Augustine and the complete triumph of his teachings.
To decide, of course, historians.
I understand that it is difficult to break the inertia of centuries of thinking. But much broke, and most recently!
For example, I was surprised to learn that today in schools are taught - the Middle Ages ended at the junction of XV-XVI centuries, that is, the early modern period was considered the Reformation!
Finally, the least common sense prevail here? In the mid-nineties were taught that the early modern period was the Netherlands revolution of 1566-1609 years. And in Soviet times, schoolchildren somehow supposed to know that the English Revolution 1642-1660 years.
I do not know whether all the historians hold variant of the Reformation, but if the Middle Ages yet been taken down a hundred years at 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. Neither a theologian, not a single 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 Age.
And fame in our time Augustine is quite comparable with Justinian, of Clovis and Charlemagne, despite the fact that he physically did not kill anyone and not won ...
So, Augustine of Hippo recommended to believe, but think about it. But there was one dogma, in which even Augustine ponder not recommended - it is the Trinity.
Yes, indeed, at that time Trinity was a compromise, not only theological but also political, ustroivshim Emperor, the majority of bishops and "ordinary" Christians.
It seems to be good, but you remember what was in Lenin's NEP, and "early" Stalin? The ideological and political compromise, ustroivshim majority. But that was then, in mid-to late twenties? Most have rallied to have stabilized, already began to eat each other and occasionally wrest from their ranks next minority, accusing them of deviating from the "general line".
Subject eternal, but how it looked in the early Middle Ages?
Formation of a theological approach to the personality and teachings of Jesus Christ at the intersection of 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, serious theological discussion in the V century finally gave way to action-novel (in a modern, thriller), entitled "The struggle for power in the church and state."
And because the "drag" can be whatever for anything, any of the actions of any church group richly embroider references to Scripture and decrees of ecumenical councils.
Theology has a purely scholastic form and become a "science for science". More precisely, in science for policy.
Remember how in the twentieth century, Stalin drew some quotations from Marx, Trotsky - Other, Bukharin - the third, as a result of erratic zigzagging "general line" countries are malnourished, and the camps were full of supporters of all the leaders without exception?
But we know about Stalin relatively plentiful, but about the early Middle Ages - is relatively small. Let's take a rest from theology and read "an exciting thriller.
Late Twenties V century was marked by unprecedented outbreak of the struggle for power in the church.
Fundamental Church points to the time remaining four: Rome (who appeared at the edge of the empire and shaken by attacks of barbarians), Constantinople (the capital), Antioch and Alexandria (two huge prosperous cities in the provinces, Syria and Egypt).
Jerusalem, the fifth (and technically first) church center, never recovered after the collapse of the I-II century.
Church leader of any city, as we recall, was named a bishop, and in the aforementioned centers, he received the honorary title of "father" (in Greek - the patriarch, in Latin - father). The bishops of the surrounding cities gradually rose in full hierarchical dependency on the "fathers", and in order to more effectively control appeared "intermediate" Chin - Metropolitan. In IV-V century church organization finally lost early Christian democratic and began to resemble a modern.
The struggle for power in the V century unfolded between the three patriarchs (Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch) and the Pope.
Bogoslovsky reason for it was the fact that the creators of the dogma of the Trinity, absorbed in matters of the divine essence of Christ and his descent from the Lord to have forgotten that Christ still born from the earth's women, paced the ground, ate, drank, slept, tired and suffered (In.4, 6; 19.28, 11.33; Lk.22, 44, 4,2; Mf.14, 4; Mk.3, 5, etc.)
Discussions on this theme were, but had the character of a supplement to the much more ambitious disputes about the Trinity.
And at the intersection of IV and V centuries had to devise another dogma to answer the question of how to relate to the divine nature of Christ, "institutionalized" dogma of the Trinity, and human, which is still not able to "undo".
In the 419 on this occasion to join the discussion Nestorius, the head of a theological school of Antioch and Cyril of Alexandria Patriarch.
Nestorius claimed that the Virgin Mary as a man could give birth to only human and therefore should not call God, and Hristoroditsey and his divinity Christ is received directly from God after the birth.
Cyril of Alexandria taught in much the same, with the slight difference that the divine force descended upon Christ in the womb. This minimal difference is not prevented Cyril accused Nestorius of heresy in the repetition of 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 a precursor of Arianism, and, indeed, in the end it turned out that the doctrine of Nestorius and sympathizes with the barbarians-Arian, of which at that time consisted almost exclusively to the garrison of Constantinople.
Nestorius could take this and be in 428 Patriarch of Constantinople. Antioch church group was triumphant.
However, the patriarch Nestorius did not stay long - up to 431, when Cyril of Alexandria to win over the majority of monks, raised in the capital of revolt against the Nestor (though still relatively bloodless). Force, with the Emperor Theodosius II, a supporter of Nestorius, not helped, and in 431 BC at the 3 rd Ecumenical (Ephesus), Cathedral of the latter was deposed.
We will not deal in terms of "divine child" (canon) and "infancy of God" (heresy). Nestorius spoke first, Kirill accused him that he had spoken second. Cathedral of Mary is going so scandalously under terrible noise crowds of people, led by the monks - the supporters of Cyril, and seriously consider the complex theological issues could not.
The upshot was that the Emperor Theodosius II «passed Nestor. Last sent first to the monastery, and in 435 - in reference to Egypt, where he lived in poverty, led the wandering life and died in the year 452.
Note that the case Nestoria is not dead: if at the time Arianism was a huge response to 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 by Nestorianism sober look at the essence of Jesus Christ uzhilos peacefully with Islam - the prophet Muhammad considered Jesus the Son of God, but God the Son.
And only another 600 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 at the end of XIV century. However, to our days in these parts, numerous Nestorian communities.
And in 431 the patriarch of Constantinople became Maximian, a protege of Cyril. Alexandria chair into a 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 flushed with victory Cyril of Alexandria, forgetting caution, at the end of life has stopped trying to find a "balanced" relationship between human and divine person of Christ and began to speak in their messages in a more unambiguous way: "We confess to a Son, not two natures, - one of worship and other nepoklonyaemoe - but one embodied nature of God the Word. "
Although Cyril specified that the two natures united in Christ in a middle, and unique, but it turned out that this compound is still a divine essence - the dogma of Trinity Church for half a century as a victory, then what is a single entity could be God the Son, if not divine?
It turned out that Cyril of Alexandria, unwittingly, was the founder Monophysitism - flow, claiming that Christ, although born out of two natures, divine and human, resides not in two, and only in the first, but human nature has become a fixture of his divine nature.
Immediately after the death of Cyril in 444, these ideas have developed Dioscorus, the new patriarch of Alexandria, and Eutyches, the abbot of the monastery in Constantinople. They were the ones drawn up Monophysitism "institutionalized", by bringing to his side many clerics, especially monks.
Against Monophysitism immediately made Pope Leo the Great and united with the patriarch of Constantinople Flavian, in 448, the condemnation has monophysites at the Council of Constantinople.
The arguments of the opponents Monophysitism were quite weighty: Christ still ate, drank, slept, prayed, doubt ...
But common sense is very few people cared, and Eutychus with Dioscorus managed to win over the Emperor, the same Theodosius II. In 449 BC at Ephesus was convened by the so-called "predatory" Cathedral, acquitted Eutychus from Dioscorus to replace a Flavian and selected the Patriarch of Constantinople Anatolia protege Dioscurus.
Immediately after the Cathedral of Pope Leo the Great, Patriarch of Alexandria Dioscorus betrayed each other anathema than set a precedent, which initiated the process of centuries of the church split.
New trafficking case has taken since the death of Theodosius II. The Empress and her co-ruler Pulcheria Marcian were opposed Monophysitism and convened in 451 at Chalcedon 4 th Ecumenical Council.
Patriarch of Constantinople, Anatoly, were between two fires - the Empress and his patron Dioscorus, gave the latter. At Chalcedon arrived yet, and legates (representatives) of Pope Leo the Great, and the opponents Monophysitism majority.
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 to this day.
Dioscorus was deposed, leading to a local church split: in Egypt, and Armenia's Council of Chalcedon decisions were not taken, and Monophysitism still profess the Armenian-Gregorian, Coptic (Egyptian) and the Ethiopian church.
Stop. In vain I promised a solid thriller. You'll have all the same 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 easy to understand if you understand the dogma of the Trinity. He is as much a compromise, and even more controversial.
So, 4 th Ecumenical (Chalcedon) Cathedral 451 decided: in the God-man Jesus Christ, there are two natures, God and man, and the faithful are obliged to:
"Confess the same Christ, the Son begotten of the Lord, to know in two natures neslitno, invariably, indivisible, inseparable, so that the compound did not violated the distinction of two natures, but even more remains property of every nature and is connected to one person and one hypostasis .
"Apologetic" tone regulations ("not at all broken ...") suggests that the dogma was formed in bitter struggle.
And plenty of consoles "do not" leads us to suspect that winning on the Council of Chalcedon theologians have solved all the problems on the good old principle of "all the sisters on earrings.
Indeed, for each key issue is obtained:
God or man? Both, once neslitny nature 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 the will and energy, and action.
The last statement is not my personal guess. This is a "clear" at the 6 th ecumenical (Constantinopolitan) Cathedral in 680, by analyzing the ratio is two "desires, wills, energy and of acting" in Jesus.
For us, incredibly intricate and casuistic definition of the 6 th ecumenical council over the fact if the divine will in Christ becomes man's desire and how it weighed in the divine and the human of acting, unprincipled. If we have a frank and scholastics will analyze in detail, did not have enough of that book, nor this life.
Critically, the presence of the God-man in two different "desires, wills, energy and of acting" means the presence of two personalities.
The person of Christ, maybe one, but the person in any case are two. The notion of "identity" now no one confuses the notion of a natural or legal person, and then, as we see yet happened.
In the end, with the dogma of the God-Man on the 4 th Ecumenical Council in 451, there was the same as with the Trinity for 70 years before: each part of the issue decided in a separate, closed their eyes to all the others.
What matters is that the same tended Trinity: there is a God-man single divine essence - then here it is, God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, uncreated, consubstantial with the Father "that existed" before all time ... and human nature - yes, she "Jesus was also, but to the divine had nothing to do.
In short, separately - and God and man. But while a single person.
But in general, came the sea of paradoxes such as the one divine person of Jesus and knew everything there was "before all time, but could not" whisper "of the human that we should not doubt the success of the case, for nothing to worry and pray in Gethsemane, that preach be in Asia Minor, not in Jerusalem ...
Actually, something similar in our time is called dissociative identity disorder. At best, 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: a dogma of the Trinity his sani and alienated from the people, as a dogma of the God-man was turned into a lunatic ....
Since Christ and we have two "neslitnye, immutable, indivisible, inseparable" personality.
Theological paradoxes is very few people excited in the V century, when there was a frank struggle for power. There was a something like a password: recognize the dogmas of the Trinity and the God-man - you are a friend of the people, not - an enemy.
By the way, you thought that the term "enemy of the people thought of Stalin? No, he appeared just as the opposite of "other people" during the French Revolution. The People's Friend, as we know, was Marat, enemies - anyone.
We do not just remember the bloody French Revolution. After the Council of Chalcedon 451, the blood spilled will not brook, and the overflowing river. Our so-called thriller took the form of militants.
Returning from Chalcedon Monophysite priests revolt in Jerusalem (the city was captured and looted) and Alexandria (in the house was locked and burned a large detachment of government troops, and during the next rebellion in 457, was killed by the Orthodox patriarch Prothero). Gradually Monophysite riots spread to Syria, where at the end of V. population terrorized by gangs of fanatical monks, and the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch shared the fate of his Alexandrian colleague.
Emperor Zeno in 482 published promonofizitsky conciliatory decree - so called "Genotikon" (in another translation - "Enotik"), which only worsened the situation as consistently antimonofizitskaya Roman church after 35 years ceased communication with the East.
No wonder - ownership of the Pope was surrounded by barbarians-Arians, and with them had to reckon. Monophysitism ("bias" in the divinity of Christ) was a complete opposite of Arianism ("slope" to human nature), and the dogma of Christ, as we have seen, was a kind of compromise, not for nothing that it insisted on the Council of Chalcedon is Pope Leo I the Great.
And so it slips into the vocabulary of the Stalinist era. I do not know just what "bias" - or Monophysite Arian - take a right and a left ...
But the "general line" of the emperor Zeno could not shake because of Constantinople "Genotikon" support not found: Metropolitan priests, the phrase "Christ is one, not two" seemed Monophysite and was considered a heresy. Nevertheless, the appeal of "Genotikona" responded to the order of almost everything, but only slightly.
Succeeded by Zeno, the emperor Anastasius Dickory, tried to continue the conciliatory policy, but ended his reign in 518 was a very inglorious: monophysites raised a revolt in Constantinople, started fires, looting and murder.
After a complicated tangle of political intrigue, in which participated and the governor most of Italy, the famous king of the Ostrogoths, arianin Theodoric (c. 454-526), took the throne of Constantinople Justin Elder.
At the same time "changed" and the Patriarch of Constantinople. We considered the nominations and the Arians, and monophysites but in order to calm the raging passions of a new Patriarch was John II of Cappadocia, supporter Chalcedon compromise.
This time, compromise prevailed on the firm - a hundred years, monophysites in Constantinople position passed, but the Roman Empire, was already often called the Byzantine, almost lost Syria, Egypt and Palestine. The latter, despite the "strong hand" of the Emperor Justinian (the successor of Justin Elder) are out of control and were soon conquered by the Persians, and in the end of VII century - the Muslim Arabs.
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 in another place, and on the site of Antioch, now a small village.
Jerusalem "lucky" and he survived only because the prophet Muhammad considered him a holy city.
Thus, the struggle for power of the Patriarchs in the V-VI centuries ended sadly - the death of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem Patriarchate, and the centers of the Christian world in the VII century there were only two - Rome and Constantinople.
In VI century by Justinian in the Christian church a period of relative calm, the vertex which has the 5 th Ecumenical (Constantinople) Church 553 that is once again condemned monophysites "finished off" the weak remnants of Nestorianism and decided to indulge heretics anathematized posthumously. It was then that "under the distribution" as the time and got Origen.
But in the VII century again flared up passions.
By this time, trying to restore the unity of the empire in 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, making it 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.
The newly started heated debates. "The tree of options" balance of nature, wills, energies and actions in Christ multiplied directly proportional to the flow of time. Virtually every major diocese in response to an appeal made by St. Sergius of his vision problems, and attempts to find a new compromise lasted for many years.
In 638 the year it seemed that the job is done, and even stooped to monothelitism Pope Honorius (as we remember, the popes were secular opponents Monophysitism), but this year, unfortunately, died two - and Pope Honorius and the Patriarch Sergius.
New Pope John IV declared firm opposition monothelitism and fidelity Council of Chalcedon. His successor, Martin I continued this line for that in 653 he was arrested (?) On the orders of the emperor in Constantinople and in 655 convicted and exiled.
The chief opponents monothelitism in the East, the philosopher Maximus the Confessor (582-662), with typical for that time sholastitsizmom argued that if the two natures of Christ, the wills of the same must necessarily be two. Common sense his philosophical logic was not able to overcome, and he chose to accept martyrdom: in the same 655, he was sentenced along with Pope Martin, cut language, cut off his right arm and sent.
Abatement of dissidents gradually took more and more radical forms. It seemed that by force emperors succeeded celebration monothelitism.
No such luck. When Pogonate Constantine (ruled 668-685), Rome, remained opposed monothelitism, has threatened to split, and the emperor feared - was another unsuccessful war, this time with the Muslim Arabs, the political situation was extremely complex, and the loss of Rome would be a terrible blow.
Senior defender monothelitism, Patriarch Theodore, was deposed, and in 680 was called the 6 th Ecumenical (Constantinople) Church.
Latest on the basis of the pope's message brought a compromise Council of Chalcedon 451, the two "neslitnyh" natures of Christ to the full and complete nonsense, declaring Jesus of Nazareth, there are two desires, the two wills and two energies and two of action.
So with this dogma, and live up to now.
At the beginning of VIII century debate about the nature of Christ is not stopped, but took a more peaceful in nature and were soon superseded by the "battle with the icons" - iconoclasm. On it we discuss in detail later, but for now we note that iconoclasm has created another precedent for the separation of Eastern and Western Churches, which took place in 725-784 and 815-843 years. Popes have been strong supporters of the veneration of icons in the East, from time to time prevailed iconoclasts.
Note that a supporter of icons was the last great theologian, recognized and Catholicism, and Orthodoxy - John of Damascus (753 ok.675). For our study it is of interest primarily to the fact that I 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. We will not comment on the political side of the problem - it was hard and Rome and Constantinople, but they chose to survive independently.
Let us 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 of the Son."
Remember Arianism? He controversy surrounding Trinity are raw, as in 589 at Toledo Cathedral was formulated by adding to the Nicene-Constantinople Creed, is that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father and the Son.
Toledo cathedrals were merely national congresses "barbaric" West Gothic kingdom (part of modern Spain). The Visigoths were Arians, besides, in any case Cathedrals in one state could have an impact on general Christian theology.
Nevertheless, the addition of the "Filioque" was the trump card in the political game of the West and East. The Pope accepted the addendum at the beginning of IX century, wanting to flatter Charlemagne, who was in a confrontation with the Byzantine Empire.
Patriarch of Constantinople declared the inviolability of the Nicene-Constantinople Creed 381, and refused any additions.
Neither party to any compromise and could not come, and in 1054 from Constantinople to the scandal left the papal legate.
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, then Christ is to us it just brought. If and of the Son, then Christ created it, at least partially.
From the perspective 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 the subject, there was so much and opinions.
We'll talk about it, but for now we note that in disputing the "Filioque" theologically prove anything it was extremely difficult (in the Bible the concept of the Holy Spirit, as we said, it is valued), which is why this complex issue has been very convenient if the division were interested in everything.
But we will not 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 the Son.
"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 knight's castle. The latter is quite debatable - we perceive as ancient Greece as something blindingly white, but in reality and clothes were colorful, and even statues painted. Same with the Middle Ages - were bright, and clothing and emblems, icons and frescoes ...
"Darkness" in another. XI-XIV centuries in Europe almost nothing fundamentally new is added either to theology, nor 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 the Gothic cathedrals, caravels and water mills ...
Orthodoxy due to the collapse of Byzantium and the transplant on the ground of Kievan Rus was not until the development of dogmas and theological discussions, and Western theology is so complicated that people are finally ceased to perceive God and Jesus Christ as something intimate and meaningful.
Complex compositions of Peter Lombard (um.1164) and Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) in dogmatic terms entirely based on the teachings of Aurelius Augustine and John of 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 dogmas 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.
Up to what point of absurdity reached at this time of theological controversy, said the fact that, when in Europe in XII century. appeared followers Docetism and gnosticism, the so-called Cathars, they preached in his teaching that Christ, being a volatile spirit, not drinking, not eating, not suffered, and entered the world through ... ear of the Virgin Mary.
However, in the teachings of the Cathars were also positive aspects - they reject war and killing, including the animals. And why they were chosen for the birth of Christ a "custom" body, is also understandable: they did not recognize any "carnal intercourse".
It is noteworthy that in the XII century. people are so tired of the hypocrisy of the official Church, that the Cathar heresy in all its absurdity, not only found many followers, but has for many years the dominant religion in northern Italy and southern France, and to suppress it even require the so-called "crusade" of the French troops ("Albigensian War") 1208-1229 years.
Throughout the rest of Europe, the masses of the Cathars burned at the stake by the end of the XIV century almost eradicated.
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) is known to recognize the absolute authority of the Bible, free will of the people and the possibility of their salvation through the earth's activity, abolished the monasteries, the cult of saints, most of the sacraments, indulgences, the Church hierarchy and other most notorious medieval traditions.
But John Calvin (1509-1564), the de facto ruler of Geneva, a remarkable scholar of the Old Testament, not only did not recognize the free will, but also brought to the absurd idea of an ascetic - banned even loud laughter in the streets.
As part of this book should not discuss in detail the manners of the sixteenth century and the differences of Calvinism and Lutheranism. Given 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" Protestants did not abolish the dogma of the Trinity! Luther 500 years ago did not dare go so far.
And with the participation of Calvin on the Trinity has been a very ugly story.
Miguel Servet, medical scientists, 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 Error Trinity" in the title of this chapter.
Calvin implacable enemy of Catholicism, copies of letters sent Servetus to the Catholic (!) 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 denounced him, he decided to emigrate to Switzerland, and that his undoing.
In Geneva, Calvin found him in the street, immediately ordered his arrest, has his conviction Geneva magistrate and shocked the civilized world that in 1553 Servetus burned at the stake.
Incidentally, another paradox of our perception of the Middle Ages: we believe that the terrible Spanish Inquisition was not anyone or anything, but in fact in Spain burned at the stake previously suffocated. And in the rest of "humane" Europe burned alive.
Unfortunately, Servet was not the first nor the last: for example, in England, "Law of Tolerance" in 1689 at antitrinitariev not spread, and their executions stopped only at the end of XVIII century. However, another paradox - a physicist and theologian antitrinitary Isaac Newton in 1727, died "a natural death" and was buried with full honors at the Tomb of Cambridge ...
Also during this time has been where to run - in the New World, where today antitrinitarizm most developed. Although you can be called a religious movement developed several hundred thousand people in disparate sects - is the question.
So, 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 antitrinitarii type "Jehovah's Witnesses deny the dogma of the Trinity, but all recognize the incarnation of some degree of divinity.
Although there are many sects and their respectable name, all of this drop in the sea of orthodox tradition.
And Contemporary Theology
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, considered to be the second hypostasis of the Trinity, God the Son and God-man, but to create the appearance of a great number of emerging resolution of contradictions, with 325 in the Nicene Creed there is wording that the Son of the Father, begotten, but nesotvoren and consubstantial Father.
Around the same position with 381 is the Holy Spirit, but, according to Catholicism, he comes not only from the Father but from the Son.
Do not forget to congratulate the winners, I offer all the same look on the dogma of the Trinity eyes of the person of the XXI century.
First, let us once again to carefully read that yet on the subject mentioned in the New Testament. To be purely theological conversation with a lot of references to biblical texts, but will have to focus - we do not want the opponents have accused us of ignorance of the Scriptures.
So, once again our "provocative" question:
God is one, is the first commandment holy, and the Trinity comprises three - Father, Son and Holy Spirit ... We have that, polytheism, that is paganism?
Perhaps a careful analysis of the New Testament to convince us that the three gods, and we at the same time still manages to not be a pagan?
First of all, fan this book back and reread at the end of Chapter 1 of our comments to the beginning of the Gospel of John. None of the Trinity, as you will recall, we saw there.
Yes, and Christ as God or God-man with two personalities - the same, except that, if literally understood as "the Word became flesh" (In.1, 14), it can be interpreted as the Word of Christ. This poetic, no doubt. But we do not poetry, and theology, and the transfer of "bridge" to the ancient Greek philosophical Logos absolutely imaginary, unjustified and in fact is a form of Gnosticism.
In fact, "the Word became flesh" is interpreted in terms of spiritual truth as expressed by God through Christ.
It's time at the beginning of the third millennium, it is clearly understood, especially if the same John the Theologian in his "Revelation" wrote:
"I John, your brother and companion in tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was (in exile - SZ) on the island called Patmos, for the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ" (Otkr.1, 9).
That's the very "Word of God - 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" (In.8, 58). In this context, it becomes clear position John the Divine, on the basis of which Origen in the III century brought the doctrine of pre-existence of souls, including the soul of Jesus.
This teaching, 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 this is irrelevant, just that we again came to the conclusion: Christ - the same God, Man and Son of God, as we all are. The Apostle John the Theologian - not Origen, arguing with him is not accepted.
In the same groundwork laid Jesus' prayer: "And now glorify me, Father, with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world" (In.17, 5). This phrase is often quoted defenders of the Trinity, could be interpreted either as a destination of the mission of Christ before the foundation of the world, either as a pre-existence of souls. Nothing else can be, if there is absolutely clearly stated: "Yes, they know thee the only true God, and thou hast sent Jesus Christ" (In.17 ,2-3).
There is still more indisputable proof of this. When Orthodox Jews, once again doubted that Jesus - the Son of God, and spoke of stoning him, Jesus said to them:
"Is it not written in your law: I said: Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God, and can not be broken Scriptures - Tom, whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, you say: blasphemy because I said: I am the Son of God? "(In.10, 34-36).
Oh, if Jesus Christ himself to confirm his own divine essence of appealing 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), as argued here?
By the way, Christ taught us another very fundamental and seemingly well-known things. Even those who do not read the Scriptures knows that the main Christian prayer - "Our Father."
She also, incidentally, and only, and any other prayer Jesus thought paganism (Mf.6 ,7-9). But it's not the point.
Speak your heart, only the first two words "Our Father" and think: you are applying to the Father!
So, you - the Son of God (or daughter)!
And the phrase of Jesus in the textbook "Sermon on the Mount:" Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called sons of God "(Mf.5 9)?
And his words "What do you call Me good? There is none good but God alone "(Mk.10 18)?
Looking for more comments on this topic?
Need? Okay, here's another comment: Luke, too, acknowledged the same Christ, Son of God, like all people.
This can be absolutely certain to prove: Luke is the genealogy of Jesus to God, not directly but through Joseph, David, Abraham, Evra and Adam (Lk.3 ,23-38) - so this is true for any of us! " We are all descendants of Adam ...
And what about 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, blowing (In.20, 22). Catholic "Filioque" (procession of the Holy Spirit "and of the Son") was based primarily on this.
For us it is important that the Holy Spirit as a separate God never appears. Has pushed the so-called God the Father (Mf.1, 18), something which the Holy Spirit acts as a messenger of God (Mf.4, 1), sometimes in the form of a dove (Lk.3, 22), but in most cases, this spirituality or Christian doctrine (Lk.4, 1, 11,13; In.3, 34, 15.26, 16.13, etc.)
Traditionally, as we said, the Holy Spirit has been interpreted precisely as spirituality, faith, Christianity.
Holy Spirit in the New Testament attaches the utmost importance, to the point that Jesus says: "And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever 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 according to Christian moral and spiritual precepts ...
But again, all the above to the dogma of the Trinity has nothing to do. 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-cited phrase of Jesus: "Teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" (Mf.28, 19) the nature and relations of recent and says nothing for our study is useless. Link to it advocates the Trinity, and totally in vain - nothing but a simple transfer of already known concepts, not here.
Enemies of the Holy Trinity branded the sentence as a sham that is the other extreme. 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 a lot of sayings of Christ in the same Gospel that he had sent to save only the Jews (Mf.4, 16, 10,5, 15,24, etc.) can also be explained, if "the people" to consider 12 tribes of Israel.
And if you do not think so, perhaps, after all, this phrase - a fake time, when Christianity really was going to "all peoples". 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 ever visited Jerusalem ...
We will not enter into this case in the dispute. History has shown that it was necessary to baptize all nations is, in the context of this book, this question is not essential.
Let us Epistle of the Apostles.
Most often in defense of the dogma of Trinity is a quotation from the first Epistle of St. John the Divine. But we're going to prove that in his first epistle there is a little fake.
Who are its "author" - hard to say, but it is clear that foreign-language texts of the easiest to tamper with the translations. And judging from the direction of forgery, did the blessed (in the Catholic saint), Jerome (342-420), the famous composer and interpreter of the Bible into Latin. What we are reminded of his years of life?
That's right, is the height of anti-Arians, and Jerome was a consistent and staunch opponent of the latter, accordingly, the defender of the Trinity - not for nothing that he was in Constantinople in 380 studied with Gregory the Theologian.
Most likely, he (officially apologize if someone else) put in his translation of the first Epistle of the Apostle John say: "For there are three that bear record in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" (1 Jn .5,7). This is almost verbatim the dogma of the Trinity. Mention all three hypostasis, and consubstantial.
Jerome phrase stuck, but made clear that such a word, I forgot! In the early Messages skips Word of Life "(1 In.1, 1), but can not unequivocally clear 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 realize, for him, after heated debates IV century 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 wrote: "Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ?" (1 In.2, 22). So, in fact, John and his message represent Jesus as the Messiah (Savior) in accordance with the Old Testament. No more.
I propose to the conscience "once they lie," Hieronymus include all other potential forgeries, for example, recently we have considered the phrase: "Teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" (Mf.28, 19). In defense of Jerome say that in his time he had to baptize the masses of the barbarians, but it's still not a reason to build upon the Gospel according to St. Matthew ...
Let's not get involved in the study of authenticity of biblical texts. The Apostle Peter only one phrase puts out sense that future refinements of the existence of Jesus Christ "before all time": he sees the Christ, "designed even before the existence of the world, but which appeared in recent times for you, believers in God through Him" (1 Pet .1,20-21).
Feel the difference between for and existence? In vain we blamed lack of education in the fisherman Peter.
Let's see, he said if anything on the subject of the Trinity St. Paul - founder of Christian theology.
"Trinitarian" Orthodox tradition says the place Epistles of Paul to the Romans, which says about God, "For from Him and through Him and for Him. To him be glory for ever. Amen "(Rim.11, 36).
Well, where is the dogma of the Trinity? I personally do not see anything 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 traced unfair tendency to interpret any (!) Spectacular threefold repetition in the Bible such as "Holy, Holy, Holy" as a confirmation of the dogma of the Trinity.
In fact, Trinitarian and three times - completely different concepts, different and "Lenin lived, Lenin lives, Lenin will live" would be trinitarian statement. Though defenders of the Trinity, of course, can assume that Mayakovsky was subconsciously thinking about it ...
Of course, no thought, and should not confuse cause and effect. We analyzed when the emergence of the dogma of the Trinity, talked about his origin from the fascinating figures "three". Triangle continued to be the most stable and harmonious geometrical figure, whether developed would be in the IV century dogma or not.
Supporters of the Trinity is sometimes slyly used the phrase: "God ... has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he created" from the letters of Paul to the Hebrews (Evr.1 ,1-2).
And the trick is that you quoted only the last part: "Through whom also he created." The result seems to be that "we must": God has created through the Son of eternity - the time, land and so on.
And in the context of something all sounds quite different! Christ - the heir of all things on earth from God, and now we will edit it, and God through him, gave us eternity - immortality.
It is the apostle Paul always said, and we again see a dishonest quoting from snatching out of context ...
To confirm that very clear understanding of the person of Jesus Christ in the teachings of the Apostle Paul, I quote:
"For He (God - SZ) has appointed day, which would be righteously judge the world through a predetermined They are a husband by submitting a certificate to all by raising Him from the dead" (Deyan.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 ...
Viewpoint Paul clearly seen in all his epistles:
"For if you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" (Rim.10, 9).
"If there is no resurrection of dead, then Christ is not risen" (1 Kor.15 13).
"Knowing that raised the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and put before him with you" (2 Kor.4, 14).
"Because he chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and without blame before Him in love" (Ef.1, 4). By the way, another reason for the doctrine of Origen on the pre-existence of our souls before creation of the world on a par with Jesus.
"Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus" (Evr.4, 1). By the way, handling "saints" is used by Paul in all his epistles to the Christians.
"It is not Christ himself to be a High Priest fame, but He who said to him:" You are my Son, today I have begotten you "(Evr.5, 5).
"For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim.2, 5). In this phrase - short and clear answer to all questions, and for any scholastic dogmas she does not leave the place.
And finally, I ask you to pay particular attention to the words: "Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Jesus Christ" (Gal.4, 7). That's who we are in this world.
A canonical notion of the God-Man, leading, as we have seen, to "split personality" of Jesus of Nazareth?
To justify the church applied a very interesting psychological trick: separately justified the divine essence of Christ (with many references to the Scriptures), and human nature (with equal number of references).
Because of this, as it is assumed self-evident that the reader initially tuned to the dogma of Christ, draw conclusions that these entities are present in Christ "neslitno, invariably, indivisible, inseparable," according to a ruling Council of Chalcedon 451
Indeed, the relationship of the divine and human natures of Christ nothing in Scripture does not say.
Yes, in the Gospel of John Jesus calls God "unbeliever" Apostle Thomas (In.20, 28). Yes, his divine essence of the apostle Paul talked a lot (Kol.1 ,16-17; Evr.1 ,1-3; Ef.3, 9; Rim.9, 5, 1 Tim.3, 16, etc.), but the same Apostle Paul, we read: "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we - the children of God" (Rim.8, 16). And about the "children of God" from the Apostle John (In.1, 12), we have already read.
All knew it and Origen, making the very same conclusions about which we talked a lot: no fundamental, insurmountable differences between the divine essence of Christ and the other people there.
Even if the difference and it was, and Christ would have "more God" than we do, that is no reason to declare whether it has two "neslitnyh" personalities - divine and human, that is, to make him mentally deranged.
We will try to at least partially, to "save the situation: although the nature of dogmatic" clarify "the 6 th ecumenical council in 680 identical to the individual, we still can talk seriously about the two natures of Christ, but in terms of its dual origin - human and the divine .
But this is true for all people.
Let's dwell on this long. The question of the relationship in humans of the divine and the human element - the most difficult, it was considered a huge number of philosophers of all times, and he can not be unambiguously resolved in our time, much of the Middle Ages - even more so. We will have another opportunity in this book about him to talk.
In a historical review (chapters 2-3), we examined the formation of Holy Tradition about the nature of Jesus of Nazareth, and saw how the teaching of the apostles was to "supplement" the dogmas of the Trinity and the God-man.
Recently, we showed that this addition had no basis in Scripture. Hence, all issues - only to Tradition.
It would be nice and analyze it in terms of common sense of our time, but what?
Just do not Lutheran - figures of the Reformation abolished the Holy Tradition "at the top. Still funny that such a global approach, they left intact the dogma of the Trinity. Do not guess, apparently, about the fake St. Jerome's in the Bible ...
So are the Catholic and Orthodox Tradition, but this is a huge multi-volume scale works of Aurelius Augustine, John of Damascus, together.
What? Write a new "collection of the apostles and the cathedral of the rules" and analyze it? The volume of books we have, unfortunately, not that ...
Since not all things to propose that we focus our consideration of the Holy Tradition to the most concise form - that of the Nicene-Constantinople Creed 325-381 years. (The capital of the Byzantine Empire in ancient Russia, as we remember, respect was called Constantinople, hence the interpretation of the Old Russian - Nicene-Constantinople Creed).
"Symbol" in ancient Greek just means "gathering together" or "expression", so that such an 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 of 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.
Do not be surprised Old Slavonic XV-XVI centuries - the church in the modern Russian language Creed not translate, as well as Orthodox prayers. This somehow does not write through "izhitsu" and "YAT", a modern alphabet - another paradox.
"I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, all things visible and invisible.
And in edinago Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages, Light from Light, true God from God, Begotten, uncreated, consubstantial to the Father, all things were Imzhe. We are for men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and the became man. Crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried. And the third day according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, and right hand of the Father sedyascha. And shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. Whose kingdom shall have no end.
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, Zhivotvoryaschago. Begotten proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son and spoklonyaema sslavima, glagolavshago prophets.
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 necessary yet to translate "symbol" of the modern Russian language:
"I believe in one God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, the Father before all time, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, uncreated, consubstantial to the Father. They all was created. For us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and the incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man. Crucified for the us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried. And resurrected on the third day in accordance with Scripture. And ascended into heaven, and the shrunken right of the Father. And come again in 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 praise and glory.
And in one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
I acknowledge one baptism for cleansing from sin. I hope for the resurrection of the dead and the afterlife.
Let it be so.
Let us first of all, careful reading of the key words "from the Father before all time ... born, uncreated, consubstantial, drifting Jesus Christ from us. As it can be understood as a modern man to accept her?
When born, so created, that is what is born. How can I give birth, not made?
Paradox: Nicene-Constantinopolitan formulation may be casuistically applicable not to the God the Son, and to ordinary people, born of women. All mothers to bear and give birth, they do people physically, but not all - spiritually. In principle, the physical creation of his son's 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, is the "first of all time", when there were no women, no genes, then surely created by God!
No, it does not tally "of the Father, begotten, nesotvoren.
A "consubstantial with the Father"?
When the Old Testament, God created man "in his own image and likeness", that is understandable. But if you understand "consubstantial" literally, then Jesus was not at all, God himself took his appearance and came to us, myself praying, talking to himself, etc. (Remember the teachings monarhianina Savelli?)
If not, then, "consubstantial" can not be taken literally, that is, Christ was an independent person. This, fortunately, no one disputes. But, then, if he, too, God, God with us two (and with the Holy Spirit - three), and we are pagans.
There remains only one version of the concept of "consubstantial": Christ - the image and likeness of God. We, as you know, too (Byt.1, 26). So, "consubstantial" Jesus above all we, the people.
You have noticed that about the Holy Spirit to "characters" do not even have to specify about the uncreated and consubstantial - and formulated as a third of God ("spoklonyaema and sslavima"), without any reservations?
Frank paganism? No, just the fact that this is just adding Ecumenical Council 381, and it did not do unfurled. The presiding Patriarch Gregory the Theologian Cathedral avoid unnecessary conflict with the followers of the former patriarch, "Dukhobors" Macedonia, and not put emphasis on controversial issues. It seems to be understood by itself, that what is the Second Person of the Trinity, so is the third.
Maybe they meant, but somehow bad happened ...
There are in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and other controversial moments.
For example, Christ became incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and a few words we read about the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father. It turns out that the Holy Spirit - a mediator in the birth of the 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 is pregnant from the "Holy Spirit" (Mf.1, 18). Once again proved that the apostle Matthew was not familiar with the problems of the Trinity, and its wording in the Nicene Creed simply moved from the "Apostolic" symbol.
Move something moved, but not in the Apostles' nor the Nicene 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 Son of God the Father, and his grandson (son of self-Holy Spirit).
What is the strength of tradition, that for 1600 years, no one corrected this merely "editorial" error! But Creed - 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 "birth, uncreated, consubstantial," we should not think. In fact, according to medieval notions, and faith.
And the modern Russian language Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed Orthodox Church does not translate, apparently in order that he subjectively perceived historically and discourage ponder.
Also, of course, a strange position - then, logically, "Symbol" should be taught not the language of the XV-XVI centuries, and in Greek, or at least the language of the baptism of Rus. And the historical tradition would have been strictly complied with, and certainly no one would have understood nothing ...
Thank God, though the Scriptures on the wave of liberal reforms of Alexander II in the 1860-67 years. relatively faithfully translated into modern Russian.
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 Costantino Polish 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 perceived with understanding and respect, but no more.
The fact that in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed orientation can and should be, we still talk.
All the major Christian churches consider the divine nature God-man, that Christ is ruler over the dead and alive (Rim.14, 9), has the power of the court (Rim.14, 10), is the subject of worship and prayer (1 korp.1, 2) , the source of grace (Rim.1, 7), the source of salvation (Rim.10, 9), the founder of any authority in the church (1 Kor.5, 4) ...
First, again swapped the cause and effect - if Jesus had received all of the above, ascended into heaven and sitting down on the right of God is its origin and essence says nothing.
Secondly, all this is the Apostle Paul refers to the messianic role of Christ as the Messiah, as we recall, means "Anointed of God", that is, a man with God, by some special powers, rights and abilities.
This we have already considered. Interestingly another.
A medieval church, rearranging the cause and effect, gave the Anointed in accordance with the dogma of the Trinity the divine essence, which is very suited the kings of all times, also "anoint" in the kingdom, and calling themselves "God's Anointed One."
The Emperors, kings and emperors were not enough to imagine himself on a par with the Messiah, would be even and gods. Just the same analogy with the Roman emperor Caligula, all the statues of pagan gods velevshim pristavit his head with a halo. Yes, about halo, I'm not kidding: the images of Christian saints, he migrated with statues of Roman emperors, and at last he is (in the form of pointed rays) was needed to head in August did not sit down pigeons and other birds ...
Okay, this is a personal matter emperors - a cult statues are set up and sculpt. 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 Emperor.
Not by chance because of the people was so popular cult of the "Blessed Virgin Mary, patroness" - she intercedes for us before Christ, the Saviour!
Should the same was in the minds of the people to be at least some "good", hence the huge number of icons, consecrated to the Virgin Maria, and a magnificent celebration of the stages of her life, 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 time the Savior went to the cross. Notice the eyes of the mother (In.19, 25). That's what theological paradoxes, it turns out you can turn a terrible human suffering ...
And do not 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 survived, probably only a few Arab-African countries. Pah-pah, 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 all-powerful 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 - the dogma of Christ, and not to declare Jesus according to Scripture - Christ, the Messiah, the Anointed of God, the divine origin of man, the Son of God, the immortal genius of divine super abilities? Choose something huge!
Ignoring the simple and accessible teaching of the apostles, the largest Christian churches still do not want to admit that the divine origin of Christ is similar to ours. And yet, until very recently appropriated by the divinity of the 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 may be set long, but it is a reasonable question:
- "After all, why you feel so ganged up on the dogmas of the Trinity and the God-man? Nowadays there are few who really speaks suggestion of any dogma directly by God or the Holy Spirit. Clearly, in the early Middle Ages there was a fierce political struggle in which these dogmas have been 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 an overwhelming majority of people as it is organic and absolutely essential part. In the end, not only priests Florensky and Alexander Men, and entirely "secular" philosophy - 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 Leo Karsavin (1882-1952) his theory of personality is fully built on this dogma.
So why break the spear? Thank God, now enjoys Orthodoxy absolutely deserved honor and respect, so let it be so, for what it is, and our common sense let us be in any other field. For example, in environmental or urban development "...
Serious question, and before him as a serious answer, I dare to ask: what Catholics, Lutherans or Anglicans - not Christians, and nothing in the world, except the Orthodox, no? A Catholic will remember the dogma of papal infallibility, Lutheran come up with something else, and you get that in Germany the common sense one, the other in England, France third, while Russia is known to be a unique way, but it is unclear where.
It is unlikely that Christ intended that his followers in different countries will be less irreconcilable enemies. Well though, 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 talked, acknowledged and Catholics and Lutherans.
So, the question - why fight against the Trinity?
First of all, I am in no way not going to fight either against Trinity, nor against the Orthodox or Catholic Church, nor against anyone else. Indeed - I'm a supporter of 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?
Theologically interpreted his death as atonement for our sins, but as a man - he died for his teaching, showed us an example of what can be a strong desire for goodness and love, just for her and you can go to a painful punishment.
And if Christ - 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: "That's what Christ and God, to preach the kindness and love, and for this to go on a cross. God, then hang on the cross and rise again - no problem, but that we, mere mortals do? It's better we get along somehow without goodness and love "...
And here comes a man in church, listening incomprehensible set of Old Slavonic chants - and all. What's up down there can get? For example, the reference to "Brave in his saints, our Lord Jesus Christ" - as he understood? Not all graduate theological seminaries ...
And if you would make an image of Christ are clear to everyone? And if often heard preaching goodness and love, including many hours of air time provided by broadcasters church! But if the patriarch of periodically turned the Orthodox Russians to abide by certain moral standards (up to compliance with the cleanliness of the streets), and their government - to stop the next war, eradicate corruption and other such evils of society!
Perhaps, then in our lives something would actually improve? After all, what a huge force - Orthodox spirituality, and hurt to see how it is spent on the mysterious medieval rituals and dogmas ...
A Christ as the Second Person of the Trinity, uncreated and consubstantial ", for modern man is dead, because intuitively understand. Divine essence is obtained mythical God-man, like Apollo, the human - the museum, as Alexander of Macedon, and their "neslitnoe, immutable, indivisible, inseparable," a combination of frankly absurd.
To illustrate, here is a very "simple" (on the philosophical and theological standards) the text of the writings of Leo Karsavina on personality.
Fair to say that Leo Platonovich on actually writing relatively simple and understandable, but as soon as it comes to official dogma - though you can see how stekleneyut brightest, lively eyes of this valiant and witty man, and from his pen goes as follows ( All italics are owned LP Karsavina):
"Hypostasis is the true identity (but not the mask!). However, hypostasis - God's personality, and if we could safely call God's hypostasis of God and even the personalities of Persons of God, we do not by themselves when they start to call the human alter ego, or a created identity. - Wicked and wrong. And this, of course, relates that in the God-man, two natures or two usii (and hence - two power two wills, two "soul"), but only one person - hypostasis of the Logos, which, of course, is not something a third between God and man, and not different from God but is God Himself.
So, in His humanity the God-man is personal only because He is in God's hypostasis (enypostasis), prichastvuet hypostasis of God and God has with God's alter ego and God, as himself. But, as the God-man is the perfect man, it is impossible to allow it was not something inherent in man, and a man was anything beyond the inherent Him. Hence, strictly speaking, there can not 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's hypostasis or person. And how can it be otherwise, since the true personality - God's hypostasis, but two cards can not both be true at once?
So in God we find the unity, higher than the individual person, because he - triipostasen and, moreover, the unity that dólzhno called personal because hypostatic being is not outside his usii and she is not opposed to being read its existence, and he himself - a personal God . This eliminates as the error, the recognition of individual identity for the only concrete personal existence, ie denied any nominalism, and, on the contrary, it is alleged reality symphonically-personal being. And thus - and "structure" the most individual personality, as mnogoedinstva. But, recognizing God's only true personality, we must understand the human person created, and in general, as a man of God prichastvuemuyu hypostasis or man possesses God's name. Hence the need for a special way to understand a person, namely - to understand it as the created substrate impersonal, unknowable and unfathomable like his God, and fully samodvizhny. The meaning of the same human and created being 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 grasp the essence of what has been said to him, I note that there is an attempt to make a dogma of the God-man, more logical, recognizing in Christ only one "true identity" - the divine.
What heresy it reminds us of? Right, Monophysitism.
Another important point. By Karsavina, man is "a created an impersonal substrate, uncertainty and incomprehensibility of his like God", and the meaning of his existence - "litsetvorenie" or "deification".
Despite the "courtesy" to the side of the official Church (derogatory term for the modern man "the created" - Leo Platonovich really could not write Genesis?), Does not look like it on the teachings of Origen on the pre-existence of souls and the divine essence of the people branded as heresy in 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 would lead to that new - it is well forgotten old heresy. And do 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 that "not pour new wine into bottles fragile, but otherwise the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles perish" (Mf.9, 17).
As a result, such an approach are obtained unimaginable intellectual strata, and cited a philosophical text Lion Karsavina - not the most complex and unreadable from the set written on this topic.
So our only chance for victory of common sense - to 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 New Testament.
And since, as we have shown, there was no dogma or Trinity, or God-man - what, have yet to do without them. Help us anything they can not, but to prevent - even as. We have just seen, in which a trap because they were hit by Russian philosopher Karsavin, so let's still learning from the mistakes of others, and their, as they say, make some later. "
Without mistakes no one has managed, but it was wrong, and Christ! What is his main mistake, that it was only to preach to Israel! (Mf.10 ,5-6). We have already said that if it were not the apostle Paul, the work of Christ and could die.
A doubt Jesus? (Mf.26 ,37-1939). How do they reconcile with the dogma of the Trinity and "consubstantial" of Christ to God the Father?
Surely the Second Person of the Trinity prayed the night before the arrest of the first hypostasis' carry past the cup? What a strange fellowship, unworthy of divine omniscient beings ... And the third hypostasis, it is interesting that at this time doing?
To close the issue with the view of Christ as the Second Person of the Trinity, I propose to recall the brilliant words of Caesar: "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 did so many centuries we have offended the great man?
But let us not laugh at the medieval delusions, just a pity that they still is dominated in all the main Christian churches.
Interestingly, when and who still dare to abandon the first canonical dogmas of the Trinity and the God-man - Orthodoxy, Catholicism or Lutheranism?
And Trinity could remain the same category of purely philosophical and historical attractions, such as Sofia - "God's Wisdom". The latter also had a convincing case in the canonical Scripture, and the church renounced the cult of Sofia in the early second millennium. Do not worry if this does not happen, and Christianity is not dead.
Note that in the twentieth century about Sophia remembered not only philosophers Vladimir Solovyov and Pavel Florensky. We remember and we all - St. Sophia Cathedral 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 can not be.
Moreover, 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 the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed - "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."
However, there is hardly any chance to survive until the merger. Theological questions are solved for centuries, but political, things happen, and does not solve ...
Contemporary evidence of God's existence
This chapter may at first glance seem superfluous - the book, then 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 gives us is a "life of the next century.
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 most fully described in the Apostle John the Theologian 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 for a sophisticated and distrustful Roman, said: "What is truth?" (In.18 38) and thus "effectively" finished conversation.
Remember the shocking picture of the artist Nikolai Ge, which is called: "What is truth?" Well-fed, contented life patrician triumphant gesture "otshivaet" against the wall, looking sullen, disheveled Jew ...
Fortress Pilate to some extent is understandable. It certainly was brought up in grekorimskoy 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 does not bring any arguments ...
Nevertheless, I propose to cited dialogue in greater detail. The fact is that 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 demonstrated in the early twentieth century, Albert Einstein, everything is relative.
The only thing Einstein somehow never raised his hand and left absolute - the concept of God. And where God is absolute - there is absolute truth. Is logical?
Unfortunately, it is logical to not more than the position of Jesus Christ in his conversation with Pilate. We've come to the same question - where absolute proof of the existence of God? Surely, if they are not - then there is no God and no truth, and Pontius Pilate was right?
And what if he went to the cross?
This question has troubled all and always. Even in conversation with Woland Berlioz Bulgakov (in the novel "The Master and Margarita") referred to evidence of the existence of God, which had five, who then denounced Kant, who then "had installed six proof" ...
The conversation then stalled and ended severed head of Berlioz. And that still have to prove?
The Orthodox tradition rejects the evidence of God's existence, in principle, considering them harmful to the faith. The Western theological thought a lot of work 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 developed Augustine of Hippo. He proceeded from the fact that a person loves only the good, and all things like as long as they is good. We love all things differently, so you need to in our minds lay 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? ..
Nevertheless, supersholast medieval Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) of the potential absurdity is not noticed and has compiled evidence of Augustine on the basis that we are always comparing things to each other, in terms of "more" and "less", but this method requires a comparison of some maximum, absolute God.
The result was so explicit scholasticism, that even do not want to comment on. Why the comparison requires a maximum - the absolute God? And what if a minimum - absolute devil? And if the poor have a hundred rubles, and from the rich man - a million, the latter is closer to God? Sorry, not serious.
The so-called "ontological" proof (coming from our ideas about being) invited Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109), a very extravagant and conflicting theologian, and "brought to mind" the great philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650).
The essence of the proof are as follows: I, a man - being imperfect, but I have the idea of being committed and compelled to think that this idea was suggested to me being who possesses all perfections - God. The same with the idea of infinity, that man as being finite, could not have imagined without the infinite God.
I can not refrain from another comment: the idea of a perfect being a standard "new Russian", I'm afraid, is very different from the Cartesian ...
Very cleverly approached the question of God's existence French thinker Blaise Pascal (1623-1662). Due to our limited, he believed, we can not know whether God exists or not, but choose for yourself one of the two versions we can. To something like a lottery: "guessed - not guessed. So what version to choose? There is no doubt that God exists, because if I win, we get eternal bliss, but in case of loss did not lose anything.
Okay, let's not bore the reader cosmological, physical and teleological, and many other evidence.
The main thing is that the great philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) in the "Critique of Pure Reason" subjected to all the existing evidence of the utter defeat of the fact that out of our subjective thought can not be the need for objective reality. For Kant, there is an insoluble contradiction between the limited experience and infinite output.
But, and here the tradition of the primacy of Kant's more evidence: in fact it is as yet understand the English philosopher-theologian William Ockham (1285-1349), who thought that the notion of God as infinite substance can not in principle be justified by a reasonable means of knowing. 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 around him and unprovable existence talked earlier philosophers (the Gnostics), and later ("subjective idealists"). And now, on this subject even rented movies (for example, "The Matrix") with subjects like the following: a kind of "bad" organizations to participate in our brain electrodes, and provides us (with the help of a supercomputer), the illusion of normal life on earth, and all we really lying in the tub with nutrient solution and serves as biobatareyami "for unknown purposes ...
Fortunately, against the illusory world and unprovable as rebels, our common sense that the most compelling looks "home" counterargument: if the "subjective idealist, God forbid, drop the hammer on his foot, he will be hurt regardless of the provable reality hammer or no.
However, give tribute to William Ockham: he was not only a philosopher of "subjective idealism", but also a remarkable critic of Catholic officialdom.
And how did he for all his freedom of thought, instead of burned at the stake, managed to obtain from the Church of the honorary title of "Invincible Doctor" - a purely medieval paradox. The fact that the illusory world of Occam 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.
In fact, one could communicate to the absurd conclusion Occam and offer at the same time and believe that the incident on the leg hammer hovered in the air.
But let's not get involved in a purely philosophical debate, provable whether the incident being auctioned.
We take the world around us objectively existing and will talk seriously about God's existence.
In the words of Bulgakov Woland on "the sixth proof" developed by Kant, had in mind the teachings of the past that, although the existence of God can not be proved, it can and should be recognized.
To do this, Kant proposed an ingenious moral argument: a person has a commitment to excellence and happiness unattainable in this world, so considerations of humanity require to admit that the harmony of happiness and perfection could be achieved if the immortality of the soul and the existence of God.
Simply put, without God's people would have no hope for happiness, everything would be "vanity" (as in Ecclesiastes), and live it would be at all sad.
I do not have to 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 places of common sense reasoning of the ordinary person familiar with the philosophy or hearsay, or from the school and the institute notes.
And let us stand up to 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 - whether unattainable in this world?
- Yes - many would say (as many think). - I know that Christianity - the teachings of kindness and love. It is a childhood solid.
So what? Christ - God, he is the Second Person of the Trinity, he is the God-man - let him and loves his neighbor and good doing. Or maybe Nicholas of Myra - he a saint, with a halo in the churches depicted ...
As for me, a sinner, so what hope in God and angels, it is better to hope to think I at himself, his friends, to colleagues, to business partners. You'll see - make money, I will live in a nice house with a beautiful woman, wife, buy a good car - not what happiness is? "
And if my readers will laugh and say that the foregoing is true only for the "new Russian" - okay, here's another example, at this time of life "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. The man believes that after death he will live in his works, writings, books, discoveries, inventions, etc., and it supports it.
And, of course, although the Old Testament preacher, and wrote about life as a "vanity" in terms of any creative person is not so terrible: we read the book of Ecclesiastes is almost three thousand years hence, not "vanity" was a life of its author whoever he is - King Solomon, or the king's clerk.
Nevertheless, not all that easy. Convince yourself something can be in many ways and hopefully be a lot on that, but more ...
"Godless" position has one serious flaw: to answer the question, "vanity" Does your own life, have only to oneself.
And gradually you start to think: but to whom all this must be? Who needs my paintings (books, inventions)? Nobody seems to be no tear to see them, all under the door for an autograph is not worth - so why should I? For whom will I spend a lot of forces in the "punching", running through the galleries (editorial, ministries, sponsors, etc.)?
For the sake of indifferent and unpredictable contemporary descendants?
Here is not far to Ekklesiastovoy "vanity of vanities." You think: that's good preacher, he was found in the Bible was placed, and suddenly I was something contemporaries, and do not recognize? And if the descendants do not recognize, or just do not stumble on my "masterpieces"? Then that life is a failure?
After understanding the above, depending on the storage card there are two ways.
First - continued creativity, but continuous suffering, doubt, and psychological self-destruction. Frankly, I am more sorry for the people themselves do not like a warehouse, and their wives and mothers. However, some of the heroic lady adapt and become the real "battle girlfriends, and even continuer case, but these, unfortunately, not enough.
Or the second way, in fact even more dangerous: it is better I am focusing on making money, I will stay a respected and respectable person, but we'll see ... a wife and mother in this case can sleep peacefully, but "distinguished and solid" person really threatens the creative death. After gradually start to think: not all be prophets (with the risk of being on the cross), but actually so bad ... 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 is the situation allows Orthodox Church to the conclusion about the dangers of creativity for personal development, as well as to assert that peace of mind can be achieved only through a deep and genuine faith, not "clouded" No arguments.
Indeed, genuine and "uncomplicated" faith gives the very "Kantian" hope for happiness in the life of the age "and supports the rights in all its 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 - even more so.
By the way, and Christ in full accordance 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" (Mf.22, 37).
Stress - mind.
So let us speculate about faith in God. And let us, by Occam and Kant, there could be no "direct" evidence - so maybe there will be indirect evidence of the existence of God?
Well, at least his spiritual presence on this earth?
Oddly enough, we'll have to remember the work of Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy (1886). However, solely due to the sound of the name.
Classical German philosophy (XVIII-XIX cc.) Differed primarily from the fact that the assumed alignment of comprehensive philosophical systems and some proschityvanie the future of humanity (eg, dialectic and "logos" Hegel's doctrine of "eternal peace" Kant, "a closed commercial state "Fichte) ...
Engels, of course, did not regard Marxism to classical German philosophy, otherwise he would not titled so their work. Would be, that Marxism was over before it started. And in fact something Engels was right, and if he sacrificed his good name for a philosopher of evil name of a Communist - God is with him.
German classical philosophy really ended around the time when Engels wrote about this. All subsequent philosophical systems - and Freudianism, and Nietzscheanism, and existentialism - is no longer believed in the steady progress of history and did not attempt to calculate the path of humanity to a brighter future dialectical.
And how could figure that out in an unpredictable twentieth century? In this century, for example, mankind has acquired the potential at any moment to destroy itself. Can you predict the future if the huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons?
Most "independent" philosophers of the twentieth century understood this and went into the study of the human unconscious and spirituality. Instincts, libido, super-ego, Superman, existential ...
Remained one relic philosophical system, although you might encounter a break with classical German philosophy, but do not give up hope to specify the path of humanity into a bright future, but more and gets to solve practical problems that arise on the way there - you've guessed, 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. And in the West communist idea has many followers.
Fortunately, the Marxist ideology had ended with the Soviet Union and Soviet power. And what is left of these systems?
I emphasize - spiritual, ambitious, universal, recognized in varying degrees by all? Probably, such a system, we will be able to serve as a starting point for finding evidence of the presence on the ground of a higher power - God.
Let us remember. Of course, immediately begs the religion. Moreover, we note this is not a simple splash of fashion to the "forbidden fruit", which was Russian Orthodoxy in the Soviet era. Yes, the withdrawal of ideology from the minds of Russians seem to be room for the religious views, but look to the west - there was no ideology, but people go to church, both at work and this is really a mass phenomenon.
Well, religion recorded, let us recall further.
Theatres, museums, exhibition halls ... Not everywhere, but there are queues, especially on weekends and holidays. Where are, where not - 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?
At the word "morality" in our time, pragmatic above all an association with its "everyday" forms such as "do not smoke, not sorite. In reality the spiritual part of morality (humanism, morality, compassion, neighbor) is very closely linked to the religion. In Muslim countries, agree that the concept of the ideals of humanism (and even more on the norms of behavior or morality) are very different from Christian.
Therefore, we will continue 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, as a rule, on certain specific terms of the field of art or religion. The word "subculture" has the prefix "sub" - "under", ie, the independent system is not meant simply to identify.
"The ideals of democracy" in their modern, "Americanized" form is not suitable as an idealistic system, because they are already pursuing a materialistic goal - in the best case, the improvement of government, social welfare and others, and in the worst case, they 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 much to say in later chapters, but from the global spiritual systems more than anything you can not remember.
So, to 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.
My first thought - religion and art are in irreconcilable enmity. This stereotype is under a clear basis for a religious dogma - orthodox faith does not like the art in principle and believes the word "art" derived from the word "art" that is a kind of diabolical temptation.
Father Florensky in the book "Pillar and Foundation of Truth, for example, says:" No wonder the mysterious and seductive smile all persons Leonardo da Vinci, expressing skepticism, falling away from God and human samoupor "know" is in fact a smile of poise and bewilderment: they themselves lost, and this is particularly evident in "La Gioconda". In essence, it - a smile of sin, seduction and charm - a smile prodigal and corrupt nothing positive expressing (in fact of the mystery of it), except for some sort of internal confusion, some inner spirit of vanity, but - and lack of repentance .
He was seconded by Archimandrite Raphael (Karelin) in the book "Christianity and Modernism":
"Human art, literature and poetry - this is in large part an element of human passions, but very subtle, where evil is manifested in the guise of kindness, and gross malformations poeticized and have attractive appearance. Passion for worldly art, full integration into the worldly perspective separates, separates man from eternity. A person staying in the captivity of his dreams and dreams, lives in a false, set up his own a world where there are demonic forces. "
Let us follow Paul Florensky and Rafail Karelin find "demonic forces" in the works Mikeladzhelo or blame Van Gogh in "full involvement in the worldly perspective. With a great desire and even more imagination, one can see the diabolical machinations and "Moonlight Sonata" and "War and Peace" ...
Better to ask the question:
In the Middle Ages, art was almost exclusively ecclesiastical. More than a thousand years ... How can the church tolerate such a diabolical art?
I probably answer:
- "Art at that time did not exist at all! And if the tolerance for all sorts of diabolical machinations of Catholicism allowed in Romanesque and Gothic art some (however small) deviation from the ecclesiastical canons, and the actors stray somehow not burned at the stake, then for sure we have 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 ... Skomorokhov and other pagan lewdness such as a holiday of Ivan Kupala iznichtozhali on the vine, and if not so destructive and irresponsible citizens today still read novels, watch pictures, go to the theater - so here they are, the diabolical machinations ...
We define a more specific question - and icons?
The answer by the Church, no doubt, be as follows:
- "All obeyed the canons of iconography and the art was not. Icon - not a work of art, but an image, elevate the mind and a sense of praying to the subject represented. And if the icon along the way art critics considered a work of art - that is their business. "
On this there is another question: why do churches require such complexity?
What - I will explain.
Not only that church for many centuries, forced to continually explain the difference between an icon and a piece of art and, accordingly, to convince people that a properly consecrated work of the village "Bogomaza» XIX century, has the same divine power and holiness, as a masterpiece of Theophanes the Greek.
It may seem that the Christian church went on a clear and frank violation of the second commandment of the Holy: "Do not get yourselves an idol, and any image that is in heaven above or on the earth beneath, or that the water under the earth. Do not worship them or serve them ... "(Ish.20 4).
A second violation of the commandment of the Holy, you know the name? Idolatry.
Why did violate the commandment? Would forego more 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 deal. I think one more trip "to the roots" would be interesting, useful for the perception of further material, and most importantly, is required for final conclusions of this chapter.
We talked a lot about the Roman Empire, and let's remember, apart from Roman law, Roman mores. Jesus was crucified during the reign of Tiberius. Then the rules of Caligula, then Claudius, then Nero.
It is necessary to comment on manners? 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 did not know then and what was happening in Rome and in most provinces - read "Life 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.
It is no wonder that 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 a successor of the ascetic Jewish tradition, Moses is introduced.
We will not attempt 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 the I century AD one of the reasons have affected the country woes is considered a sin of Solomon era.
Important role in the formation of an ascetic tradition played a fiery denunciation of the Old Testament prophets VI-IV 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 had somehow inconvenient accrete a large number of wives and concubines, and especially to spend time in feasts and "booze". A vast majority of Jews for this and did not have the financial possibilities - Judea was poor and robbed the province.
So, 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 distribution" of Christian preaching. Not surprisingly - that continued the Greek tradition of Ovidius and Horace sang the praises of sexual perversion, feasts, pagan gods and stuff like that. Pyshnotelye beauty on the frescoes, naturally, provoked not only the apostles, but a large part of the Roman intelligentsia.
And so far the art of ancient Rome, especially the fine is considered to be decadent, and somehow did not even remember that it is in Roman art first appeared scope and perspective, and in architecture - arches and vaults.
The war of the Christian ideology with Roman art ended with the victory on all fronts when Christianity, having experienced two centuries of persecution, has acquired the same powerful supporter in the person of Constantine the Great and the beginning of the IV. became the state religion of the Roman Empire. By the end of V in. Roman mores were (at least outwardly) is much more ascetic, and most importantly - the art has become pronounced "Christian" in nature.
The fact that the official Church considers the first iconographer evangelist Luke - a pure legend, not supported by any facts or evidence. Master 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, we can assume that the evangelist Luke suddenly "demanded by the holy sacrifice Apollo" and he decided to forgo the second commandment of the Holy on his own initiative, but it is very doubtful whether it is for a professional writer and scholar in the I century AD
In fact, the formation of Christian art was a gradual and natural.
Although the sign of the cross used in III century (Tertullian spoke of this), the cross became the official symbol of Christianity only by Constantine the Great (IV century), and the ancient symbols were the fish and bread, which Christ fed the multitudes in Galilee.
Why do fish have been selected - the fact is that the first letters of the Greek word "ihtios" ("fish") - were "monogram" Jesus Christ (IH). These characters are in a purely utilitarian purposes of a secret society depicted on the walls of famous catacomb churches.
It is likely that this "Masonic signs and started Christian art.
In the II-III centuries 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 (In.10, 11), made entirely in the Roman style.
At the same time was and the transformation of artistic forms. Muscular, handsome and beautiful classical pyshnotelye ("heathen") Roman wrestler lost on Christian images place clumsy "icon-painting" man.
Most art historians consider "Christianization" Art consequence of the destruction of Rome in the V century. How do we teach in art schools, the classical tradition in art had been lost due to physical destruction of artists.
This is another outdated stereotype. Rome, as we know, never to the base is not destroyed, the population of polls is not exterminated, the secrets of Roman art were not catastrophically lost, but simply art has become another.
And the emperor of Constantinople, formally called themselves Roman, and the rulers of the barbarian kingdom in the West inherited from the time of Constantine the Great had already formed the Christian art and did not encourage the image of naked beauties or sung in verse homosexual love.
Incidentally, the "classical" Greek-Roman art - that's it, there were separate from the religious and moral views? Which of the gods believed (polygamist Jupiter, Venus, depraved, bloody Mars), by the people and portrayed.
And used to depict the gods - and in the Christian era continue 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, being executed in the same "icon-painting" style. One could say - Romanesque, but many critics somehow believe that the Romanesque style appeared only at the end of the first millennium, and before that there was nothing but early Christian iconography.
In fact, even the arch of Constantine the Great in Rome depicts Big-little men are absolutely in the Romanesque style. Well, let's say, the icon-painting. The same can be said about 321 murals at the residence of Crispus, the son of Constantine, and about the sarcophagus of Junius Bass (359), about a portrait of the philosopher-politician Boethius (early VI century), about the King of the Lombards helmet at about the same time.
By the way, another argument against the "loss of skills": was Constantine the Great, or King of the Lombards could find any masters and depicted in their imperial symbols perfectly composed, powerful and muscular men.
But art has been others. The reasons for this, we consider a slightly later, but so far only say:
In the middle of the first millennium art under the influence of Christianization of morals and government took on new forms, but there was a lump, a radical change, the more the loss of art or its complete transformation into any other event, say no.
Early Christian art and its integral part, icons - such as normal, organic continuation of ancient Greek and Roman traditions, such as impressionism toward classicism. Just started a new era.
But why did the victorious Christians violate the second commandment of the Holy and not abolished the art "at the top"? And right to left as "secular" - As it is, and 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 - had to save Christianity from the barbarians.
While there, the second version is no longer - remember the history of the struggle with the early church heresies (monarhianstvom, Arians, 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, at a gallop across Europe, purely familiarization ... But such disputes have been conducted and at a far less significant problems, such as the need to post, the 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 no. None of the dispute, not a single "enemy voices" no "deviation from the general line of the church" to VIII 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 to Moses to carve two cherubim of the mercy seat (Ish.25, 19).
But this argument is not cited - did not seem the case.
Seven hundred years no one seemed not to notice the flagrant violation not some vague hint of John the Divine, and the second commandment of the Holy!
Well, is not it strange?
No, not really. The fact that the Christian church, despite all the declarations, could not live without art!
If the icons were simply one of the tenets of the church - which, really for so many centuries, there would want to spend on this topic global debate and brand icons as heresy?
No, icons, and not just the canonical (if there was no strict rules of the images of saints), but the real work of art - differentiation between the Christian church from Judaism, and did the perception of Christianity more comprehensible to the Gentiles.
Perhaps, by the way, it is coupled with the Arians saved Christian Rome from the barbarians and led to their polls treatment. Barbara could read something bad, the Scriptures for them was tricky, but the picture looked ...
Here is more typical example of how the church had to be art, and how she was saved from the "external enemy" - iconoclasm.
Prophet Mohammed at the beginning of VII 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 Muslim caliphs conquered the Middle East, and conquered a great part of the Christian world, their charges became difficult to ignore.
Constantinople, Emperor Leo III was Isaurian solve the problem globally, starting in 726, the relentless struggle against the icons - the so-called iconoclasm. The struggle continued by his son Constantine V, then Leo IV ...
We remember that in Byzantium on theological issues word of the Emperor almost always been "the ultimate truth." But with the icons there was a unique case - the church has teamed up and got me back! From iconoclasm fought the Patriarch of Constantinople Herman, the Patriarch took the Pope, in this struggle became famous famous theologian John of Damascus.
Emperors began a crackdown on icon-. Still does not work: throughout the empire, here and there broke the bloody riots, the Church of Greece lifted a popular uprising, much of the Italian possessions of the empire gave herself under the authority of the Lombards, not wanting to put up with iconoclasm ...
But how many masterpieces then died in the Byzantine Empire - did not find it. Mosaics are usually only paint or zashtukaturivali and then they can be cleaned, but the icons and burned, and cut.
Cathedral, held not far from Constantinople in 754, the Under strong pressure from Constantine V announced that "rebuilding the images of saints through the material of paints and colors is a matter of useless, idle, and even your ungodly and devilish."
7 th Ecumenical (2 nd Nicene) Church 787, taking advantage of the death of Leo IV and sympathy icons of his widow, regent Irene, the newly established veneration of icons.
Further, depending on the personality of the emperor, the struggle was with mixed success and the situation was for the church a losing: how easy is the state religion to fight against the state?
But the church survived!
In 842, the Council of Constantinople finally settled with the veneration of icons such casuistic reasoning: "Honoring the icons and the worship of them refers not to the substance of the icon, not the wood or paint, and to him who is depicted on an icon, therefore, has no nature of idolatry."
Arguments, frankly, quite weak.
First, the icons represent not only God, Christ and the Angels, but at home, and trees and people and animals, and even the devils in hell. With the icon of the Last Judgement, for example, we find that we worship, but Jesus, many who, while not all deserve it.
Secondly, this argument does not apply to "secular" art, and it remained in the cold church dogma.
Thirdly, the second holy commandment still so clearly prohibited to portray that whatsoever, that even God commanded Moses to carve the cherubim (Ish.25, 19) looks very convincing counterargument, and so ruling council - and even more so.
In fact, there are far more serious theological arguments and iconography, and any other fine art. We will talk about this in the next chapter. But the reasoning of the Cathedral 842 years, if 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 the 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 Christianised 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 have learned: No matter what the official theology, the Church considers art as its principal component, so more important than any canons (I emphasize - not even the key types of the Trinity), which is not allowed on this occasion no controversy, but when the VIII century, the church right to the art have tried to take away - she defended him.
And after the separation of churches in 1054 as an art 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 canons of icon painting, leading to the Romanesque art, then to the Gothic, and then to the Renaissance. And these accusations are the same in other areas of art - as, for example, the West "rolled" to "Decameron" Bokachcho? How well it all started at St. Augustine ...
In this case, the defender of the West will speak and answer: What are you waiting on the culture, the architecture still based on Roman Empire?
In fact, after many redrawing the map of Europe in the V-VIII centuries, the empire of Charlemagne, has submitted a result, most barbarous states, is a highly eclectic fusion of Roman statehood, the barbaric customs and the Christian religion.
And remember the medieval papacy - which there were manners? So-so ... The fish rots from the head, the tricks of the monks and priests are also known. The Inquisition, of course, was to act as "moral police", but in what form it led - read the macabre 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), his mistress was the sister of Petrarch, John XXIII (1410-1415) in a fit of madness excommunicated ... Angels, Alexander VI Borgia (1492-1503) became famous in the style orgies of Caligula ... Absolute power is known to be corrupt, but the pope to use it.
Attempts to separate the fighters for the purity of the faith "to improve morals" does not end good - think of the Dominican monk Savonarola (1452-1498), land in the fire inquisition after several years of struggle against the luxury and bustle of secular art.
This "muddy water" art could not enjoy a degree of freedom.
Interestingly another: as this freedom to understand artists. If you have been waiting from the bold and free of the XIII century masters such as Michelangelo's paintings - in vain. Not a lack of freedom was the case, but art is not ripe (rhyme turned by chance).
It is not ripe it is not in terms of skill. What really any Italian master XIII-XIV centuries., Having before my eyes a lot of perfectly preserved Roman frescoes, not "guessed" to correct the volume, perspective, antique or "secular" subjects? Excellence is not enough? Is this not. 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 the matter was not in the public or religious taboos - they'd have found how to bypass it would wish. Imagine a "black market" non-canonical painting somewhere in Florence XIV century? From under the counter selling landscapes with the right perspective or images of brawny heroes ...
But, joking apart, would direct prohibitions - would such markets. In the 14th century, society is more like art than in the fourth.
From all this it follows that the arts throughout the Middle Ages did not accept the ancient tradition, guided by some internal laws of its development, rather than the lack of masters or prohibitions of the authorities.
When the western church nevertheless beginning to struggle with the art, it was too late - XVI century. And the fight started, not Catholics, and leaders of the Reformation.
Luther and Calvin declared painting idolatry according to the very second the Holy commandments, branded theaters as "pagan 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 do not say - they died in the first place.
Fortunately, the yard was already XVI century, and contemporaries of Luther and Calvin, do not enter into theological controversy - Michelangelo, Raphael, Titian - could feel relatively calm. Undoubtedly, the Reformation a few "correct" and morals of Catholic countries, but "secular" component in the society was already so strong that the rulers and the aristocracy is not much concerned about the "art critics" the differences between Catholics and Protestants. A traditional patrons of 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 religion and art at rest, giving them complete freedom to develop independently of each other. And on the monopoly of a particular style of art, as of a Christian dogma, it was impossible to say.
It has, finally, and modern philosophy (Bacon, Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza), and then the German classical philosophy. "Confide algebra harmony" philosophy of the beginning and in respect of religion, and the art. At last, however, a noticeable effect is not provided. Russia was not so lucky, but until then we still reach out.
So far we have seen that Western art after the separation of church feel quite normal, no one artificially (unintentional tautology) is not directed to one or another direction, course of Romanesque, Gothic and Renaissance art is absolutely natural, logical and inseparable from the moral and developmental processes Europe.
Attempts to "command" art of the papacy, of course, have been, but they were quite civilized nature of the type "who pays the piper calls the tune." Yes, and the papal order was riding recognition and wealth for any artist - remember St. Peter's and Sistine Chapel.
- "That's right - may I say - that's the fall of Western mores! Pope, committed themselves to fornication, just the art of "lost" and gave it to evolve, regardless of religion.
But until Russia harmful Western influences had sunk only in the XVIII century, and before that the Orthodox Church with negative phenomena such as art has fought and won! They are in the early XV century, the brothers Van Eiki wrote seductive three-dimensional images such as Adam and Eve in the Ghent Altarpiece - would have written them a contemporary of Andrei Rublev something like that, suddenly landed on the fire or to count! "
Well, as we have in Russia made short work of dissidents - are we really know, but would have written Rublev anything in style or even Van Eyck technique, even with a hypothetical guarantee of immunity - a question.
First of all, how was he to know about style and technique of the West? Abroad iconographers did not go, 'catalogs of art "have not been released, and even foreign wars, facilitate the exchange of information, Russia in XV century did not lead (Tatar raids do not count). Full-scale contacts with the West began, really, only in the XVIII century.
Hence, only the natural course of development of Russian art could bring Andrei Rublev's desire to write something in the style of Van Eyck and Simon Ushakov (XVII cent.) - In the style of Rembrandt (also because contemporaries).
Stress - to the desire. Could it be them? A ban would be whether or not he is a desire to realize - is another question.
Thus, it is necessary to consider the development of Russian art, and with it the orthodoxy. To do this we have to go back to the division of Churches in 1054 and to Byzantium.
Since the Byzantine Empire was wrong by the time the separation of churches. In the XI 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.
On the weakening of Byzantium, says first and foremost the fact that a small army of pagan tribes from the banks of the Dnieper, led by no one in Europe by an unknown commander Oleg in 907, not only came to Constantinople and laid siege to it, but also forced to pay a certain tribute, and Oleg is allegedly arrived at the gate shield.
The historical paradox: it is the military defeat of the Byzantine Empire was the greatest victory of its culture and religion, saved the descendants of Oleg.
But let's order.
The Byzantine empire was close to death. In 1204, Constantinople during the 4 th Crusade was captured 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. At the beginning of XIV century the Muslims (Turks) once again robbed the empire of Asia Minor, then the current Yugoslavia ...
To understand what was at the same time with Orthodoxy, recall kingdom of Judah and the Jewish religion. An excursion to the distant past will be helpful to us in connection with the fact that the Byzantines in the early second millennium BC was in the position of Jews middle of the first millennium BC.
The fact that Judea in the days of Jesus Christ was oppressed Roman province, we have seen in the first chapter.
But know kingdom of Judah, and other times - the state prosperous time of King Solomon (X century BC). Flourished at the court of Solomon and all sorts of arts and sciences, and the famous Solomon premnogoy wisdom. It is 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 not in anyone. And no wonder - as we have said, a strong power only believes in himself and forgets about the transience of all earthly things. Indeed, during the Solomon talked about religion except the priests, and it is probably not all.
A strong power - this is certainly good, but any effect sooner or later there is another, more powerful. And if the force - not more than a legend, and "window dressing", then does tragedy.
It's me, oddly enough, about the "great and powerful" kingdom of Solomon, as it appears on first reading the Old Testament. It's really not that bright. Unless, of course, carefully careful reading.
Solomon's Temple, as is known, was the pride and joy of Israel, and stood over Jerusalem. Our imagination pririsovyvaet him more and shiny golden dome and get something like the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, but also an architectural masterpiece, just as much of it written in the Bible ...
In fact, the dimensions of this "superhrama" were as follows: length - 60 width - 20, height 30 cubits (3 Tsar.6, 2), ie, the length of about 24 m, width - 8, height - 12! At the top was not the dome, and the most common roof.
Take the small church near Moscow, remove it from the "onion", remove the bell - and you get "beauty and pride" of King Solomon and the entire people of Israel.
And in the Jerusalem temple was three floors and a lot of wooden outbuildings around, so that in terms of internal volume and compositional integrity, he is not "pulled" even on the outskirts of Moscow church. And how pathetic watched the "architectural masterpiece" compared with his contemporary Egyptian temples - can imagine.
Characteristically, the person himself, Solomon built a three-storied palace 100h50h30 cubits, that is equal to the height of the temple, only twice as large. Even more significant that in the temple, he put a lot of images of cherubs (3 Tsar.6, 23), and in his palace, even the lions (3 Tsar.10, 19), that is, its a little worried about the second holy commandment "Do not get yourselves an idol and no images "...
They built a temple for seven years, and the wooden palace - 13, indicating very weak economy of ancient Israel. No wonder - "official" King Solomon's revenue amounted to 666 "talents" in the year (3 Tsar.10, 14). Include "unaccounted cash", we get at best a few thousand. Calculate the current rate in dollars or rubles is difficult, therefore, bring to compare costs utensils Persian king Ahasuerus: 30000 (thirty thousand) "talents" (Esf.1, 8).
So a great scale of the Israeli-kingdom of Judah ...
In fact, Solomon was a skilled diplomat, was able to enter into advantageous dynastic marriages and the time correctly balanced between the truly powerful neighbors - Egypt, Assyria and Babylon.
That, incidentally, remarkable that a great spiritual heritage drevneizrailskogo kingdom, by which a modest three-storey structure 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 remember about God.
The whole history of the kings of Judah after Solomon - is the story of the decline of the Jewish state and simultaneously 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 its national unity. In all the synagogues of the world of service and to this day are virtually identical, and minor ritual differences between the Hasidim 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 - I had to think about rallying the nation in the face coming from the Romans mortal danger (not less than the time of Auschwitz), and the new nation of the flow split.
Return to Byzantium.
So how hard (in comparison with Catholicism), the canons of orthodoxy - it was an instinctive desire to preserve their culture and national self-awareness during the collapse of statehood.
Probably not, certainly, 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. At best, it would become museum curiosities, such as cleared frescoes of the cathedral of St. Sophia in Istanbul, the twentieth century.
But the Vikings in 907 Oleg 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, but the more the leader? Clearly it was that the Byzantines the shield subvert and destroy immediately after the departure of the Slavs ... But sounds very impressive - your shield on the gates of Constantinople ...
St. Vladimir clear sun, knowing how much a pound of hard times (he was not just the youngest son of Svyatoslav, but also from the maid, and took the throne after a long, hard and not always cleanly control), saw salvation in the Orthodox Church either to her soul , whether for his princely power.
So, Russia in the late tenth century, adopted the Orthodox baptism, and with it virtually all the components of Byzantine culture and art. What happened to them further on what ground they were in Kievan Rus?
Ironically, they had not been any major changes until the XV century. Yes, and in the XV century, development was reflected in the invitation of Italian masters to build Russian Churches (Assumption and Archangel Cathedral in the Kremlin), in XVI century in Russia was to penetrate the German Gothic (Research Wolfgang Kavelmahera - St. Basil's Cathedral). Orthodox canons remained intact until the patriarch Nikon (middle of XVII century.), Icons, too.
You can take offense to Russia, which is so poorly "developed" Orthodoxy and arts along with him. Can the same be proud of - how about it, "Holy" in the integrity preserved ancient Christian tradition.
Or you could see - could it be otherwise? Artificial, forced transfer of Byzantine culture in the absolute vacuum of wild 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 of architectures speech could not be.
Same with the literature and the visual arts - how could the Russian national identity? Jumping over the fire to describe? By the time frivolously. Even with the "Lay" can not possibly understand - fake or not? I want to, of course, have at least one monument originally Russian literature of pre-Mongol period ...
Who came to Russia in 1237, the Mongols and did "freeze" the development of Orthodox dogma for the same reasons as in the Byzantine Empire - Russian state was in mortal danger. A Mongol-Tatar trends in Russian art for two hundred years, the yoke does not appear - the Mongols with art, too, was somehow not very ...
In Europe at this time contact was very limited, and the influence of early Gothic architecture can be traced only in a few churches in Pskov and Novgorod. But this is a purely local.
When Ivan III in the late XV century. There was a short period of relative stability. Only about forty years, and it's stability can not be named - went subordination 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 it appears those women hero of the film Eisenstein - harsh but fair fighter for centralized power. But in the end of his half-century reign (1533-1584) Russia was just devastated. It wiped out the population of Novgorod, depopulated whole regions, the Swedes seized the Baltic Sea, the Crimean Khans in their raids began to reach Moscow. This since Tokhtamish not know!
Clever and talented Boris Godunov was hated by the people and nothing to fix failed. About what happened in Russia in the Time of Troubles (beginning of the XVII century), to tell, I think not.
So where in the art could come to new developments? From drunken Polish soldier False Dmitry?
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 ...
The fact that Fedor Ioannovich (in fact Godunov) in 1589, Metropolitan of All Russia received the title of the patriarch - dogmatics at anything, the question was purely political in nature. Ecumenical Patriarch of Russia received financial support (Byzantium at that time had disappeared from the map), and could not recognize Russia's right to separate the patriarch.
And only in the XVII century, when Mikhail Fyodorovich Alexis, the situation in society has become more or less stable, and an instinctive grip of orthodoxy to set the usual canons gave way to a theological dispute split the church and under Patriarch Nikon.
Before this "Holy kept the Orthodox faith" in an unchanged form is not a good life and art than traditional Byzantine iconography and the same architectures, the other could not possibly be. Of course, specialist distinguish the icon of the Pskov school of the XIV century from the Moscow School of XVI century, but such diversity, both in the West, was not.
In Russia, as everywhere, the art has developed its own laws, and no meaningful control action by the state or the Orthodox Church has not taken place - simply the art of Byzantium and the other was in the XI-XVII centuries could not be.
I could not imagine Andrei Rublev, that you can write something other than strictly canonical icons. Could provide - would have written, there is no state religion could not have by Order to subjugate the will of the great artist, even under pain of death.
Just please do not make a conclusion that Russian art because of all the above reasons, lagged behind the West for 500 years. What if Orthodoxy has not developed the doctrine of purgatory (Catholic dogma in 1439), it lagged behind Catholicism?
No, art and religion - not mathematics and atomic physics, to them the standard concept of progress is absolutely not applicable, they are developing 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, does not occur to call them "retarded".
If the ruble did not know oil paints or "correct" perspective, his contribution to the art did not become smaller - he felt and knew how to convey something more important. And to learn new techniques of painting and prosody - for a professional it is worth nothing that showed an unprecedented rise of Russian art XVIII-XIX centuries.
In the XVIII century, while the Germans created a classic German philosophy, Russia has created a kind of European state.
Peter I and Catherine II - no more Russian Tsar was not deemed worthy of 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. Somewhere become more - Poland and Finland ...
And what, as we said, different strong state? Faith only in themselves. And religion, and art by the State is seen as some tools of influence.
However, in the XVIII century is very "inappropriate" it became clear that the traditions and arts, and religion is much older than state and have immense self-reliance. And then, and international contacts have expanded, and the West began the revolution, which also strengthens the authority of the state.
What could I do the Emperors, which claims to control over all spheres of life, including spiritual? Fight ...
From the church (I emphasize - the church, not religion), using its weakening after Nikonovsky split, cracked down even the Tsar.
Not only did he pour on gun bell (as we happily reported the Soviet historiography). He also has abolished in 1700, the Russian patriarchate. From 1721 to 1917. Church ruled the Holy Synod - the state agency with "secular" the chief prosecutor at the head.
What kind of development the orthodox tenets 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 headaches? And 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 people." Already looks funny lexicon Soviet atheistic propaganda, right? But the tool is, indeed, was nothing done.
But the historical arena came art. "Golden Age", unsuccessful attempts to Nicholas I «drag and do not let go", "liberalization" of the reign of Alexander II - Well-known examples. And in the early twentieth century art completely dominated men's minds.
Intelligentsia "Silver Age" has constantly thought of religion only in the context of art. I will say more - the use of religion as a tool for art.
In short, imagine a situation where no religion uses icons, and icons - religion! But since the "Silver Age" and was.
A good example - the church in Abramtsevo built Vasnetsov. Next to her - "The Hut of Baba-Yaga, built by the same Vasnetsov. So-so orthodox faith and ecclesiastical 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 folk proverb - holy place is never empty. When in the XVIII century the Russian state could dominate the church, came to the stage 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 gave way to a creative rethinking of orthodox traditions such as the later didactic works of Leo Tolstoy. So, by the way, creative, that Tolstoy in 1901, was excommunicated from the church ...
Yes, and the novel "Crime and Punishment, for example, reproduces the entire path to the Christian worldview, but not the church as a writer Dostoevsky!
However, we are unfairly passed over a philosophical doctrine, which has absorbed many of the achievements zahirevshey by the time of German classical philosophy, and which gave on the basis of specific Russian statehood unprecedented shoots.
"The Marxist doctrine is omnipotent because it is true". Rare on the primitive and its effect phrase Lenin, right?
But we will not be judged strictly power-hungry politician, 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, realized that the idea of government by itself is unable to ignite the minds and ideas of freedom of the sample the French Revolution, or simply a promise to feed the people is extremely vague and wandering - they were used and the People, and the Cadets, and the SR ...
What was needed was "an idealistic idea." They are, as we know, might be only two - 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 not enjoyed.
It could be a witness against the flamboyant nastiness 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 now.
Lenin chose neither one nor the other, 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 have 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 understands the beginning of the third millennium: 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 a seemingly invincible enemy - religion and art. And why opponents? Because, as it turned out, put them in the service of dubious Marxist ideas of the future was impossible.
Make adjustments to their Christian religion Soviet regime did not try. She was my kind of theology - Marxism, echoes Churches - Party meeting and political information. As a pathetic, though, compared with the traditions of the Apostle Paul ...
As for 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.
No wonder - because the Soviet government to create their "pocket" art, stirring the hearts and minds the images of Lenin at the Congress of the Soviets and Stalin on the White Sea Canal, and failed.
So it turned out 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. In fact, what is the history of 70 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 worst for the state, built on faith, rather than on the economy - people stopped believing. In Marxist bright future, of course.
Since Orthodoxy has "reversed" even Stalin. Almost completely trampled on the church (in 1939 in Russia was only about a hundred of existing churches, but at large - four bishops) in 1943, realizing the need for a cohesive national idea that dictators are allowed to open churches, seminaries, has restored the patriarchate. However, under the control of state security, but at least unofficially, not like that at the time of the Holy Synod.
And when we started "Gorbachev's perestroika, glasnost and political freedoms, the convulsion flow truthful or just washed away all the real art of 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.
Hence, we can finish our historical review and state:
Religion and art in the course of history and won the competition in the spiritual world of people today do not have.
Religion and art - the phenomenon of one level in the same 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 volitional order.
We have step by step approach to the 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 - the one 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, 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 existence of God - about art.
Is the art a unified system of values or not?
We will not delve into many philosophical definitions of the essence of art. For me the most fundamental is that a work of art first and foremost a unique, original, no one repeats plagiatiruet not and will not copy ...
My readers are reasonable people will notice 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 to museums. By the way, found that many successors, including here 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 copyrights personal tastes. But the talk on this subject should be at least the following terms:
Is there anyway of some general criteria for evaluating 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 obtyanuli 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 single system of values - any successful (and sometimes unsuccessful) invention is an occasion include one or another work of man to the works of art.
The banks will then include Manzoni's nothing for it - suddenly 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 Wikipedia artistic ...
In short, completely deny the existence of a unified system of values in art, of course, you can.
This is me, will not recall the phrase that I heard many years ago: "God does not exist, but there is probability theory and mathematical statistics (by sentence - a famous scientist in the field of applied mathematics).
In our case, it sounds like: some dice (in a scientific "random number generator") in every epoch choose from thousands of creators a few units and record them in the encyclopedia. Good luck Michelangelo, Raphael, Leonardo - and all here! And the other masters, painted other churches, just out of luck ...
And the buyer paintings of contemporary artist may be lucky: indicates "random number generator" to the author - he bequeaths (the buyer) grandchildren masterpiece worth a million dollars. And does not indicate - sorry, no luck.
From the standpoint of common sense - an absurdity? Yes, certainly.
All art history convinces us that the masterpieces forever remain masterpieces, and the museum - not a casino. I can not complete negation of a unified system of values.
You can implicitly deny the existence of such a system of values, citing, and another, no less common, the view - now make evaluations just useless. Posterity will understand. It will take fifty years that way - and all will be judged quite differently, and five hundred altogether.
To this I want to answer with a joke: to live to only those 50 years, and it would be better, and 500, to see how they figured out the offspring ...
But seriously: does not have it, of course, also will understand, but that turns out - new people come with the new psychology, and evaluate all be completely new? Again, would "throw Pushkin to ship today?
Unlikely that someone will succeed in it and it showed a bustling XX century. It would seem that all the values were reassessed. But look:
- After the "Silver Age" and the October Revolution, the art has maintained its traditions and only enriched them;
- Pushkin "ship of modernity" has not dropped;
- Or cubism or abstract art or modernism did not shake our relationship to the masterpieces of the Renaissance and Impressionism;
- Profession "art" does not withered away and die is not going;
- Auctions of works of art such as Sotheby's - too.
So there she was, that a unified system of values, and if offspring know best - it is only because they go momentary passions, fashion, publicity, and remains (or is) a work of art as such.
Otherwise I would masterpieces of time would not grow in value and fell, like most consumer goods.
And no amount of social upheaval will not force 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 with this system of values.
So, to apply the art of the same words that 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.
In fact, the Orthodox canonical 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", at worst - just sad to watch.
Russian Orthodox Church, allowing the posting of the temples poster photo with faces of the saints, we can understand. Unfold and reconstructed hundreds of temples, money for all this must be incredibly much ... Naturally, when choosing what to spend money on good pictures or repair the roof, the second has a critical priority.
Sooner or later, of course, poster photo giving way to something more "decent" in terms of artistic material, but not in terms of image.
Church canon is allowed (we already talked about the "equal" holiness Rublevskaya "Trinity" and the template Sofrinskogo plant church affiliation), but the glory of contemporary church art adds not.
But in reality and 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? You'll see, and to the Russian Orthodox Church turn comes.
Secondly, a lot of stylized icons and variations on biblical themes. It is not surprising - the eternal theme. Evil tongues in the early fifties, even asserted that the building of the University on the Sparrow Hills and other Stalinist "skyscrapers" in Moscow - unconscious pastiche of the church, only a little enlarged ...
But there is one more example, and it is best demonstrated by the close relationship of Christian ideas and an irresistible craving for art in the human unconscious. I'm talking about naive art.
- "What? - Readers may be surprised. - Naive Art? Why? Where were the Christian canon or ideas? There, after that only do not represent, from Pushkin to drunken tractor, and besides unprofessional! And that soul - this is so, but no more ...
Well, let's look closely at the naive art.
Personally, I prefer the term "naivizm" - it is more extensive, not all figures naive art so naive and simple. Yes, and this kind of art is not as naive as it seems. But all in good time.
First, we define its "classical" understanding.
Fashion for naivizm introduced in the early twentieth-century art collector Wilhelm Uhde, who found in this direction is warmth and sincerity, which is very lacking a rapid search for new forms of art.
Everyone knows these two great naivistov - Henri Rousseau (1844-1910) and Niko Pirosmani (1862-1918). Russo has worked all his life customs, and Pirosmani painted signs.
In Russia at that time naivizm also found their followers, including those of 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 "naivizm.
After the Second World War, along with modernism and as if in opposition to him, naivizm reached the West, and in post-Soviet times in Russia, an enormous popularity. "Grandma" Moses (1860-1961) in the U.S., Ivan Generalić (1914-1992) in Yugoslavia, Katja Medvedev (r.1937) in Russia ...
For simplicity, we define the main features of naive art:
How would clumsily written Big-headed, clumsy men with angelic gaze, a strange, pulled down on the viewer perspective, flat forms, vibrant 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, so only briefly recall all of what "distinguished" the twentieth century: the unprecedented technological progress, the two world wars, the nuclear arms race, environmental catastrophes, Auschwitz, Kolyma, Hiroshima ...
The natural reaction of the human mind, imbued with the ancient traditions of Christianity, these nightmares - an intuitive desire for goodness and for warmth, including those in the arts. Psyche, of course, the psyche discord among fans of surrealist Salvador Dali is also missing, but naivizm bypassed hard to call.
Yet stereotypes of perception naivizma as "art amateurs" and "children's games adults" there. Naivizm loved and appreciated, but are still slightly down.
And now let us remember the times of formation of early Christian art, and look into Christian icons.
Repeat word for word description naivizma only been on the icons:
"How would ineptly written by Big-headed, clumsy men with angelic gaze, a strange, pulled down on the viewer perspective, flat forms, vibrant colors ... And do not leave the viewer a feeling of purity and warmth.
Interestingly it turns out right? And we found that the icon has become such a "clumsy" not from loss of skill, but because of the objective laws of development of art.
It may be objected that the icon also is different, and we even in this book said that there is a icon of the village "Bogomaza" as is "Trinity" by Andrei Rublev.
Yes, but look at the "Trinity" or any other icon, just as ingeniously and skillfully executed. There, that man could not Big-and narrow-shouldered, well built, like Apollo Belvedere? And do not put the blame on the canon - have been since the days when it was installed, that is, the canon was not yet.
Thus, there is an interesting parallel: the vices of the Roman Empire gave rise as a counterweight to icons, and vices "technical Century" (the end of XIX century. And the entire 20th) generated as a counterbalance to naive art.
We use the parallel was found to have a curious conclusion.
Naivizm often compared with children's drawings or the rock paintings of prehistoric man. All right, and nothing terrible about it.
Let us recall at least some of the teachings of Jesus Christ, which was based on early Christian idea of spiritual awareness:
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Mf.5, 3);
"Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God" (Mf.5, 8);
"Verily I say unto you, unless you turn and you will not like children, do not enter the kingdom of heaven Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven ..." (Mf.18 ,3-4).
That is why the Early Christian art took such forms! The desire for goodness and spiritual purity in the minds of the vast majority of people linked it to childhood, but as a draw children? Children's drawings seen each (I mean the drawings of mentally normal children).
And not just now, and in the Middle Ages, children as depicted ...
So we understand why the spiritually pure man is perceived as a big-headed, narrow-shouldered, Megapode - as if drawn by children. And children, in turn, draw these fellows, because you yourself are such - big-headed, narrow-shouldered ...
So on the icons and the paintings of artists-naivistov depicted ... children.
Everything converges, is not it?
What many individuals beard - so only supposed to be a certain minimum portrait likeness, here is the reality takes precedence over the subconscious. Here children get the wrinkles and beards. It's 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, for example, to 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, did not take them for samples.
Christian subconscious hurt.
The child, as we know, instinctively afraid of brawny 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.
Only in the Renaissance, when the society, in turn, "tired" of the papacy and the hypocrisy of the Inquisition, the installation of the Christian subconscious were forced (too Freudian term) attitudes of "enlightened antiquity."
And at the end of XIX-early XX century naivizm could not appear. Too far gone technological progress and the intellectual search for new forms, and Christian has to take his subconscious.
And we can conclude: the identity of the subconscious roots, historical and spiritual origins of Christianity, icons and contemporary naive art confirms single origin of art and religion.
Let us, as adopted in proving anything, briefly repeat our findings:
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 mankind.
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 confirms single origin of art and religion.
What should we say phrases: "Religion and art have no competitors in the spiritual world"? "They live by their own laws? "Above all social upheaval? "They have a common origin?
The fact that these five conclusions can be one general:
All these provisions show that the existence of the earth system of spiritual values in religion and in art is by far the most extensive and significant evidence of the existence of God.
The proof is not the only - such as science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke and humanist (r.1917) saw evidence of the existence of Supreme Harmony, and God in the physical and mathematical formulas and equations. In particular, the Euler formula, which connects completely independent from each other, but such important numbers in mathematics, as a base of natural logarithms - "e" (2.71828 ...) and » (3,14159pthe ratio of the circumference to its diameter - « ...). Some naturalists correctly see the same thing in the device 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 is that religion and art - sphere, which in varying degrees, facing each. And if, for example, the programmer can not imagine such a subject, like chemistry, both in churches and museums are all. And all the books they read.
That's the key to understanding God each of us. That same spark, without which the flames of faith in "God Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth" can not catch fire.
When you know that God somehow manifested itself in an imperfect world, and the bad, life becomes much easier. Speaking in mathematical language, the understanding of one-thousandth part of infinity - the same as understanding of infinity.
And from this understanding is not far to the "Kantian" hopes for a genuine, high and perfect happiness is not quite attainable in this world, but possible in the life of the age "thanks to our faith in God, manifesting themselves in the land of great spiritual systems - religion and art.
Then there is nothing inherently diabolical or in theaters or concert halls, or in art exhibitions, or in the "secular" books ...
Naturally, 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 major problems of mankind on the path of knowledge of divine truth - the cleansing of religion and art from the speculative, opportunistic and selfish layers.
The teaching of Christ about the moral and SIN
At the beginning of the third millennium, the essence of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, the same divine truth, which he brought to the world, intuitively obvious to all.
"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth" (Mf.5, 5), "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called sons of God" (Mf.5, 9), "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Mf.22, 1939), "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you and pray for those you and persecute you" (Mf.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 that, Christ's teaching emphases were placed quite differently. Remember the fires of the Inquisition, the Jesuits, the state claims the church and these unpleasant facts from the life of the Middle Ages. Unfortunately, they too relied on the sly selected quotations from the Bible.
A typical example - the phrase of Jesus, which was based on the work of the Inquisition: "Whoever does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and is withered; and such branches are collected and thrown into the fire and burned" (In.15, 6). There is clearly 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 is quite logical to rely on the Old Testament prophets and the teachings of Christ. A religion to get something completely different! What is the breadth of interpretations ...
And a proper understanding of the teachings of Christ can give us first in-depth analysis of the Old and New Testaments with the common sense of modern civilized man.
The most simple example: many "confused" the miracles of Jesus such as the many healings (Mf.4, 24; 8,2; 9,2; Mk.5, 41; Lk.17, 14, etc.), the five loaves for five thousand (Mk.6 ,33-44) and the resurrection of Lazarus (In.11 ,1-44).
First of all, let us not forget that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, was simply a "must" work wonders. This, as we remember the prophets have spoken, and if Jesus miracles and did not create, they would have been invented by his admirers and followers.
Note that the wonders of "doing" and the Old Testament prophets (3 Tsar.17, 21, 4 Tsar.4, 41; Is.38, 6; Dan.6, 16, etc.), and the apostles (Deyan.3, 6; 8,6, 19,11, etc.), and the early Christian saints (according to the lives of saints "). Historiography of the time was taken 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.
However, we are basically as follows: Christ worked miracles or not, in any case lie in the fabric of his doctrine of the good, and that's enough. Moreover, the "content" of miracles is the most unequivocal proof of Jesus' mission - objection to people of goodness and love.
If it were not so, he would not only be healed and revived, but anyone and even 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 were refused shelter, Jesus said: "Son of man came not to destroy souls but to save them" (Lk.9, 56).
Gospel description of Jesus' miracles are one of the main evidence that Christ brought to mankind the value system of love and kindness.
However, in our imperfect world, in every good until that is no less evil, and Christ has paid dearly for his teachings. The fact that he suffered on the cross truly is reflected in all the Gospels, and these sufferings laid the cornerstone of the Christian religion.
It turns out that give a true purification of sins, turn the system of values and lead people to belief in God can only sincere repentance. Christ said that he "came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Mf.9, 13).
But it is very, very hard. Of course, theoretically possible. And the church canon allows. And in the movies, and books are also frequent. And the lives ...
I was always interested in people like Khrushchev, Churchill, Marshal Zhukov, General Eisenhower and the like. Could such a man at the end of life, pensions, repent at least some of their sins, which in large-scale public career had to make a lot?
For example, as an act of contrition completely write truthfulness of memoirs? Well, even if not about himself, then at least with an objective analysis of his life among his contemporaries?
More and more convinced that he can not, and not because he is banned or told to write the truth.
One reads "illegal" memories, such as the memoirs of General Sudoplatov main saboteur of Stalin-Beria Security, and understand: if these people that one of his many crimes is considered a sin, they would have gone mad or died of fright before retirement.
The crime and sin, unfortunately, in our imperfect time, such as different things as criminal and moral law.
Successful social career disaccustoms people how 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 to do it, and questions 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 they are few. Sincere repentance can not be the lot of insincere people.
Fortunately, General Sudoplatov, the conscience of which hundreds if not thousands of lives - a rare case. With it all more or less clear.
The vast majority of people is another problem. They would be glad to sincerely repent, but can not even remember, what - their sins are as scandals at home soil and petty intrigues at work.
What do they do? Do remember all-all-all the details?
Is not that so you can get to the point of absurdity, even the phrase in the confessional: "Today, during the working day I have five times the sidelong glance at Ivan Kuzmich and experienced in relation to him of Christian love."
But this, though absurd in terms of common sense, but in terms of Christianity - in fact, a sin!
And if a man, God forbid, died tragically and suddenly, without having to confess even to himself? It turns out, he generally has no chance of salvation?
But let's not get involved in listing the many situations in which puts people cruel and unpredictable life.
The Gospel of John is one famous episode. When brought to Jesus a woman caught in adultery, which ought to be stoned, he said: "Who among you without sin, let him first cast a stone at her" (In.8, 11). As we know, was not sinless.
Thus, in the end, who can be saved, that is to enter the kingdom of God? Can anyone?
You'll have to repeat the last lines of quoted conversation of Jesus with the rich boys.
"Those who heard it said: Who then can be saved?
But he said: impossible with men are possible with God "(Lk.18, 27).
'll Let us understand that Christ had in mind, saying: "impossible with men is possible with God.
In the Middle Ages, this phrase has generated a huge reservoir of theological disputes about so-called "God's grace" - the possibility of forgiveness of God for our sins.
In the Bible, the concept of grace is very meanings - that the force in man (1 Kor.15, 10), and the preaching of the Gospel (In.1, 16), and the gift of God (Rim.3, 24), and a few dozen ( !) of different contexts and meanings.
Not surprisingly, it is a universal concept of God's grace, to whom he could "draw" a lot of references to scripture, was elected at the beginning of V. Saint Augustine to justify the fact that nothing depends on the internal will of man, because the latter are born inclined to sin, and in general midges.
According to Augustine, descended on the man of God's grace - and no matter how much he sinned, it will be saved, and fall into the kingdom of heaven. So please God, not us trying to understand the motivation of his actions. Everything that happens to people who clearly predetermined by God.
Remember, as Augustine on this subject debated with Pelagianism and defeated?
Let me remind you: Pelagius declared defining human free will and the opinion that people are born sinless and has the ability to choose good or evil. Augustine defended his doctrine of "original sin", after which a person can no longer avoid sin and should only rely on the grace of God.
On the "original sin" we still talk on a very curious about it.
"Catholic" Protestantism, oddly enough, looks at the relationship of grace and free will entirely "on-avgustinovski. Calvin, as we 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 Spirituals" thought:
"Because God saves or condemns on a whim, then it does not pay attention. It would be better with the same freedom that allows itself God, 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 be that as it was denounced by Calvin in 1547, Quentin Thierry was burned at the stake. As we remember, on the conscience of Calvin penalty and antitrinitariya Miguel Servet.
To readers not formed an opinion about Luther as an angel compared to Calvin, for instance, that Eligio, head of the Libertine "in the Dutch Antwerp, too, was burned in 1544 by the Prosecutor at the trial were none other than Martin Luther.
Not all of the Reformation was as wonderful as we now think ...
But it is about God's grace. As long as we could based on the teachings of Augustine and Calvin to make a very absurd conclusion: Sin-not sin, repent, not repent and embrace, does not confess, the hope is still very unpredictable at the forgiveness of God for our sins.
Orthodoxy has provided two kinds of God's grace: precedes (general and unpredictable, as in Augustine) and especially (justifying a specific person by his deeds). Grace works in freedom and liberty in grace and they vzaimnovhodny "(ep. Theophanes).
If "breaking" through the traditional style of blacked-out church Orthodox theology, we can understand the following:
According to orthodoxy, some freedom of will, ie choice of "sin, not sin," we still have. Accordingly, we have the potential to receive "special grace" that is, to understand that sin, and atone for sins by repentance, good deeds, 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 "avgustinovskogo" predestination.
It was nice that the Orthodox Church though someone has a chance to enter the kingdom of God, but somehow I pity those who had not deigned "anticipates" grace. Suddenly, they have worked all my life honestly, do good deeds, sincerely tried not to sin, but all of them will be in hell?
Let us nevertheless try to determine the possibility of forgiveness of our sins God more fairly than does the official orthodoxy.
I suggest not to go into heavy logical construction, and give a definition of God's grace (the possibility of forgiveness of our sins by God) in accordance with the common sense of modernity and the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.
Ironically, Augustine, Luther, Calvin and Orthodox theologians, carried away by general philosophical questions of balance of grace and free will, they have forgotten that there are accessible teachings of Jesus Christ - the teachings of kindness and love.
Will there be a sin people who sincerely accepted this teaching?
If so, then the only refuge and, as they say, in extreme cases. Predict all such cases it is impossible - 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, his hands folded, to submit to their fate?
So there is sin, which even a Christian can not commit. And God's grace is the forgiveness of sins is the man.
Divine system of values of goodness and love that brought us Jesus Christ, to be accepted in the spiritual sense, but in practice can be applied every Christian, not as a single and inflexible pattern, and in accordance with the specific situation.
If I put it in obschebogoslovskom aspect, God alone knows the general trends of development of mankind and the purpose of every human life, so God decides who is righteous and who is not, by balancing our thoughts and actions with those goals.
And if we can understand these objectives and trends, driven by God?
We can, to a great extent - for this we have the doctrine of Jesus Christ!
And you thought Jesus - our Savior, because from the standpoint of theology, his suffering on the cross atoned our "Old Testament" sins?
No, we should call him the Savior above 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 speak, the theoretical side of the issue.
The practical aspect of the Christian moral system can be formulated as follows:
If there is the slightest opportunity to do good and avoid evil, then it should be used.
And the deeper the Christianity take root in a particular person, the more he perceives the limits of the possibilities.
So, distributed to the poor everything you can at the moment, but know and a reasonable limit, based on their financial capabilities, otherwise tomorrow you will have nothing to give. You'll have more money tomorrow - if and liberality more.
A hit on one cheek - turning the other, until one realizes that the ability to expose and thereby morally disarm the enemy has run out.
I can not remember one brilliant phrase of Leo Tolstoy. When Jasna Polana, he slapped at a mosquito on his forehead, he chided a companion, that, say, you preach non-resistance to evil, and that's a mosquito killed themselves ... In this, Tolstoy said: "We can not live in such detail."
In light of the above can be answered and the "provocative" question of substituting it personally, I left cheek when struck on the right (or rather - I'll stick to the position of non-resistance to evil in any "force" the conflict):
If at least some chance, I'll do anything to force the conflict did not happen. Moreover, if there is a chance to preserve life and human dignity - substituting the other cheek, that is not going to take any retaliatory action.
However, if this chance will not - yes, have to fight fire with fire. And let me know that it is a sin - there are situations where a sin is not the answer.
Protect a woman or child - is that a sin? And so on, all the possible cases are not listed, and there can only be guided by the Christian common sense.
The main thing is that the likelihood of violence in this approach repeatedly reduced. Completely eliminate it and 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 the probability of this.
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 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 will be perceived that way? Find him and in him their sins, their crimes, their evil?
Because there, for example, when Jesus of Nazareth scourged, and crucified, few could dream of the abolition of torture, let alone 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 ...
Sexual and "original sin"
What, with all sins had?
No, not with all. In the Decalogue is the commandment with a serial number seven. They remembered how it sounds? "Do not commit adultery".
The so-called sin of adultery, of course, holds the record for the number of interpretations and speculations.
First, think about it: what is "adultery"? Having sex in general? 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 can be included in the concept of adultery.
But imagination does not necessarily involve. Just open any church leadership to "sacrament of penance" - where all the details painted.
For example, in accordance with "Reflections repentant sinner" (edited by Archimandrite Vladimir) violations of the seventh commandment are:
"Fornication, adultery, Malakia, sensuality in all its forms - passionate kisses with the other sex, unclean touch, zasmatrivanie the beautiful person with lust, profanity, lovesongs, obscene gestures, koketnichestvo, flirtation, pimping, and delight in impure dreams, arbitrary pohotnoe dilution , excessive attachment ... Surfeit in food and drink, reading novels, sharing seductive pictures, free treatment and other games with sex, excessive dandyism ... "
Unfortunately, I can not remember where the Bible says about the sinfulness of reading novels, but what is "Malakia" and "arbitrary pohotnoe dilution" - and did not know. Frankly, and do not want.
Let's still seriously consider the sin of adultery in terms of the teachings of Jesus Christ.
To start read that talked about this 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 - not the entire Law of Moses. All the ten commandments in the next few Old Testament books are specified and discussed in some detail. And so I suggest carefully careful reading of the Law - Moses loved the clear language and usually leaves little room for misunderstanding.
For violation of a commandment of the Decalogue commonly assumed to be the death penalty, and therefore death had to practice:
"If anyone would commit adultery with the wife of a wife if a man will commit adultery with his neighbor's wife," "a man lies with his father's wife," "a man lies with his daughter," "a man lie with mankind as with womankind," "who will take his wife and her mother, "" who mixed with beast, "" If a man takes his sister, "" If a man lies with a woman during illness kroveochischeniya (Lev.20 ,10-18).
More gently Moses said that "a man lies with his aunt" and "who takes his brother's wife" (Lev.20 ,19-1920) - the death penalty for this was not supposed to, but sin (a violation of the Act) was considered.
We will not go into details of manners and customs of the ancient Jews, derived from Egypt. If Moses believed all of the above prohibitions necessary for normal life for its people, he could see.
To maintain the peace and tranquility in the small nation was required to ban adultery - of course, yes. To prevent genetic degeneration wanted to ban closely related marriages - of course, yes. In order to strengthen the family and encourage its creation, needed a ban on homosexuality - certainly 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 has been formulated by Moses, clearly and soundly.
Naturally, in the tribal system of ancient Israel, woman plays a subordinate role, but no deliberate humiliation "weaker sex", the prohibition on sexual activity and an exaggerated attention to the "intimate" of the Act are observed.
Note that Moses insisted on virgin brides (Vtor.22, 6), but permits divorce when the following conditions:
"If a man takes a wife, and her husband, and she does not find favor in his eyes, because he finds in it something to the contrary and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and send her out of his house" ( Vtor.24, 1).
But what began in early Christian times - not in a fairy tale to tell, nor pen describe.
Let's not stereotype hatred of Christianity to the sexual life relate solely to the conscience of church theologians - we have already said that "good Christian" was unconsciously unpleasant to look at the "Whore of Babylon". But the century went. Morals have changed, and the Church's attitude toward women and sex - no.
Theological basis for this were two famous "declaration".
The first belongs to Ecclesiastes - King Solomon:
"And I found that the more bitter than death - a woman, because she is - a network, and her heart - a snare, her hands - shackles, good God will be saved from it, but it will sinner" (Ekkl.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:" Do not commit adultery. "
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee: for better for you to lose one of your members and not that thy whole body be cast into hell "(Mf.5 ,28-29).
And then Jesus adds:
"It is said also that if a man divorces his wife, let him give her a divorce.
But I tell you: anyone who divorces his wife except for fornication guilt, he gives her a reason to commit adultery and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery "(Mf.5 ,31-32).
In principle, says the Preacher, Solomon could simply give up: that his whole life - "Vanity of vanities", we know how wise king "got" and countless wives, and the mythical Queen of Sheba. Not surprisingly, he says something like ... to put it mildly, "all women - whore".
But the Bible is the Bible, and it waved his hand is not recommended anything. Nevertheless, we can wait to Ecclesiastes and start with an analysis of what has been said by Jesus Christ.
Strong said, is not it? If you even look at a woman with "lust" - a sin, so what should I do if "comes to bed"? Not at all?
There is one oddity. Without the "lust", as we know, there is no sex, but also children, unfortunately, too. So, life on Earth died out would be a long time.
Although it would have died earlier from more "radical" phrases of Christ: "And there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven" (Mf.19, 12).
And if life has still not died, it means that things are not so clear, and should not go to the hospital for surgery castration to fulfill the covenant, and at the same time certainly did not look at women with lust.
The fact that the quoted phrase about skoptsi taken out of context. And the context is the following:
"And the Pharisees came to him and tempted him, saying unto him: for any cause for a man to divorce his wife?
He answered them: Have ye not read what had been done first male and female he created them? And he said: Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall become one flesh ... Therefore what God has joined together, let no man put asunder.
They said to him: Why did Moses command to give a writing of divorcement with her?
It says to them: Moses, the hardness of your allowed you to divorce your wives, but at first were not so, but I tell you: Anyone who divorces his wife except for unchastity, (my italics - SZ) and marries another woman commits adultery , and married a divorced woman commits adultery.
Disciples said to him: if the case of the man to his wife, it is better not to marry.
He said to them: not all men can receive this saying, save they to whom 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, who themselves have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. Who can hold it, let him "(Mf.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, but we already know that Moses had in mind by the word "adultery". No new definition of the term Jesus did not give.
It would seem that Christ is in this respect has tightened the Law of Moses - forbade divorce "just so" and left the only reason - adultery, that is, adultery, homosexuality and so on.
In fact, to tighten the law is not necessary to speak, as Moses for adultery and does provide for the death penalty, then the problem of divorce fell away by itself. Agree, divorce (after Christ), where "softer" than stoning (to Moses) ...
But in this episode is even more important aspect.
We are accustomed to, that if Christ said to His disciples: "Not all men can receive this saying, save they to whom it is given", it seems to be disciples, we must hold it, and the rest can not be given.
It is as if it turns out that he commanded his disciples not to marry, and even be skoptsi. Hence, and all followers of Christ, which "is given us this word, it seems to be desirable, and if the church does not require us to mandatory celibacy, or castrated, it was only" doing a favor "of our sinful nature.
In any case, the medieval church interpretation was just that, and hence the degradation of women, and monasteries, and taboos on sex, and many skopcheskih sects ... Here are just a veil for poor women still did not think to put on, and it is probably accidental.
And in actual fact the opposite!
"I call these things", which was desirable to "fit", refers not to the words about eunuchs, but to the doctrine of prohibition of divorce!
Hence, the phrase students "better not to marry" Jesus found it impossible (or unwillingness) to accept his teaching on the inviolability of the family. And he did not like the position of students, as he said to them: "Not all men can receive this saying, save they to whom it is given".
But he allowed the students not to accept his views, telling a parable about skoptsi. There are some eunuchs, there are those women ... Just come to the word of eunuchs, and he brought them as an example. When Jesus tells a parable about the vineyard (Mf.21 ,28-46, Mk.12 ,1-9), it does not mean that he was sending students gather grapes?
So, Jesus of Nazareth did not insist on universal and irrevocable marriage for a lifetime, 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.
A similar "soft" position on the creation of a family became the apostle Paul (1 Kor.7 ,1-17). And would be nice to all orthodox church to listen to his sentence on this subject:
"Only one do as God has assigned to him, and everyone, as God has called. So I command all the churches "(1 Kor.7, 17).
Now let's go back to the famous utterance of Christ: "You have heard that it was said:" Do not commit adultery. " But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If thy right eye offend thee ... "(Mf.5 ,28-29).
It turns out that all 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 hurt the legitimate wife. This contradicts the main Christian commandments - to love one another.
Reinforcement of itself: even though you're married, even though you're a bachelor, should be engaged in business, and not particularly always staring at women, and especially to lust - and can lose your way, but still a "first of all planes. 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 - more bitter than death. This, of course, a poetic metaphor, but in fact, if you are 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 will be.
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 spouse has changed (at least "in his heart"), then the divorce can be.
But the degradation of human beings, as we know, it is easier to manage, and 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 mentioned in 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 desublimated misogynist, rests entirely on the conscience of the church officialdom.
And the "first violin" is owned by Augustine of Hippo. Fair to say that he has derived from his teacher, Ambrose of Milan (340-397), but the essence of this does not change.
I want to ask readers to question. What, in your opinion, "original sin"?
No, no, not yet open the beginning of the Bible and say the first thing that comes to mind. I am confident that this will be something like this:
- God forbade Adam and Eve eat the fruit of apple, that is the tree of knowledge. However, Eve listened to the cunning serpent, Satan, ate herself and Adam regaled. They immediately understood that "what's what, and they had a sexual relationship, for which they expelled from paradise and ...
- So what's the "original sin"?
- In this very sexual relationship - to say the vast majority.
My God, how well established this stereotype! In fact, he does not have an absolutely unfounded.
"Original sin" if it occurred, then in any case was not involved in the sexual relationship.
But all in good time. Where did this stereotype come from?
Let's see what wrote on this subject St. Augustine in the "theological treatises:
"Exiled from paradise, after sin, man and his seed contaminated with sin in it, as in the bud, linked the death sentence and conviction, so that all his offspring and convicted along with him his wife was born of fleshly lusts."
And then, as we know, "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 - a sin, because God objectionable. Because of sexual desire and Adam were driven from paradise, and in general all the ills of mankind occurred.
It seems like we all imagined it, right? Indeed, the enormous influence Aurelius Augustine and centuries-old church tradition have borne fruit.
But all this is pure imagination!
In fact, just open the first pages of the Bible and read them carefully.
The first chapter of Genesis speaks of God creating the world, and 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, the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
And God blessed them and God said unto them: Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue it "... (Byt.1 ,26-29).
And then, in the second chapter:
"And the Lord God formed 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 paradise in Eden in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed "(Byt.2 ,7-8).
"And the Lord God took the man who created it, and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it.
And God commanded the man, saying: Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for the day when the eat of it you shall die "(Byt.2 ,15-17).
"And the Lord God formed from the rib taken from man, woman, and brought her to the man. And the man said: 'This is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken from her husband. Therefore a man leaves his father and 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 "(Byt.2 ,22-25).
"Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God. And he said unto the woman: Yea, hath God said: Ye shall not eat from any tree in the garden? "(Byt.3, 1).
"And the serpent said unto his wife: no, not die, but God knows that in the day ye eat thereof, your eyes will be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and bad.
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes and lust, because it gives knowledge, and took of its fruit and ate, and gave also unto her husband, and he ate.
And opened the eyes of them both, and they learned that they were naked and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons "(Byt.3 ,4-7).
So the first sin, and there was - people disobeyed God.
And why did the medieval state church had to be in this to convince people, too, becomes clear if we draw a parallel with the very recently - Stalin and Hitler.
Remember, these gentlemen were cultured sculpture cold muscular handsome men in overalls, genderless "Women with a paddle, and generally sought to oust sexy cult sport and emotional mass rallies with banners and torches?
It is not surprising, because if a person lives a full family life (and in this concept is a normal sex), it is very difficult to pull out from under the warm side beloved wife and sent to conquer the world.
And if a person is only able flawed like sex, is also experiencing constant "guilt complex", it is unlikely he will be satisfied and happy in family life. This "good" - say, unbecoming to the Soviet people to read all the "Kama Sutra" and erotic magazines in our country, no sex, quickly get in bed with his wife, two or three times, and ready made children - enough for you, go to front to die for the ambitions of Stalin ...
And in the Middle Ages, people had to be raised to the Crusades, the struggle against heresy, the endless wars with neighboring states - which there could be sex?
Deny it "on the vine" could not - 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 you're done, buttoning up his trousers and marching forward" - in this church and state is very successful.
Can be plenty to laugh at bigotry 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, perhaps, enough?
Life long ago lifted all unreasonable restrictions on sex, so if you do not cancel them, and Christian churches, and do not cease to be considered a normal sexual life of sin, and even diabolical obsession?
As we've seen, neither in the Old or New Testaments are no prohibitions on sex did 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.
We talk about the sins of not conclude without referring to the most important Christian ritual - washing. Yes, indeed should be called baptism - to cross this ritual has nothing to do. Only in Russian Orthodoxy emerged is somewhat strange name, but everywhere the symbolic ritual of cleansing from sin is in tune with the Greek word "Baptist" - "dive".
The ritual ablutions practiced by a number of Jewish sects even before the Christian era, and John the Baptist turned it into a preparation for the coming of the Messiah - Jesus Christ. Do the John and Jesus were "institutional" - can only guess, although in this version says that they were relatives (Lk.1, 36).
After the crucifixion of Christ washing the apostles made a solemn procedure adopted in the bosom of the Christian church. When the IV century, Christianity became the state religion, this procedure has a mass character and began to wash, to baptize everyone, including those in infancy. In this form, the ritual is preserved to this day.
Theological essence of the Christian baptism is not easy. The Apostle Paul said: "Do not you know that all of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we are buried with Him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also should walk in newness of life "(Rim.6 ,3-4).
Such a complex symbols in the time of christening of Russia has been little-understood, and for simplicity, the word "baptism" became a substitute for a long phrase: "Washing of sins in order initiation to the Church, Confessing the resurrection of Christ was crucified on the cross."
Most of it sounds even easier, though not pobogoslovski - "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 am crucified with 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 paradox, followed the usual Russian version.
The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed says: "I acknowledge one baptism for cleansing from sin."
In fact, in terms of modern Orthodoxy these words somewhat dubious. Crest something most people in 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 such a formulation - in early Christian times, baptized only in the conscious age.
So, incidentally, still baptized in the Jordan River in Israel. The author of this book in 1999, also received the originally Christian baptism is where Christ was baptized by John the Baptist.
As usual, for two thousand years, in Orthodoxy, and Catholicism, and Lutheranism, and in all kinds of sects was a lot of debate about whether to baptize in the name of the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit, or all of the hypostasis of the Trinity, or swill dipped, once or thrice, to be "baptized" in "white robes" or no clothes ...
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.
In fact, 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 the "irresponsible" of age, of course, more than doubtful, but will not raise a huge reservoir of theological disputes. In any case, 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 - is part of the spiritual system of mankind. Of course, there is a Christian cross, and there are Nazi swastika, but in this book "breaking spears" because of the symbolic rites still not worth it.
There are far more important issue related to the baptism of Jesus of Nazareth.
"Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John to be baptized by him. But John forbad him, saying: "I need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
But Jesus said to him, now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness.
Then he suffered him "(Mf.3 ,14-15).
So, the question is: why Jesus insisted on his baptism, moreover - stressed the need to "fulfill all righteousness"?
Christian churches have not been, and the baptism had a form of extremely clean. So the answer here may be only one: Christ, from his ministry thirty years of age (Lk.3, 23), considered his duty to wash away sins.
So was Jesus of Nazareth, like all people, was not infallible. 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 merely symbolic fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, what drew attention of the apostle Matthew: "And all this happened, it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel, which means: God with us "(Mf.1, 22).
After that you can only repeat what has been said in previous chapters: Jesus of Nazareth - the same man, as we all are.
Good and evil
"And God said: Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.
And the Lord sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken "(Byt.3 ,22-23).
Excerpt, 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 itself and treated Adam, God said: "Adam has become like one of us, knowing good and evil."
What is "one of us" - is not entirely clear, let us look.
The defenders of the dogma of the Trinity (including St. Augustine, and the official orthodoxy) suggest that the world was created is not 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 assume - not our business.
Even if we assume the Trinity anything then in this episode is still version of "us" as "the Trinity" does not pass, otherwise obtained is not three gods but four - in fact Adam was one of them ...
In fact, the most logical option for the interpretation of "us" is this: because God has protected paradise cherub (Byt.3, 24), then we have in mind the so-called "host of heaven".
The latter, of course, nothing like maloobosnovannoe juxtaposition legends. So far we have no means of knowledge of how many there hierarchy, archangels, angels ...
But what, in essence, is the difference? Above all, what and Gabriel, and Raphael and the Angels and Cherubs in all, very 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, too, become on a par with them.
How many links to our divine essence, we at one time 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 curse them. They have made a terrible burden of knowledge and paved the way for us.
And for their sin - disobedience to God - they paid in full. Imagine how easy is it to be expelled from the Garden of Eden?
By the way, "the Garden of Eden" - a typical "greasy oil. The word "paradise" comes from the Persian language and means just "garden" ...
So, repeat the words of God: "Adam has become like 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.
In fact, this question is not from the category: "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 can be resolved even age-old philosophical questions.
A philosophical question is why in our book - now see.
There's a neat word - "theodicy," which means "justification of God." Not sure, need a God to justify it, but it was the name of an essay of the philosopher and mathematician Leibnitz (1646-1716), went down in history and gave the name of the huge range of issues.
In short: we believe in God as in the good, wisdom, and justice of almighty power, created the world. But how to explain that, along with the good on the ground there and evil, with hardly a lesser extent? 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 perpetrator 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 anticipated presence in it of evil, is not it better if God was all this world is not to create?
Let's say our favorite phrase: how many philosophers have pondered the 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 perspective of someone who turned out on the spot these insects, such blind will not indifferent, and evil - just such a merciless machine.
However, this view has the same right to exist as any other.
Remember, we talked about early Christian religious-philosophical trend - Gnosticism? As scholars of Eastern religions such as Manichaeism and Zoroastrianism, many Gnostics were deciding "theodicy" as: good and evil, God and the devil - two completely equivalent beginning. Welcome awaits us somewhere in heaven, and evil always prevails in our imperfect world.
In this approach results in two separate, unrelated and even opposing God - one good, second bad. In philosophy and theology is called dualism.
But we are on a strictly monotheistic position and early in 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 for the need to adopt monotheism, but we'll discuss this later.
Someone probably say that you can never believe in God and consider what is happening is not the land are subject exclusively to the laws of nature, history or economics. In these cases, the concept of good and evil are moving in the appropriate context and turned into something like Napoleon: "That one who has more battalions. Add: or more money, or fists harder ...
But not for nothing that we have spent so much time on the current evidence of the existence of God, and "Napoleon" option is not for us.
Let us still 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 this world or not create. But God, by definition, always makes everything better, so he created this world of doubt as the best of all possible worlds.
And why in this world there 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 common purpose, known only to God.
The official position of the Church clarifies: to build the kingdom of God, where all the righteous will live like angels - in friendship, peace, love and harmony.
On this subject we can argue a lot, and a cold mind can come up with much. And do not listen to us whether Ivan Karamazov? Why, it's from the novel by Dostoyevsky. He tells his brother Alyosha:
"This poor little girl five years, these educated parents were subjected to every possible torture. He was beaten, whipped, kicked her feet ... Finally, they reached up to the highest sophistication: the cold and frost locked her all night in a latrine, and for the fact that she has not requested the night - for they smeared her face with excrement and forced is this stool, and this mother, the mother forced! .. Do you understand it when the little creature, who can not even comprehend what it is, beats his vile place, in the dark and cold, with her tiny fist in a broken breast and crying their bloody, mildness, gentle tears to 'dear God' to protect her - do you understand, what this nonsense is so necessary and created! Without it, they say, and stay could not have people on the ground, because it did not know good and evil. Why learn a damned good and evil, where it is the cost? But the whole world of knowledge is not worth while these slezok baby to "dear God." I'm not talking about the suffering of large, those apple eaten and to hell with them, And let the devil take them all, but these little ones! .. "
Then Ivan said: "... From the higher harmony 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 atoned for, otherwise there can be no harmony. But what, what do you redeem them? Is this possible? Surely the fact that they will be avenged? Why should I vengeance on them, why me hell for the torturers, that there may be hell to fix when they have tortured? And what harmony, if there is hell: I just want to hug and wish I did not want to suffer more. "
And now Ivan is drawn to Alyosha: "Tell me himself directly, I call you - answer me: imagine that you yourself built up of human destiny with the aim of making people happy in the finale, to give them, at last, peace and quiet, but it is necessary and inevitably would have had to torture just one tiny creature;, so that very little child, beat his fist in the chest, and avenged tear him to found the building, agreed Would you be the architect on those conditions? .. "
It is terrible, right? Indeed, Ivan Karamazov it was the time to bring God to the court and put him in the dock with their parents-sadists.
To tell the truth - the logic of Ivan, on any dock next to each murderer, rapist, robber as an accomplice sitting God permitted, and then directed all this. And who really need such a "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, try to figure it out. Let us ask ourselves: how Karamazov, and Leibniz perceived 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 tagged along into a coherent whole? And if we even Jesus Christ, our intercessor before God, to atone for our sins on the cross, often present themselves as a ruthless, punishing the sovereign, then what can we say about God himself? God has turned into an absolute dictator of all of our thoughts and actions.
A dictator, as 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 inspirer and organizer of all the victories of the Soviet people, and when he died, it was at fault in absolutely everything. Even what was not to blame.
Worthless, certainly compared Joseph Vissarionovich the Lord God, but the logic of Leibniz and Karamazov, everything is just this: is there a kind of a hypothetical bright future the way it is known only all-knowing and all seeing the 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 over the age of only seven years - it measures the excess or not?
Let us approach the other side. Ivan Karamazov brother asks the question - would he build a "kingdom of God", if for the happiness of all people and for the higher harmony was necessary to torture just one child?
Alesha said "no", and he was absolutely right.
But nowadays many pragmatically minded people will feel the desire to say "yes". Indeed, only one child's torment, but a blessed out how much - the whole of humanity, a billion people!
Unfortunately, then there is the next reasonable question - but if you have to grind down the two children? Too?
Then asked a similar question on. And torturing three children? Too? And four? .. A 20? .. A 50? .. A 400? .. A thousand? .. 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 has to understand the second question, someone might need five or ten "visits" to understand: no, a thousand times no. People - not the material and not a mechanism, and we did not calculate the maximum permissible load on the car springs.
The main achievement of contemporary humanism says: sacred and inviolable every human life. Otherwise, we will conduct arithmetic disputes, and maniacs and will continue to kill children, because we have an arithmetic, in the Criminal Code of the other, while the third maniacs.
Regarding the "arithmetic" maniacs can recall the Marquis de Sade, who, besides possessing literary talent and sexual deviations, there was also a philosopher. Based on the teachings of Early Christian Gnostics and unprovable illusions about the world, he made a very paradoxical conclusion: because the world exists only in my feelings and all the people around you - the fruits of my imagination, then these "fruits" I can do anything I want. Rob, kill, rape ...
We have already said that you can invent anything. Moreover, to prove the objective existence of the world can only from the standpoint of common sense, but if people for whatever reason refuse 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 - that someday another "figment of the imagination" does not want to be robbed and raped, and 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 "lawlessness" that do not accept even the authors of that term - "thieves in law".
And though we have no right to anyone to impose their point of view. And let every person has freedom of choice, limited government laws and ethical 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" Marquis de Sade, thankfully, has remained the lot of very, very few.
Why do we remember about humanism, solving the problem of "theodicy" - the possible guilt of God in all crimes and sorrows of people?
Here's why: because, in accordance with the modern understanding of humanism human life is sacred, a man in his actions enjoy substantial 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 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 "the philosophical" side.
A free will of people automatically eliminates the guilt of God in our troubles, misfortunes, sins, crimes and deeds.
The Apostle Paul wrote:
"I say: Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh for the flesh lusts against the spirit and the spirit - against the flesh: they are opposed to each other so you do not do the things that would ...
Works of the flesh, they are: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, disputes, heresies, hatred, murders, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who so do not inherit the kingdom of God.
Fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, 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 the 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 may well clarify: the flesh of our lives according to the laws, inherited "by inheritance from our ancestors, that is a monkey. More specifically, wolfish. Monkeys in a natural jungle cover at the very highest step (they are hunted tigers, leopards and boas), but the wolves - is yes.
And how is solved in the wolf pack problem of good and evil?
Flock does not know what is good, but in his evil completely organic, natural and attractive in its own way. "Basic Instincts" are well known, and brilliantly simple - to save the species and procreation.
Each wolf from birth instinctively knows: outside of flight - bite and tear everyone can see (preferably weaker and not alone), and inside the pack - to observe the hierarchy, and not gnawed to the parent without the full confidence of victory, and then "tear" and you. And do not forget that in order to one day win the opportunity to "multiply", you need the strength and health.
Rudyard Kipling tale of Mowgli - a typical example of giving an animal honesty and integrity "of the human person. Remember how they're wished each other "happy hunting"?
And the identification of any kind, intelligent and talented king or president, with the conductor of the divine goodness (and even more so with the Anointed One of God) - anyway, that giving Kipling a similar capacity wolf Akela. Also remarkable 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 - no more than wishful thinking.
In modern conditions the state has to "flirt" with the citizens, to organize election campaigns, advertising of certain politicians, etc. But now, in even the most democratic, the state of man - a cog in the overall mechanism. Absolutely quiet and commonplace, these screws when necessary, lubricated when necessary, discarded.
Thank God, Christ refused to govern the kingdoms, otherwise we would have to follow Marx to argue whether the transformation of state and social system of the slave dictatorship into a socialist democracy, whether from the slave-owning democracy into a socialist dictatorship.
But from the viewpoint of Christ and his teachings - any state lives under the laws of wolf packs and therefore is evil. Yes, if we are alive, "animal" nature, "state" evil is necessary to maintain some order in the world, otherwise Christ would not come to compromise with the authorities (Mf.22, 21). But the essence of this does not change.
The development of civilization rather convincingly shows that the laws of humanity gradually replacing the laws of natural selection, though it is, unfortunately, also can be challenged - remember, most recently supertsivilizovannuyu German nation that gave the world's greatest philosophers, one lunatic sent to burn the Jews in Auschwitz and Treblinka.
And why did God, creating our spirituality, would not eradicate the "animal" nature, and gave them to co-exist - he knows best. Without it we would not we, and therefore discussions on this topic is absolutely futile.
So, welcome - God and Christian spirituality, evil - earthly public and social order, along with economics and politics.
You say, these concepts are not comparable in scale? You say, God - is something all-powerful and global, but politics - "Rat Race"?
From the perspective of philosophy, perhaps, these concepts and are not comparable, and in terms of individual rights - even as comparable.
That seems to be not the largest city in the world - Moscow, with a population of about ten million people. Introducing whether we own the true extent of this "administrative-territorial unit"? He sat in the car 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 do not mess up the zeros: 10000 (10000) kilometers. From Kaliningrad (Königsberg) to Vladivostok!
Imagined a railroad, on which a week or two go by train, but next to each sleeper is a resident of Moscow? And everyone - his own life, family, work, and the inclination, affection, habit ... The mayor of Moscow, for example, stands in the Lithuanian border, vice - mayor of Chelyabinsk, and the author of this book - 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 wish we can imagine and rank of the Muscovites, and the crowd of one hundred and fifty million Russians, or a billion Chinese. Just calculate the rate of one person per square meter ...
That such a "transcendental" arithmetic.
Imagine yourself in person at this scale, and ask - as well as whether our lives are valuable from the standpoint of the state machine that manages such inconceivable masses of people?
But not valuable. That's a million people - it is force ...
And what is the head of state to understand this mass of people? But to predict trends and identify the laws of its development? It is unlikely that it is easier than to predict the actions of the laws of nature and even God.
This stumble is not only the president but also philosophers. For example, a great philosopher, ethnographer Lev Gumilev (1912-1992), developing his theory of "passionarity, forcing ethnic groups to actively develop and conquer the surrounding countries," no notice "of Alexander of Macedon: very much like Tolstoy hold the line on the Earth's surface" passionary jerks " and the great conqueror under any missed ...
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 times of Justinian (VI century) to the decadent "isolates, persistentam" only because she missed a "standard" historical period - 1500 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 earth. Whoah "izolyatpersistent!
This is another example of the magnitude and neproschityvaemosti earthly kingdoms.
Besides Gumilev "passionateness" of any ethnic group is still closely linked to state and above all leads to expansion of the territory. And then far to the zoological term "habitat" so that giving the state 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 and the devil. None of the earthly kingdoms (empires, republics, etc.) is unable to build the kingdom of God is not on its territory, much less to someone else.
Able to build God's kingdom 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.
Just none of the people will not feel the desire to do evil. More specifically - to violate the Christian precepts of goodness and love.
What is the state of society in this case will be - can only guess. But it is clear that if people will continue to kill, torture and cheat each other, and the state should oversee to kill only those "who have" - what kind of kingdom of God?
No sooner is useless to speak of the unconditional state withers away. I, like the vast majority of modern people do not imagine the 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? I am, please love on the ruble, and good for two? Later will be a unit of measurement of love, and that her people will buy shoes and clothes? But how else - on 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. Do not knit yet that the Christian concept of commonness with the harsh economy and politics.
Although the matter, of course, in specific people, and if even a few generations in human psychology that will link all - God forbid.
"And being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God comes, he answered them: no kingdom of God cometh way, and say: Lo here, or: behold, it is there. For behold, the kingdom of God is within you "(Lk.17 ,20-21).
Therefore, the task of Christianity - not utopian (happiness of mankind, or one, separate country), but very real - make it easier and a specific person, and the people around him.
Clearly, if a man really took the Christian doctrine, then he is unlikely to have desire to lock up his five-year-old daughter at night in a street toilet and smeared her face with excrement, as in the story of Ivan Karamazov.
Thus, the eradication of evil - is ousting Christianity's spiritual base (the love of power, violence, money), and doubtless a consequence of this - improvement of society and reducing the total amount of evil and suffering in the world. In that order, but not the reverse. Not "above" and "bottom".
So do not talk, I'm sorry if God in tears tortured child, and must fight to those slezok fewer.
And for that, and struggled, and was crucified Jesus of Nazareth.
And since "Karamazov" five-year child, ignorant of theology, is unlikely to become easier because the two thousand years ago, he suffered for Christ, then our problem - that this child has become easier thanks to us, calling themselves Christians. The followers of Christ.
So, we should fight for good, and only as Jesus Christ - the good and the personal example, for evil, as we know, begets only evil.
The state has its methods of control (not for good, but for what it considers to be good), in Christianity - their own. Graney, as usual, erased. Without the Criminal Code, of course, also impossible, and without the army and the police have not yet obtained.
Moreover - as we said in the previous chapter, and sometimes "force" the 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 his sake we had to give up even the dogma of the Trinity.
We were taught at schools and colleges (and still teach, even in modern philosophical encyclopaedias written), that monotheism was historically and psychologically due to the strengthening of the monarchies and the thrust of the people to "strong government".
Again we are confronted with the medieval stereotype of the "God-king, the king-God". In addition, this position does not stand historical criticism. And there were many pagan kings, and oriental despots-idolaters enjoyed a cult, no less than one God, and the Roman emperors, instead of being 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 the question is - if almost all the absolute monarchies left in oblivion, so maybe it's time to monotheism too?
No, not time. I propose to prove it "by contradiction".
Remember, we talked about dualism (Manichaeism, Zoroastrianism, gnosticism), "perfectly" the critical question of good and evil: God and devil are fighting with the inception 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 beyond-what?
God, what has reached Faust, was quite enough, but the most Faust - no. And then it was the devil, Mephistopheles, "argue" with God that will take advantage of human weaknesses and seduce Dr. Faust from the path of knowledge.
The plot is known. Signed by a drop of blood a treaty of alliance with the devil, Faust, second youth, "organized by the" Mephistopheles of his tragic love affair with Gretchen, the endless wandering on Walpurgis night and the Sabbath, help the emperor's victory over the enemy, an attempt to construct an "ideal" city, and finally, the death of Faust .
And "Happy End" - Faust's ascension to heaven, despite the fact that he had "tarnished" his contract with the devil.
It's all upside the great works of Goethe. But there are some fundamental "in the background", and this need to talk more.
In any case, the task was to seduce Faust Mephistopheles in the way of learning and development, make it "to glorify its own moment." Faust knew this, but for the opportunity to continue an active life, and even having an assistant devil, took the risk.
And, apparently, has won - thanks to Mephistopheles extended his life, learned a lot, but in the end still got to heaven.
But let us remember what a serious and worthy man Faust appears in the beginning of the book, when a walk to suit him and the peasants are grateful for their 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 the contract with Mephistopheles? Already 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", "wooing" him poor innocent girl Gretchen. Love did not make Faust a candle to the knowledge, but led to the tragedy: he became an unwitting murderer Gretchen, her baby, mother and brother Valentine. But Faust is at least capable of emotions on the subject, while the second part of the book before us is quite heartless and faceless people.
And let him by Mephistopheles has enormous possibilities, but how he uses them? Nothing.
Most of what he is capable of - is turning the novel (the other words can not pick up) with caused by the spirit of Helen of Mephistopheles. Soon, the spirit disappears, but from this Fausta has neither heat nor cold.
City on the dried area of the sea, which he started at the end of the book build, absolutely ephemeral, and nobody needs. Poor blind Faust walks along the beach and thinks that is built around the "garden city", but in fact it is several imps dig his grave.
That's it, Doctor Faustus, to enter into an alliance with the devil! That's what he and the devil, that nothing good man, and especially mankind, not to bring.
Thank God, it was Faust's sorry but still picked up at the sky, and only on formal grounds - Faust still remained a strong personality and never for a moment stopped nor knowledge, nor action.
But could not take it, and, unfortunately, also would have been right - after a 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 flights on the Sabbath on Walpurgis Night.
I thought elephants and odd, and odd,
And yet I did not sleep.
And there was me, my hell,
And sat astride a chair.
And he said to me the devil: "Well, old fellow?
Well, what we decided?
Sign a union, and let's go in the stirrups;
And erred a bit!
And you can lie, and can wander,
And friends to bring a herd!
And what will then pay -
But that train, understand, then!
But you know how sweet the sin
This sometimes bitter gray hair.
And that happiness is not that one - for all
And that all - as one!
And you realize that there is no court above you,
No curse of the past years,
When together with all you say - yes!
And along with everyone - no!
And you will be wolves in the land produce,
And teach them how to wag his tail!
And what will then pay
But that train, understand, then!
And what is soul? - Last year's snow!
And look - and will carry it!
In our atomic age, in our Stone Age
At the price of conscience - a nickle!
And who needs it - is "good",
If all the road - in the ashes ...
So come on, take it, old man, pen,
This is where you sign in the corner.
Then the devil touched the little finger nail on
And pulled me a bottle.
And I asked him: "It's blood"?
"Ink" - he replied ...
This is a poem by Alexander Galich (1919-1977) has become almost a textbook.
After reading it, it is natural to ask a question - are we entitled to 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, a thousand times no. Reread the poem and Galich, and Goethe's Faust.
And if anyone doubted 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 the 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.
Of eternal life
Our conversation about eternal life, hell and heaven will begin a serious problem that can be called "the fundamental paradox of Christian teaching." Not a single theologian of all time of existence of Christianity could not give a satisfactory solution to this paradox.
The fact is that in the Gospels there are many phrases of Jesus, at first glance, questioning the foundations of Christianity - the good and love.
Here are some examples:
"Do not think that I am come to send peace on earth do not come to bring peace but a sword, for I am come to set man with his fathers, and a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law it. And the enemies of man - his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me "(Mf.10, 34-37).
"Fire I came to bring down to earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! I have a baptism to be baptized, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? I tell you, but division, for now, five in one house divided ... father against son and son against father ... "(Lk.12 ,49-53).
"If someone comes to me and hate not his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yea and his own life, he can not be my disciple" (Lk.14, 26).
"I tell you, every one who has it shall be given, and at all hath not shall be taken away and that is, those mine enemies, who did not want me to reign, bring hither, and slay them before me" (Lk.19 ,26-27) .
"For every one who has will be given and abundance, and hath not taken away from and what he has, but useless servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Mf.25 ,29-30).
Do you have a phrase, huh? Hate my father and mother, but otherwise can not be Christians! Take from the poor and give to the latter rich! How does all this be interpreted in light of the person and teachings of Jesus Christ?
A stunning story of Jesus on the intransigence of 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, who lay at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table ...
Beggar died and was carried by angels to Abraham's bosom. Death and the rich man and buried him. And in hell, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom, and he cried and said: Father Abraham Have mercy on me and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am tormented in this flame.
But Abraham said: My son! Remember that you received your good things in your life, and Lazarus - the evil, but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented, and besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so even if you go from here can not, well from there to us moving.
Then he said: I pray thee therefore, father, send him to the house of my father, for I have five brothers, so 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.
He said: "No, 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, then if someone from the dead and risen, they will not believe "(Lk.16 ,19-1931).
Oh, and another pair of "good" phrases of Christ to the sinners:
"Serpents, brood of vipers! How can ye escape the damnation of hell? "(Mf.23, 33).
"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels" (Mf.25, 41).
Blatant paradoxical discrepancy quoted the words of Jesus Christ and his teachings about the good and love!
And yet this is just about standard, stereotypical notions of Christian "life of the age" - heaven and hell. We can say it is well known that the righteous will eat the rest in heaven and unclouded happiness, and sinners will be eternally tormented in hell without any hope of forgiveness and salvation, and no grace of God will not help them ...
It is in the Gospels. A "Revelation", better known as "Apocalypse"? When you read - the hair stand on end.
A number of speculations on this subject was - do not count. I think everybody remembers the last ten years, at least two or three "high profile" predictions of global catastrophe, but a dozen more "local".
Indeed, the New Testament as if it turns out that after the death of us are likely to wait torments of hell. And then another and "Armageddon" (doomsday) will come - and do not hide anywhere from hell-fire, even if you by this time had not yet had time to die.
But speculation on that fear - please: do you have a chance to get into the 144000 chosen the righteous (Otkr.14, 1), so I entered in the sect, such as "White Brotherhood Maria Devi Christos, give them all their possessions and shivering in anticipation, hoping solely on the fact that you do not find yourself 144,001 th member of this same sect and have time to get to heaven. However, usually in far fewer members of the sects, but that's a Jehovah's Witness almost three million, and everyone else waiting for an early end of the world.
Now sectarianism several quenched passions, ordinary members usually just operate for the benefit of his beloved cult and its leadership, and before and after self-immolation is often the case - they say, better a few minutes tormented in the earthly flame than ever to burn in heaven. But still sometimes on the TV broadcast something like that - that someone had burned himself, then someone someone blew ...
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 is literally packed with the New Testament.
All this gives rise to many historians (and even theology) represent Christ as the bearer of the Old Testament, and even the Persian-Arab prophetic tradition. Remember, as in "Tales of 1001 Nights" dervishes, sorcerers cursed bad viziers, and even dealt with them with gin?
And many of us, unfortunately, has developed certain stereotype perception of Jesus as a person.
I went to Judea What a shabby, poor prophet with eyes glowing an unhealthy glow, and called for thunder and lightning on the heads of the unjust rulers of the earth.
Like, I'll make to you, thieves, bribe takers and murderers, and we reach in this world - so in fact you of me certainly did not hide yourselves, you will be in hell for each of the pan, and particularly harmful - a cauldron of boiling water. Or with boiling oil, because it hurts! ..
Total deplorable. Few of the modern educated people seriously believe in hell fire, and paradise in heaven, and in the end of the world.
Under the ground, as we know, oil is in heaven - the stratosphere, even higher - space, where cosmonauts fly satellites and television. But predictions of doom to all simply tired, especially when the turn of the millennium it was repeated several times a year.
It was then that we helpfully and substituted the doctrine of "life after life" of 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 in this word does not need to invest a disparaging sense. It is hard to deny that some in fact can become healers, and psychics, and even the visionaries. That hardly gives anything to achieve happiness and harmony, but they probably know better.
Fair to say that attempts to impose orthodoxy in methodology "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 quietism is: if in some way to focus for a long time to pray, fast and perform a number of other requirements, sooner or later, you can enter into a state of spiritual awareness of God, Christ, the devil, heavenly host, and all Christian concepts. Can "prointuichit" date of his death, eternal life, the true essence of things ... You can heal, to talk, shoot damage, cast out demons, in short, do everything on that psychics are able.
A main goal of quietism - "deification" of man in his lifetime, after which the problems of heaven and hell, of course, be solved by themselves.
In 1341 Gregory Palamas, Metropolitan 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 reach a state of mystical awareness: how many times prayers, how to breathe, where to look, in what posture to sit ... What is not meditation?
Moreover, there is also a theological justification isichasm - Transfiguration of Our Lord. It is known that Jesus and his disciples went up to Mount Tabor, and sprung miraculously light (Mf.17, 2), thus enabling the people of the earth potential to contemplate the divine light.
Immediately, however, the question arises - what Christ has revealed no more divine light? A word (teaching)? A 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" the monks, and they stayed.
Naturally, the "professional contemplatives" - Athos, Pskov, or Trinity St. Sergius elders - could not develop their own practices, including isihasticheskie. But these methods have remained a purely local event.
Few people know that isichasm seriously engaged Sergius Radonezh, Neil Sora, Seraphim of Sarov and 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 exactly the same way remains beyond the perception of the overwhelming majority of people.
There is another "but" - in any "mystical contemplation" is extremely difficult to distinguish reality from hallucination, but the truth from fiction. What would solve this problem, the church has to base isihasticheskoe knowledge on the same theological doctrines such as Trinity and the God-man, and all that they do not fit, take demonic obsession.
In this approach, cognitive sense isichasm all boils down to nothing.
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 we are to this end, 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 general Christian religious worldview.
In short, while the church talk about principle, the admissibility of quietism, the vast majority of Christians both enjoyed, and enjoyed the medieval concept of heaven, hell and the end of the world, while knowing full well contrived and outdated stereotypes pans, boilers, and devils.
But, as you know, 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 have access to any information, just flee from the eyes of an abundance of alternatives. Dzenbuddizm, magic, chakras, astral plane - please! These books are piled with stores, and newspapers are full of advertisements for recruitment to 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 the 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 fear of hell torments led, except piling horror, to a clear theological absurdity.
Indeed, if sinners in hell forever be unimaginable torment (St. Augustine wrote that hell is stronger than all known torture), it becomes unintelligible redemptive meaning of the passion of Christ. Intuitive understanding of justice does not accept the fact that the Savior of all-everything-all the sins of mankind has suffered on the cross several hours, but some sneak thief for his minor sins eternally burning in the hellish fire ...
Because of the Passion of Jesus of Nazareth transformed into a naked abstract character, losing its importance for the formation of the Christian worldview of people.
And when you read (and not from Gregory the Theologian, and in the modern church books) something like: "This is a great God's mercy for sinners, what in hell waiting for them great physical suffering, because they distract from the anguish of spiritual" - any normal person want to forget this nightmarish casuistry, as a nightmare.
From psychology we know that when the horror becomes a kind of "border admissibility, he 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 "Holy Fathers" anecdote.
Man sinned a lot in life. He died, and facing the gates of paradise, which protects the apostle Peter.
Peter said to him: "You in paradise can not, you have such and such and such sins." The man replied: "Are not you the one the one Peter who denied Christ three times? What right do you forbid me to enter into heaven? "
Peter lost his head, called the Apostle Paul. The man speaks to him: "Are not you he, Saul, who participated in the Stoning of St. Stephen? What right do you forbid me to enter into heaven? "
Peter and Paul was called the Apostle Thomas, a man and him: "Are you not the most doubting Thomas, who had to put his fingers into the wounds of Christ, to believe in his resurrection? What right do you forbid me to enter into heaven? "
The Apostles have long thought and called himself Jesus Christ. A man and says 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 do not love me and do not forgive? "
Just how the decision in the end took the Savior, history is silent. But judging from this "theological" joke Fathers understood the glaring contradiction of the Christian doctrine and the pains of hell for sinners.
As here once again recall the words of Ivan Karamazov: "And what harmony, if hell: I just want to hug and wish I did not want to suffer more."
Indeed, analyzing the concept of heaven and hell, we are faced with a mass of medieval stereotypes that scale inferior to all those to which we referred earlier. But beneath these stereotypes may be buried in the main component of Christianity - our hope for the goodness, love and eternal life.
I do not want to say that Christ was wrong, threatening the sinners of hell and the catastrophic end of the world.
However, I want to say that we misunderstood.
I'll try to explain it, but with one important proviso.
When we criticize the dogmas of the Trinity and of Christ, we stood on a strictly theological positions, and they could not shake nor Augustine nor St. Thomas Aquinas, nor any of the modern church leaders - and for us it was the Holy Scriptures, and the results of a historical review and 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 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 "Revelation".
Therefore, the reasoning in this area is appealing primarily to reason, though for all our arguments, we will seek and theological base.
Let's think: Christianity, there are around 2000 years. Is it much or little?
My first thought - is not enough. Indeed, our planet there is an unimaginably long time - five or six billion years. The dinosaurs lived a hundred million years ago, Neanderthals - a few tens of thousands of years, but Christ - only 2,000 ...
But in reality the scale of human civilization - many, very many. From the ancient Egyptian pyramids to the 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 - neither end of the world, nor the second coming, despite the fact that Christ said: "Do not pass away till all these things be fulfilled" (Mf.24, 34), and John the Evangelist in the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse) describe all sorts of horrors to come as soon.
You can, of course, interpret the expected John millennial kingdom of Christ (Otkr.20, 3) both started either from birth, whether the resurrection of the latter (as done in the Middle Ages). It turns out that the Last Judgement "accounted" for the years 1000-1030. Panic in the early second millennium was unimaginable, but nothing happened.
In the XIV century "calculations" were lead by 313 years - "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.
Thus, we expect next? 2030?
Or even a thousand years?
And, perhaps, still time to understand that Christ actually mean?
Yes, without a rigid opposition of "paradise good - hell bad" and 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 also preached Christ is the Messiah, in keeping with the Old Testament canonical tradition! And in anticipation of the Messiah, the great judge, who, with thunder and lightning to the earth save the righteous and sit "on 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 - not a large brazier in the center of the earth and heaven - not little angels in a cloud. We have long realized that the end of the world if it comes, not necessarily in our lifetime or in the near millennium ...
We understood a great deal for these two thousand years, but the habit still continue to perceive stereotypical Christian teaching about 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 revenge (eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hell for the sin), reportedly supported by hard-line statements of Jesus, nor his person or in his case, nor to his teaching has no slightest relation.
And the proof is very simple. Christ said: "By their fruits ye shall know them" (Mf.7, 20). That is, speaking the language of business, to judge a person can only be based on its activities.
"Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me: and if not, then believe me for the most cases.
Verily, verily I say unto you: He who believes in Me, the works that I create I, and he did, and he will do more now, because I am going to my Father "(,11-In.14 12).
A "bottom line" of the earth of Jesus of Nazareth was a lot of healings, the resurrection of Lazarus and, mind you, no cases of causing harm to people. We have already said that when the disciples asked him to destroy the village, where they were refused shelter, Jesus said: "Son of man came not to destroy souls but to save them" (Lk.9, 56).
For comparison, consider an episode from the life of the Old Testament prophet Elisha (disciple of the famous prophet), famous for numerous miracles and having considerable political influence:
"When he was in the way, little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said to him: Go up, thou bald head Go up, thou bald head He looked around and saw them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two bears out of the woods and tore forty two of them a child "(4 Tsar.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 only system of values of goodness and love. Recall the case when, shortly after the ascension of Jesus, the apostle Peter actually killed Ananias and Sapphira, utaivshih from the church of the money, the proceeds of their sold property (Deyan.5 ,1-11). But this unfortunate episode was in the New Testament, the first and last.
Much more typical of what the apostle John, writing in the mid-sixties I century terrible "Revelation", in twenty or thirty years have come to the fourth Gospel, in which nothing is said about the torments of hell! All the much softer:
"Done good shall come forth in the resurrection of life, and evil deeds - the resurrection of damnation" (In.5, 29).
"Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is on you accuser Moses, in whom you trust" (In.5, 45).
"The will of the Father who sent me is that, to the fact that He has given me to lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day" (In.6, 39).
"I have come that they may have life and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep "(In.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. Rejects me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day "(In.12 ,47-48).
This "softening" of the position of St. John the Divine 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 only 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.
A sinister apocalyptic Armageddon (Otkr.16, 16) - actually a small valley in Israel, where in 642 BC there was a bloody battle with the Jews of Egyptian troops and was killed by King Josiah (4 Tsar.23, 29).
In short, how would we today call perceived sinners throw in a landfill? Allegorically. A word about the fact that sinners would be worse than the Swedes at Poltava? At least figuratively.
So, if you have half a century after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ his favorite disciple, the apostle John, has found it possible to leave out in the cold of the fourth gospel every word about the awesome infernal fire, then two thousand years later, the more possible to interpret the heaven and hell only in the context of personal spiritual feelings of each of us.
It should be noted that the church is gradually coming to a similar position, albeit with the caveat that it's still some specific state of man after death, that is a good time will be very good and the bad - badly.
In fact, a paradise for man - a spiritual implications of good, hell - the consequences of evil, not only after death, but in this life.
What is good and evil, we already know.
The fact that the 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 just that in the personnel department beat laid-off workers, that they less upset because of the dismissal.
But what maniacs, scoundrels, bloody dictator, and just bad people at heart is hard - well-known fact. The fact that they can expect in the face of death, we still talk.
If you still try to speak on a global scale, perhaps, the end of the world's imperfections, the cessation of evil on earth and building what we call the Kingdom of God. What, incidentally, not the second coming of Christ, not as great and terrible thunder, but as a teacher, waiting for the triumph of his doctrine?
So Jesus' words about the hellish flames and other "strashnostyah" in our time are to be interpreted unambiguously - is a passionate and persuasive appeal to the full intransigence in spiritual terms. No spirit of compromise with evil, no pact with the devil, even the most astute and deftly drawn!
Yes, we live in an imperfect earthly world, where before the victory of goodness and love is very, very far away, but at the time of Christ was still on. Yes, life forces us at every step to make compromises, and Jesus said: "Give to Caesar (the Emperor - SZ), Caesarean, and God is God" (Mf.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, but on the other slack. You can not serve God and mammon (riches) "(Mf.6, 24).
Hence, monotheism, strict Christian monotheism, and nothing but the one God and values kindness and love, our faith is impossible.
Otherwise, it was too strong is the temptation to negotiate with the devil, that is, lie, fornicate, and bring friends for money and power - as well as anything out?
I may ask a reasonable question - if we have heaven and hell to interpret the spiritual plane, so there are no eternal life?
Generally speaking, a matter of personal faith of each. But personally, I certainly believe in eternal life. I can explain why.
In the Book of Psalms is often cited location:
"I said: you are gods and sons of God - all of you: but ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the Princes" (Ps.81 ,6-7).
Thus saith the Old Testament. However, after coming to earth of Jesus Christ, much has changed.
To understand it, we must talk about where to actually had to start a book: the identity of Jesus of Nazareth.
Silenus stereotype ragged dervish to unhealthy gleam in his eyes, is not it? But it is not.
While still 12 years old, Jesus spoke the Temple in Jerusalem with the wise men, and "all who 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 - not the same thing.
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 scribes and elders of the people in the courtyard of the high priest, named Caiaphas, and consulted that they might take Jesus by stealth and kill him, but said: Not during the feast, lest there be an uproar among the people" (Mf.26 ,3-5 ).
Would do this "honor" ragged dervish? Never.
By the way, oborvannost Jesus - yet another unfounded stereotype.
Even such a small detail, as "without seam, woven from the top" coat of Jesus (In.19, 23), we can tell a lot. Such clothes could afford only very wealthy people - how easy is it to manufacture entirely to loom coat, that is a difficult form of clothing with sleeves?
And the old, and cheap clothes Jesus was not - remember how after the crucifixion by Roman soldiers divided it by casting lots? (Mf.27, 35). So it 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 account - such people can be in any organization.
With "Jesus, the apostles" was considerable finance and strong support in many different cities. Over the three years of his preaching activity Jesus had bypass almost all of Israel and adjacent regions. He had been in Tyre and Sidon in, 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.
Huge organizational work! Now in some editions of the Bible even print a map Jesus travels to Israel and neighboring countries.
And leaned Christ, paradoxically, to ... publicans. Yes, the collectors of taxes and duties - a serious force in a modern way - the tax inspectorate.
Apparently, a "relationship with power structures" replied the apostle Matthew, a publican.
"Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say: Behold a man who loves to eat and drink wine, a friend of publicans and sinners" (Mf.11, 19).
"And when Jesus sat at meat in the house, many publicans and sinners came and sat down next to him and his disciples" (Mf.9, 10).
By the way, you wondered why the "Jesus entered the Temple of God and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of them that sold doves" (Mf.21 12), while no traders did not dare to resist ?
They tried to resist the small shopkeepers "the other a publican, the more so with Christ at the time was the Apostle Matthew ...
Now tell me: if Joshua ben Joseph of Nazareth, business, practical, intelligent, educated, financially secure, well-known people in the country, absolutely voluntarily went to the cross - it means something?
So, very much.
First, as we have said, Christ knew that his death on the cross is a powerful engine to further promote his teachings. Jesus deliberately die for their cause.
Secondly (and this is important):
Jesus of Nazareth by their personal example has shown us the possibility of resurrection.
And his doubts, and his prayer in Gethsemane "carry past the cup," show that this dalos hard for him. 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 early chapters, Jesus - the same people, like us, then for us to his resurrection - clue in our earthly life.
I emphasize - it is because the essence of Jesus of Nazareth is similar to ours. By God, then apply the concept of death or resurrection ...
"Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death.
"Christ is risen - is truly risen!"
So what we have every year at Easter at the words themselves represent? Well, Christ is risen - and rose again, the holiday - and a holiday procession, banners, on the TV all night Easter service in the churches of the crowd ...
And if you clear perception of the holiday ritual of husk, the most important thing in it - is an annual reminder of the example that we all gave Jesus Christ.
If I had my way, I would also set up a holiday "calendar" anniversary of the Resurrection - April 9. Or the "day of remembrance of Jesus of Nazareth" - April 7, the anniversary of the crucifixion. Although hardly in need of Christ "the bottom memory" - of 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 was God. If we are people, and he is a man.
The apostle John, as we remember, all of us who have adopted Christianity, called "children of God" (In.1, 12).
The apostle Paul all who believed in Christ, in his Epistle called saints. So we're with you, according to the Apostle Paul, we can safely stand next to, not only with Jesus Christ, but also with Nicholas of Myra, Sergius Radonezhsky, Seraphim of Sarov ...
So we have a great chance for resurrection and future life.
"For if you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" (Rim.10, 9).
And the apostle Paul said:
"If there is no resurrection of dead, then Christ is not risen" (1 Kor.15 13);
"Knowing that raised the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and put before him with you" (2 Kor.4, 14).
Then, as they say, nor subtract or add.
In the third chapter, despite the fundamental differences with the teachings of Aurelius Augustine, recognized the immense scale of his figures, and suggested to be the beginning of the middle ages is not of dubious fall of the Roman Empire, from Augustine, the founder of medieval philosophy.
We conducted a detailed historical analysis of the theological currents IV-VI centuries, when we had to develop another dogma to answer the question of how to relate to the divine nature of Christ, "institutionalized" dogma of the Trinity, and human, which is still not able to "undo". This dogma, declaring Jesus the God-man, was a momentary political compromise at the time useful in a fierce power struggle in the church and state.
After analyzing this dogma, we found that the presence of the God-man in two different "desires, wills, energy and of acting" means "split personality". So came the final deliverance of the church from hindered her from the real Jesus of Nazareth: his dogma of the Trinity sani and alienated from the people, and dogma of the God-man was turned into a lunatic ....
In the fourth chapter, we have carefully analyzed the Scriptures and 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). This is a short and clear answer to all questions, and for no scholastic frills places she does not leave.
Further, we noted that nowadays the dogmas of the Trinity and the God-man are outdated and in need of radical revision, because otherwise lost the meaning of the example that Christ gave to mankind, going to the cross for his teachings of kindness and love.
After all, if Christ - 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: "That's what Christ and God, to preach the kindness and love, and for this to go on a cross. God, then hang on the cross and rise again - no problem, but that we, mere mortals do? It's better we get along somehow without goodness and love "...
People come to church, listen incomprehensible set of Old Slavonic chants - and all. And if you would make an image of Christ understandable to everyone! Perhaps, then in our lives something would actually improve? After all, what a huge force - Christian spirituality, and hurt to see how it is spent on the mysterious medieval rituals and dogmas ...
So our only chance for victory of common sense - to 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 New Testament.
And since, as we have shown, there was no dogma or Trinity, or God-man - what, have yet to do without them. The basis of theology, and especially the Christian faith can not 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, of which we speak of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed - "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."
And Trinity could remain the same category of purely philosophical and historical attractions, such as Sofia - "God's Wisdom". The latter also had a convincing case in the canonical Scripture, and the church renounced the cult of Sofia in the early second millennium.
As we have seen nothing wrong in this case did not happen, and St. Sophia Cathedral in Constantinople, Kiev and Novgorod, thank God, are in place and are equally unparalleled architectural masterpieces as the Trinity Cathedral in the Trinity-St ...
In the fifth chapter, we undertook to develop a modern proof of the existence of God.
The need for such proof is long overdue. Kant believed that without God, humans would have no hope for good luck, everything would be "vanity" (as in Ecclesiastes), and live it would be at all sad. Adding that "godless" position has another serious flaw: to answer the question, "vanity of vanities" Does your own life, have only to ourselves, that creates a strong psychological discomfort.
Orthodoxy considers proof of the existence of God and preaches the need for harmful genuine and "uncomplicated" faith. And, indeed, genuine and uncomplicated "faith can give hope for happiness in the life of the age" and to support a 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 highly educated people - even more so.
And Christ is in full accordance 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" (Mf.22, 37). Hence, proving the existence of God are 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 historical analysis of the relationship of these two systems, both in the West and in Russia, we made a number of conclusions:
1. Religion and art in the course of history and won the competition in the spiritual world of people today do not have.
2. Religion and art - the phenomenon of one level in the same 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 volitional 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 confirms single origin of art and religion.
Of these five conclusions we have made a total:
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 major problems of mankind on the path of knowledge of divine truth - the cleansing of religion and art from the speculative, opportunistic and selfish layers.
In the sixth chapter, we discussed the basic aspects of the moral teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, and showed that the Gospels describe Jesus' miracles have become one of the main evidence that Christ brought to mankind a system of values of love and kindness.
The fundamental point is that the only possible concept of sin by Jesus Christ - is the lack of love for God "with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind" and the lack of love of neighbor "as thyself." Any complication of the notion of sin benefited only dishonest people.
On the issue of repentance, we noted that a singular focus on redemption through good works gives people a moral right to sin.
Atone for sin - not the point. The main thing - sincere reluctance to commit. Then, even forcibly committing a sin, a man he would not voluntarily repeat.
Speaking about the modern understanding of God's grace (the possibility of forgiveness of God for our sins), we noted that there are sins that even genuinely devout Christian can not commit. And God's grace is the forgiveness of sins is the man.
Divine system of values of goodness and love that brought us Jesus Christ, to be accepted in the spiritual sense, but in practice can be applied every Christian, not as a single and inflexible pattern, and in accordance with the specific situation.
If I put it in obschebogoslovskom aspect, God alone knows the general trends of development of mankind and the purpose of every human life, so God decides who is righteous and who is not, by balancing our thoughts and actions with those goals.
And if we can understand these objectives and trends, driven by God? We can, to a great extent - for this we have the doctrine of Jesus Christ! And we should call him the Savior above 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 the Christianity take root in a particular person, 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 so-called "sin of adultery."
Analysis of the Holy Scripture has shown that neither 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 understand that sexuality he had nothing to do.
In this regard, we asked the question: life has long been abolished all unreasonable restrictions on sex, so if you do not cancel them, and Christian churches, and do not cease to be considered a normal sexual life of sin, and even diabolical obsession? As we've seen, neither in the Old or New Testaments are no prohibitions on sex did not, and could not be. And Moses and Christ, and 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.
Sam rite 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 - is part of the spiritual system of mankind.
But the principle for our study is that Jesus of Nazareth had 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 them in the previous chapters: Jesus of Nazareth - the same man, as we all are.
"And God said: Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.
And the Lord sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken "(Byt.3 ,22-23).
This passage from the Book of Genesis, a stunning capacity and number of the questions, we analyzed the last two chapters dealing with issues of good and evil, heaven and hell, the end of light 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, miseries, sins, crimes and deeds. 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.
Everyone has freedom enough to independently answer for their sins and crimes.
Answering the question why on earth there is evil, we realized that the third temptation of Christ, the devil (Mf.4, 8) last had a perfect right to offer Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth, since it is something of a "supreme governor" of the kingdom.
And we concluded: good - God and Christian spirituality, evil - the earthly public and social order along with the economy and politics.
After analyzing the ratio of the Darwinian theory of the origin of species and the Biblical creation of the world by God and Adam, we have come to the conclusion that they are compatible, except for one time: six to eight thousand years ago, the ape-like species had seen an extraordinary growth in the 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.
It is important that coexistence of the divine nature of our spirit and "monkey" (or rather, wolf), the laws of the flesh and creates a problem of good and evil. The first can be interpreted as "help the weak, the second - as" killed by the weak ".
And we talked about good and evil only in the context of humanistic, Christian spirituality (spoke theologically, the Holy Spirit) with strong instincts of a wolf pack, nowadays usually referred to as "social public relations".
Therefore, no state is unable to build God's kingdom - the kingdom of Christian kindness and love. Able to build God's kingdom 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. Just none of the people will not feel the desire to do evil. More specifically - to violate the Christian precepts of goodness and love.
What is the state of society in this case will be - can only guess. But it is clear that if people will continue to kill, torture and cheat each other, and the state should oversee to kill only those "who have" - what kind of kingdom of God?
Therefore, the task of Christianity - not utopian (happiness of mankind, or one, separate country), but very real - make it easier and a specific person, and the people around him.
Turning on the concepts of good and evil, the concepts of heaven and hell, we are faced with "the fundamental paradox of Christianity" - the 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. Over two thousand years we have understood a great deal and only a "habit" continue stereotypically perceive Christian teaching about heaven, hell and the end of the world as "believe" in the Middle Ages.
But relying on common sense of our age, we could conclude that the Old Testament principle of retribution evil for evil (eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hell for the sin), allegedly supported by hard-line statements of Jesus, nor his personality nor in his case nor to his teaching has not the slightest relationship.
In fact, a paradise for man - a spiritual implications of good, hell - the consequences of evil, not only after death, but in this life.
And Jesus' words about the hellish fire in our time are to be interpreted unambiguously - is a passionate and persuasive appeal to the complete intransigence in the spiritual plane. No spirit of compromise with evil, no pact with the devil, even the most astute and deftly drawn!
The main conclusion of this book - about eternal life: if Jesus ben Joseph of Nazareth, business, practical, intelligent, educated, financially secure, well-known person 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 deliberately die for their 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 early chapters, Jesus - the same people, like us, then for us to his resurrection - clue in our earthly life. It is because the essence of Jesus of Nazareth is similar to ours. By God, then apply the concept of death or resurrection ...
But Jesus Christ on his path was difficult, very difficult. Not less hassle and waiting for us Christians, if we want to not only call them gods, and find true eternal life.
To do this, however, not necessarily everyone to go to the cross - just live my 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.
As stated, our years - our wealth.
Same can be said about humanity, which for two thousand years since the beginning of the Christian era learned a lot.
All our life - is a continuous reassessment of values. But then given to man and mankind, and their years of experience accumulated by generations to understand: 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 a teacher of goodness and love.
And now, when humanity has the means of self-destruction in the form of nuclear arsenals, which can turn into the wilderness for ten planets such as Earth, the presence in the soul of the people of Christian values can and must save humanity from destruction.
And for each of us Christians - not just a religion or ideology. This 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, "the life of the next century and the teachings of Jesus Christ is not dying, but more and more firmly fused 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 fifteen hundred years ago St. Augustine formulated his famous thesis: "I believe, to know." But humanity long ripe for a return statement: "I know, to believe."
Russia needs it 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 the religious movement, and as a modern spiritual system.
And since the since the "Catholic" Protestants - Luther and Calvin - took 500 years, we have an opportunity to give shape to the 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 a central role.
But first, let's carefully read the New Testament. For our faith and spiritual salvation is enough that he had been taught by Jesus of Nazareth and his contemporaries - the apostles. Their teaching is simple, accessible to everyone and does not require the medieval scholastic encumbrances.
God help us.
© Sergey Zagraevsky