Today is a beautiful day in Florida. Yesterday we “survived” not one, but two tornadoes (they mostly hit a national wildlife refuge south of us, there never was any real danger, but this sounds better) and today we get one of those perfect Florida days: blue skies with a few white clouds, beautiful warm sunshine (26C/79F), a cool breeze from the northeast and which brings in the always refreshing smell of the Atlantic ocean (were my lucky son spend six hours surfing the waves this morning). I know that I have to work on my promised report on world opinion and media coverage of the Ukrainian crisis, but I want to “seize the day” and go for some nature photography this afternoon (shall I post some pics of sunny Florida here?). The report will have to wait a little. However, I got two questions recently which I find worth answering in a separate post.
[WARNING: these two questions deal with religion so those of you who hate religion – please just ignore this post.]
Here are the two issues I want to discuss today: James wants to know what the Church is while Mohamed wrote in a comment that the Scripture was corrupted. I will take them one by one (though there is a link between the two)
@James: What is the Church?
To reply to this question adequately one could write a PhD thesis. I will try to make a much shorter reply and point you to a few texts, fair enough?
Since you are a former Latin Christian let me begin by saying what the Church is not. It is not an organization nor a formal institution. You probably remember that in the Symbol of Faith (aka the Credo) it says “In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”. Most people do not seem to be aware that the words at the very beginning “I believe in” also apply to the section “In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”. In other words, not only do Orthodox Christians believe”in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible (…) “in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of light; true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made” (…) in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father” but also “In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church“. The Church itself requires and act of faith similar to the confession of the belief in God. Orthodox Christians literally “believe in the Church” and this is why the Church is most definitely not an organization.
In theological language the Church is called the Theandric Body of Christ. Theandric derives from Theanthropos or “Godman” the central dogma of all Christianity. In other words, the Church is literally the Body of Christ no less than the Eucharist. This is also why the only valid Mysteries (called “Sacraments” in western theology) can only be found inside that Church. Just like the Body of Christ, the Church cannot break into parts, have sub-groups, contradict itself, etc. This is why the Symbol of Faith speaks of ONE Church, no more divisible that God Himself. Again, to accept that requires an act of faith.
The Church is called “Holy” because it is the Body of Christ and that it is filled with the Holy Spirit. This is why at the First Apostolic Council in Jerusalem (50 AD) those present wrote “For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us..” (Acts 15: 28). However, its individual members – laity and clergy – are not necessarily holy at all. The Church is also a hospital for sinners and not an elite club of perfect holy people.
The Church is called “Catholic” because of the Greek word καθολικός which means “universal”, especially in the following two meanings: a) which includes and is not limited to one region, country, continent or part of the world and b) acts in a way which includes everybody. The first one is obvious, but the second one is not. In this sense, “Catholic” means “Counciliar” in reference to a “council of all” or, in Greek, a “Ecumenical” (including the whole world) council. The Russian term Соборный/соборность is very accurate here as it clearly points to a council (“sobor” in Russian). So being “Catholic/Counciliar” means that there is no “teaching Church” versus a “taught Church”, no one instance or clerical rank which is the source of “authority” (to use a Latin concept) or unity. It is the whole Body of the Church, down to the last layperson, which acting as one has the “authority” of the Church. Not even a council of, say, 99% of all the Orthodox Bishops – nevermind one bishop or one Patriarch – on the planet can claim to speak for the Church if the rest of the “Body” does not agree with it. There have been plenty of instances in history were the vast majority of bishops which formally appeared to have remained Orthodox had, in fact, lapsed from the Church. These are the so-called “robber councils” which, at that time, looked legit and had all the external signs of legitimacy, but which the Body of the Church – the people, really – ended up denouncing and condemning later. Again, there is no external legitimacy, no authority from which legitimacy can be derived, no person or group of people who can deliver some “certificate of authenticity” to this or that local Church or bishop. So how do we know which is the one true Church as opposed to those who only appear to be so externally. Here are the criteria of truth:
1) Apostolic succession. Simple enough, does not need to be explained.
2) True confession of faith. The local Church has to confess the exact same faith which, in the words of Saint Athanasios “the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian“. It has to be what I call “backward compatible” meaning absolutely no innovation. In the words of Saint Vincent of Lerins, it has to be exactly and fully the same as that “”which has been believed everywhere, always and by all“. If they did not all believe and confess X in, say, the 5th century or the 8th century, then it is not Orthodox. Simple.
3) Unity of the Eucharist: simply put – if you are not in Eucharistic communion with the rest of the Body of Christ, you are not part of the Church.
I would note here that the unity of faith is a prerequisite for the Eucharistic communion: if you do not have the same beliefs as I do, we cannot share the same Eucharist. Nowadays some got it exactly backward. They say “let us commune from the same cup, and then iron out our secondary differences later”. This is modern nonsense. The Church has never taught that.
In the world the visible part of the Church is, for cultural and practical reasons, organized along several independent religious organizations: local Churches, independent (“autocephalous”) Patriarchates which can be Russian, Greek, Paraguayan or Japanese. The pray in their own language, organize themselves in any way they want, have their own customs and traditions. Just like there were 12 and 70 apostles there can be plenty local and autonomous Churches as long as they maintain the unity of faith and communion. In fact, if the One Church did not allow that it would not be truly “Catholic” either. And just like the Apostles did not have some “Big Boss” over them, the Church has no Head other than Christ Himself. Sure, for administrative and pastoral issues each Church has a senior bishop (put in charge by a council of local bishops) but even that local boss has no more authority in matters of faith, of confession, that any layperson. There have been plenty instances in the history of the Church when Patriarchs and entire councils strayed from the truth, and they were often reproved and even condemned by simply lay people. Speaking of which, there are only 4 clerical ranks in the Church: layperson (yes, that is a rank, a layperson can, in case of emergency, baptize in the name of the entire Church), deacon, priest and bishop. All the other fancy categories are only administrative or honorary. So folks with roaring titles like “His Beatitude the Archbishop of X” is no more than a simple bishop. A Protopresbyter is just a priest and an Archdeacon is just a deacon. Clergymen, by the way, are formally addressed with honorary titles “Most Reverend”, “Your Grace”, etc. but that really applies to the clerical rank, not the person carrying that rank. Same for kissing the hand of a priest – its not because he is so worthy, but because of the high rank (charisma) bestowed on him. He himself might be a dumb jerk (many are) or even a lying hypocritical ignoramus with a bad temper. Remember, the Church is a hospital for sinners, not a club of holy men. There is only one thing that really matters: the confession of faith of this clergyman needs to be 100% Orthodox and his personal sins must not be serious enough to ban him from serving and/or himself receiving the Eucharist (so no pedophilia, no sexual immorality, no killing, no apostasy, etc.).
Okay, I have to stop here even though we barely scratched the surface here. Let me give you a few good readings I recommend:
Online texts on ecclesiology (what is the Church?):
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/christchurchilarion.htm
http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/komiakov_essay.htm
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/gen_church.aspx (any text on that page)
General books on Orthodox Christianity:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Faith-Understanding-Orthodox-Christianity/dp/0964914115/ http://www.amazon.com/The-Orthodox-Church-New-Edition/dp/0140146563/
http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Catholic-Should-Orthodox-Catechism/dp/0964914182/ http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Dogmatic-Theology-Concise-Exposition/dp/0938635697
http://www.amazon.com/Theosis-True-Purpose-Human-Life/dp/B001UR1SI0/
I hope that this was useful. If not, I am sorry.
@Mohamed: was the Scripture corrupted?
Yes and no. Yes it was, but never successfully. Let me explain why.
First, if you accept that God did communicate with mankind by means of prophecy and that the prophets did put down the prophecies which they received, you would wonder why then God would let men distort or otherwise corrupt the message He sent us. Of course, all man can err, we are all sinful, and either by mistake or deliberately man have corrupted the Scripture, no question here, the pertinent question is rather could these men have gotten away with that?
In the Third book of Esdras we have an interesting episode. Esdras tells God that the Scripture has been burned and asks “If then I have found favor before thee, send the Holy Spirit into me, and I will write everything that has happened in the world from the beginning, the things which were written in thy law, that men may be able to find the path, and that those who wish to live in the last days may live.” To which God replies “Go and gather the people, and tell them not to seek you for forty days. But prepare for yourself many writing tablets, and take with you Sarea, Dabria, Selemia, Ethanus, and As′iel—these five, because they are trained to write rapidly; and you shall come here, and I will light in your heart the lamp of understanding, which shall not be put out until what you are about to write is finished“. And, sure enough, Esdras tells us “So I took the five men, as he commanded me, and we proceeded to the field, and remained there. And on the next day, behold, a voice called me, saying, “Ezra, open your mouth and drink what I give you to drink.” Then I opened my mouth, and behold, a full cup was offered to me; it was full of something like water, but its color was like fire. And I took it and drank; and when I had drunk it, my heart poured forth understanding, and wisdom increased in my breast, for my spirit retained its memory; and my mouth was opened, and was no longer closed. And the Most High gave understanding to the five men, and by turns they wrote what was dictated, in characters which they did not know. They sat forty days, and wrote during the daytime, and ate their bread at night. As for me, I spoke in the daytime and was not silent at night. So during the forty days ninety-four books were written. And when the forty days were ended, the Most High spoke to me, saying, “Make public the twenty-four books that you wrote first and let the worthy and the unworthy read them; but keep the seventy that were written last, in order to give them to the wise among your people. For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the river of knowledge.” And I did so.
Sorry for the long quote, but I want to illustrate a point: when needed God can command his faithful to restore even the full Scripture provided a) that they are worthy to received the guidance of the Holy Spirit and b) that they receive the “drink like fire” which God gives them (note that this book was written long before the times of Christ!). What is certain is that the notion that God would grant a revelation through His prophets and then allow that revelation to remain corrupted for centuries is rather ludicrous.
There was, indeed, one grievous attempt at falsifying the Scripture. It occurred after the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD. At that time the Jewish people were separated into 2 sects: those who believed that Christ was the Messiah and those who did not. The former become known as Christians, while the latter – mostly Pharisees – created their own group which developed a new spirituality which switched focus from the Old Testament to the Talmud, from the Temple to assemblies (synagogues), from priests to rabbis and from the original Scripture to a new “corrected” text. This texts had the official imprimatur of the rabbis who declared that it has been corrected by their sages, the scribes and scholars. Needless to say, what they really did is cut out or alter those parts of the Scripture which were inconvenient to them. At the time there was a great deal of hostility between the two groups and disputations centered around the Scripture, of course. The issue at hand was simple: did the prophesies about the Messiah in the scripture match what actually happened in the life of Christ or not? Could the followers of Christ prove their case by using the Scripture? Well, the “guardians of the tradition”, or “Masoretes” as they became known, “corrected” the Scripture as much as possible to produce a forgery known today as the “Masoretic text” (abbreviated MT).
Christians immediately saw through that and denounced the text as a fake. One of the earliest documents we have showing that Christians at the time were fully aware that the Jews produced a forgery is the “Dialog with Trypho” in which Saint Justin Martyr (2nd century) explicitly makes that accusation. The latter Fathers have also confirmed that.
You might wonder which text is the original and what happened to it. We only have parts of the original Hebrew “Old Testament” (which is, of course, not what they called it). Following the conquests of Alexander the Great much of what is today the Middle-East was “Hellenized” and the language of the elites and the international language of the time was Greek. About two centuries before the birth of Christ, at the request of the local (Greek) ruler, Ptolemy II Philadelphius, a translation into Greek of the Hebrew text was made for the famous Library of Alexandria by 70 translators from the 12 tribes of Israel. This text is called the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX) in memory of these 70 translators. This is the only text ever considered authoritative by the Church. Following the Latin schism, the LXX was almost forgotten in western Europe where the Latin Church used a translation made by Saint Jerome called the Vulgate. Because the Latin believed that only the “learned” clergy should read the Scripture and then teach and explain it to the “simple” folks, this text was no very widely circulated. In contrast, Luther wanted each Christian to have access to the Scripture. Luther, who was opposed to the Latin clericalism and who suspected that the Latins might have corrupted the text, decided to base his teaching on what he apparently sincerely believed was the “original” Hebrew text, the Masoretic forgery. As a result, the vast majority of Bibles available in the Western World are based on a text deliberately forged by Christ-hating rabbis, including the (otherwise beautifully written) King James Version. More recently, newer “corrected” versions of the MT have been made, but there is still only one, rather bad, translation of the LXX in English, the so-called “Brenton translation” (I hear that a new one is being worked on). But until very recently the West was simply too proud and too ignorant of Patristic thought to remember that only the LXX was the true text of the Old Testament.
I am going into all these details to illustrate a point: yes, Holy Writ can, and has been, corrupted both deliberately (Masoretes) or by ignorance (western Bibles). But God never allows the original true text to simply vanish.
I would also note that what the rabbis attempted is first and foremost a substitution: LXX by MT. They never claimed that the MT was the LXX. In fact, some Jewish holidays (such as Hanukkah) have no scriptural basis in the MT but only in the LXX (in the book of Maccabees in this case). Unlike the West, the Jews never forgot about the LXX – they simply did not want to grant it authoritative status, for quite obvious reasons.
There are some sources which claim that an attempt to corrupt the LXX was also made by Jews, but I have seen no good evidence of that. For one thing, the LXX was simply too widely circulated (not as one text, but as a collection of books) to suddenly substitute another text. Really, the creation of the MT was for “internal consumption” and to beat back Christian polemicists.
So here is my main point: there is zero historical evidence to attest to the corruption of the original Holy Scripture. The only known case is the one I outlined above. We also know from the Scripture itself that God would never deprive his faithful from His Word, the example of Esdras (aka Ezra) above also shows that. Furthermore, simple logic suggests to us that it is impossible to corrupt a text which is both 1) widely circulated and 2) very closely analyzed and held for sacred.
Let me conclude here by saying that I personally believe that the Prophet Muhammad did hear about the Masoretic forgery and that this inspired him to look at the Christian Scripture with a strong suspicion that the text had been forged. Obviously, like Luther, he was not aware of the LXX. It is also possible that Muhammad might have had another reason to declare that the Christian scripture was corrupted: the so-called Old Testament has absolutely no prophecy speaking of any figure like Muhammad, this is why some Muslim scholars have had to declare that the “Comforter” mentioned by Christ to His disciples was a reference to Muhammad and not to the Holy Spirit, an interpretation which even a superficial reading of the New Testament immediately invalidates and which not a single Church Father or theologian between the first and seventh century endorsed.
Whatever may be the case, the Muslim theory that the Scripture has been successfully corrupted is both illogical and a-historical. One can, of course, chose to believe it, especially if one accepts that everything, including the historical record, has been forged, corrupted or lost, but at least to me faith and common sense should not contradict each other.
I think that it is undeniable that Christianity grew out of the religion of the Jewish people before the birth of Christ. Christ Himself constantly makes references to the books the Church has united into one volume called the “Old Testament”. If the topic is of interest to you, see all the texts on this page, especially this one and this one. In contrast, Islam has no other scriptural basis that itself or, rather, the book it produced: the Quran.
In conclusion I want to say that a closer look at history shows that the notion of “Judeo-Christian” is simply at least as nonsensical as speaking of a White-Black or a Dry-Wet. As for the so-called “Abrahamic religions” they truly have nothing in common. Modern Judaism is really nothing else but an “anti-Christianity” while Islam is a faith which appeared ex-nihilo and has no basis in either Jewish or Christian scripture or oral tradition.
I hope that I have not offended anybody here, especially not my Muslim friends and readers, but I felt that it was important to lay out here the original Christian understanding of these issues. As any other Orthodox Christian I strongly feel that it is my personal obligation to preserve that which has been passed on to me (the “corporate memory and awareness” of the Church, if you want) and to share it with others if/when it is appropriate. As (hopefully) intelligent and considerate people, we can “agree to disagree”, but to do that, you need to be made aware of the nature of what we might disagree on, right? By the way, I would welcome any offer to present a Muslim view of this – or any other – topic here and if somebody submits it (in the comment section for example) I will be glad to post it.
That’s it for today. I will return to worldly topics tomorrow.
I wish you all an excellent week-end, kind regards,
The Saker
@Juliana:Saint Mary of Egypt.
I also have a special love for this amazing saint. And her life, as written in Church Slavonic, is the most beautiful text I have ever read. I try to read it out loud each year at the beginning of Great Lent for myself, my wife and my three kids. While I generally love reading in Church Slavonic (Menaion, or the Philocalia, or the Lives of the Saints), I find the text of her life written in a particularly beautiful style.
Kind regards,
The Saker
Dearest Saker,
Thank you for your kindness and letting this thread open for sooo long. A learning experience for all of us.
I close this post my -yt remarks:
“Anyway, to cultivate that incredible gift which is the Faith and make Her blossom, you should stop thinking or studying Christ. What is needed is to start LIVING Christ. Living by His Word.”
Shalom of Prince of Peace Jesus (as).
Best regards,
Mohamed.
Dearest sister Juliania,
I am so glad and relived that you are back. You are a true believer in Prince of Peace (as). Elohim blessing on your and your entire family.
Best regards,
Mohamed.
Thank you both, Saker and Mohamed, and I really should have included all posters to Saker’s site as all are affected by each comment.
I was thinking of the Russian Church Outside of Russia when I made that comment on preserving the tradition, and I didn’t mean it unkindly towards the Church in Russia but it has been my observation that some of the Russian artists who visited the US during the Soviet period would longingly come to our little church where whole families participated – it was mostly the elderly who could do so in Russia at the time.
In recent years, with the younger folk who have come, one sees it is a relearning process, something these ones are eager to do. So there is a revitalization that is underway – much better than the surface modernity that seemed so attractive at first. But that has a way to go.
Mohamed, you had a question about the woman taken in adultery, thinking the passage must be a corrupted one. I cannot say to that, but to me it isn’t different from Christ’s message that he comes to save sinners, as Paul says, ‘of whom I am the first.’ We have to remember that Paul himself held the garments of those who actually did stone Stephen. And also that Peter three times denied knowing Christ himself.
My teacher once pointed out that it’s a beautiful thing that is happening to those who would have stoned the woman, as each looked into his own heart and one by one each departed.
My teacher also says that what Jesus wrote in the sand (twice) must have been the two basic commandments: to love God, and to love one’s neighbor. If you insert those into the text, you will see how they expand the meaning of what is happening there.
Dearest Juliania,
@Juliania : Mohamed, you had a question about the woman taken in adultery, thinking the passage must be a corrupted one….
@Juliania : My teacher also says that what Jesus wrote in the sand (twice) must have been the two basic commandments: to love God, and to love one’s neighbor. If you insert those into the text, you will see how they expand the meaning of what is happening there.
Thank you for posting the above nice response. I have no doubt in Jesus’ Teachings and He Being a Prince of Peace (Shalom on Him).
However, in the Gospels I see a hatred against the Jews, which is against the Teachings of Prince of Peace.
The same passage contains, the same hatred against the Jews. This is what I consider to be corrupt text, going against the Nature of Prince of Peace. This hatred resulted in the persecutions of Jews throughout the centuries.
Secondly, I see the Major Commandments being thrown out the window under this same passage. This, again I see the next corruption in the text. Today, Christians don’t know the Laws of Tahara and Niddah, which they practiced until 12th Century, as these Laws from TaNaKh are very, very unjust and repressive to women. Islam practices the Laws of Tahara and Niddah (Nigasha in Islam), but they are not repressive to women.
Thus to Christians, when one ask them today to tell you, what is Tahara and Niddah? They seems to be baffled, and would reply you that they are no longer part of New Covenant, so they don’t matter. If they are not part of the New Covenant, why were they practiced until the 12th Century then?
Or they will answer you that the Jews observe 613 Laws and that they are too many, without realizing that these 613 Laws are subsets of the Major Commandments.
They will answer you only two Commandments are to be observed, namely “to love God, and to love one’s neighbor.” These are easily emphasized but never observed against the Jews, meaning love the Jews. Today, the same is being done to Muslims, the hatred towards Muslims is rampant. Of course, when it comes to silly Eye for Eye, the Liver Eaters Muslims cannot be out done!
Anything the Christians today don’t understand or don’t won’t to understand, they say it is not part of the New Covenant. Every year, new and new things are added to New Covenant.
Before Jesus was baptized in the Sea by John the Baptist (Prophet Yayha), Jesus was performing Mikveh (Ghusal in Islam). Ask a Christian what a Mikveh is, and he/she is baffled? Luckily, lately to internet one can Google these terms.
Sorry, I hope I am not negative about Christians and/or Christianity. I love Christianity and to me it is part of my self criticism. You should see me how critical I am about Islam too. If we are not critical and take everything at face value, we move away from the Truth (God).
However, in conclusion, Jesus words about stoning are profound.
Best regards,
Mohamed.
Dear Juliania,
Take circumcision as an example. In Judaism while performing circumcision, blood has to be drawn for Covenant with God. This can be very life threatening. Also, science has now proven that exposed blood is very dangerous to others.
Therefore, Christianity has now moved away from circumcision, even though Paul used to perform circumcision.
Where in Islam, blood is Niddah (Nigasha) from both male and female, whether it is humans, birds and/or animals. Thus, it has to be handled carefully and Mikveh (Ghusal) is to be performed, if one handles too much blood.
In Judaism, the women blood is considered pollution, while the male blood is scared, to be drawn in circumcision and in war.
Best regards,
Mohamed.
@However, in the Gospels I see a hatred against the Jews, which is against the Teachings of Prince of Peace
Hear, hear,
Is our friend Mahomed a Donmeh?
Dearest Friend WizOz,
@WizOz : Is our friend Mahomed a Donmeh?
lol. Didn’t know what Donmeh was and had to look it up. Funny!
After the death of Prophet Mohammad (saws), the Shia (followers), followed the son-in-law and first cousin Imam Ali (as) as the rightful heir of the Prophet. Ali was raised by the Prophet and whose only child Fatima (as) (daughter) was married to Ali and the marriage approved by God Himself.
Mohammad’s generation is from Ali and Fatima. Umpteen children. Syed Hassan Nasrallah (ra) is one of the Prophet’s children. You can tell from the black amama he put on his head. So are Syed Ali Sistani (ra), Syed Mousavi Khomeini (ra) and Syed Ali Khamenei (ra).
Anyhow, to make the story short. Imam Ali (as) and his followers the Shia were called Jews by other Muslims and the Shia are still persecuted till today.
Best regards,
Mohamed.
Mohamed, thank you for your responses. I apologize for being tardy in replying.
I of course am not the expert my teacher was, and I know very little about your faith and the terms you mention, so forgive me if I misunderstand them. I would simply like to clarify the point about the two great commandments, as I understand it.
First, when Orthodox Christians refer to ‘the Gospels’ they are of course speaking about the four Evangelistic Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. The text we are considering is from John. He is called Saint John the Theologian by the OC, and ‘theologian’ was a term used in ancient times specifically about poets who discoursed on the subject of God, so his Gospel is a little different from the other three. He was a young man in the time of Christ, lived to an old age and wrote later than the others did.
Indeed a story I love about John is that in his very old age he needed to be carried into church, and once there all he would say was “Little children, love one another.” It is so in keeping with his letters and Gospel that I think it must be a true story.
John’s Gospel isn’t about hate, but about love. Which is what the two commandments, upon which all of the Law depends, are about. They are not to be thought of as substitutes for the Law, but as the raison d’etre , reason for being, of the Law, its entire purpose.
I really don’t think there could have been hatred for the Jews in the heart of Jesus – rather sorrow when the hardheartedness that had probably stood them in good cause through desert wanderings became corrupted in minds and hearts of at least their leaders as he began his ministry.
The leaders had become used to using the letter of the law rather than its spirit, and we can understand his frustration a bit since we have the same kind of leadership in the West today, rulers who bandy about the words ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ when they mean the very opposite.
That’s only a start for me – but I’ll read your comments again and see if I can help explain the text further. The point about how the two great commandments relate to the Law is a complex one, so I’ve only touched the surface.
Dear friend WizOz,
Dr. Ali Ali Shariati has written a small book called, “Red Shia vs Black Shia”.
The Red Shia, he identifies with the blood of martyr of Imam Hussain (as) son of Imam Ali (as), who stood up for oppression and tyranny and saved Islam.
The Black Shia, he identifies who year after year mourns the death of Imam Hussain (as) and the Black Shia curses the enemies of Imam Hussain (as).
According to Dr. Ali Shariati, the Shia used to be Red Shia who always stood up for oppression of any mankind. Now the Shia has become the Black Shia.
Dr. Ali Shariati is dead, he used to one of the adviser for Syed Mousavi Khomeini (ra). I guess if he would be alive, he would be very proud of Syed Hassan Nasrallah (ra).
Best regards,
Mohamed.
I’m puzzled, I guess, Mahomed, why you would see hatred against the Jews in that particular text. Do you think it would have been better for Jesus to condemn the woman? Is the corruption you see in the words to the woman “Neither do I condemn you”?
As Saker has pointed out in his helpful explanation of the Septaguint, there is a line of continuity between the Jewish faith and the Christian faith which began even before the birth of Christ. The emphasis on the two great commandments, which are in the Jewish tradition we rely on as Christians, means we cannot hate that tradition, so there is confusion perhaps in separating that tradition, which Jesus and his followers had been themselves immersed in – he too was circumcized and his parents followed the purification ceremonies; he taught in synagogues.
But as we surely believe about democracy, it is not simply the letter of the law and following the rules and regulations that are set up to elect our leaders that is important about this country, it is the spirit of checks and balances laid out in our Constitution which gives the words meaning. It is the preservation of the sovereignty of the people that is important.
I think we’ll be taking that Constitution and dusting off those rules, if we have any chance of continuing its functionality, and that is what Christ was doing, dusting off the rules to get to the spirit in which they were handed down. Because, as we believe in my faith, he was as close as you can get to the source of those rules.
And what is lovely about the story we are considering is that those who would have stoned the woman looked into their own hearts and did not do it. This is to their credit, not an accusation against them. So it is not a hatred text at all, to my mind, but a text illustrating a common compassion, a common understanding. (I love how it is the oldest who understands and leaves first, down to the youngest last.)
I am sorry that in answering you, Mahommed, I did not address the question concerning the other commandments – all are indeed important in the ten, though hanging on these two. And the text supports this, since Jesus tells the woman to go and sin no more.
An Orthodox Christian would say he, as Son, and his own, are the ones who can give this message, who are obliged to give this message – it is not the message of an eye for an eye, to be sure, but of a good God who loves mankind and wants all to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, the one you call fittingly Prince of Peace. This aspect of the Unknowable is the God we humbly acknowledge and find communion with.
I do apologize for carrying on at such length. It’s hard to stop, once I get started :)
Dearest Juliania,
@Juliania : I’m puzzled, I guess, Mahomed, why you would see hatred against the Jews in that particular text. Do you think it would have been better for Jesus to condemn the woman? Is the corruption you see in the words to the woman “Neither do I condemn you”?
Please see the below text in NT, which is repeated throughout the NT:
“This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him…..”
1. Who are they?
2. Who have been accused of Jesus’ murder?
3. Who have been persecuted by the Christians throughout the centuries?
@Juliania : As Saker has pointed out in his helpful explanation of the Septaguint, there is a line of continuity between the Jewish faith and the Christian faith which began even before the birth of Christ.
Yes, I am aware of this. Please read my all above comments. As far as Jews are concerned, they consider not only their Scripture was hijacked by the Christians, their religion was too hijacked by the Christians. The Jews don’t like this, just like the Christians consider that Mohammad got all his stories from the Bible and got it wrong.
The Jews despise their Scripture TaNaKh to be called Old Testament. There is no such thing in Judaism as Old and New Testaments.
Also, Jews believes that their Scripture was intentionally mistranslated, such as “Virgin” and “Lord Lucifer the Greek/Roman” in Isaiah. This has already been covered.
@Juliania : I am sorry that in answering you, Mahommed, I did not address the question concerning the other commandments – all are indeed important in the ten, though hanging on these two.
Maybe, in Russia they observe 10 Commandments. But in West and USA they don’t.
Please give me the definition of Adultery. Please see my definition as I have given above.
@Juliania : I do apologize for carrying on at such length. It’s hard to stop, once I get started :)
I love the same too, as long as we are civilized to each other and don’t hurt anyone. The idea should be to learn from each other.
I do apologize too, and I keep carrying on and on. I am indebted to Saker for being such an kind host. He is just marvelous.
I am trying to learn the religion of Orthodox Christians, which is new to me. I am well versed in Catholic, Protestants and Judaism.
Best regards,
Mohamed.
Mohamed asks at 16:53 – I will take it in sections if you don’t mind, Mohamed:
“”This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him…..”
1. Who are they?
2. Who have been accused of Jesus’ murder?
3. Who have been persecuted by the Christians throughout the centuries?”
First, any that have persecuted the Jewish people throughout the centuries do not deserve to be called Christians. The people who came to hear Christ and be healed by him were Jews. The evangelists are Jews. It is like for today, most peoples in the world are good peoples and are not themselves the persecutors. Sadly, many in leadership roles are. And they have followers.
The Jews which want to accuse Jesus are followers of the ones who feel threatened by him, those on the dark side, if you will. The ones in charge. That is so clear from the narrative, to me it is selfexplanatory.
As it was to John. He hardly needs to separate out who is meant by that line, which comes, by the way, in the midst of dialogue between Jesus and those constantly accusing him, from whom he must withdraw until the time comes to face the top guys in Jerusalem. Who are named.
Don’t you think it might be better to say ‘they’ since by their own actions ‘they’ seem to be on the fringes of the darkness, able to be changed in their hearts into conscience-stricken individuals? Others will have harder hearts, but as this story demonstrates, it is still possible to reach many who have been, more or less, followers of darkness.
There was indeed a crowd of such followers who were enflamed by propaganda into asking for Barrabbas to be freed, and so it is reported. But it is also reported that the disciples all slept while Jesus was praying, and that all forsook him, even Peter denying him three times when asked.
That tells me that we all forsook, we all, not one of us with the strength to stand with him – only the thief on the cross who is himself being crucified, is there almost at the last. And his mother and John come to stand at the foot of the cross when now there is opportunity to do so. ( The spirit may be willing, but the flesh is weak.)
It isn’t the Jews as a people who are killing Christ. It is all of us before and after crucifixion who by our imperfections, our sins, clear the path to the cross. Even the woman taken in adultery, whatever her crime, even you or I. We are all responsible for his death.
Yet, also, we do not do this, nor does that dark leadership, nor the crowds calling out for Barrabas, nor the soldiers nailing in the nails and lifting the cross upright – but he himself voluntarily sacrifices himself, like the hen who makes a fluttering of wings to the fox to lead him from her chicks and is destroyed. The real authority lies with him and with him who is his father.
If anyone is to be found the cause of this sacrifice it is God, and that is a great mystery but John encapsulates it when he says ‘for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
One lesson I would take from the infinity of lessons that the world cannot contain is that God is showing us a sacrifice that is not being accomplished with bombs or intimidation or armies. The sacrifice is voluntary, a martyrdom which takes out no civilian bystanders, no innocent victims, no burned out buildings or ravaging of towns.
Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friend. If this memorial day means any one thing it is the purity of that sacrifice alone.
I will try to briefly answer your other comments above, Mohamed, still at 16:53:
The continuity begins two centuries before Christ, so though I’m not an expert, it seems to me the ‘hijacking’ occurred among Alexandrian Jews. Whether they should be blamed or not is an open question – I can translate in Greek more easily than I can in Hebrew, so I am very grateful to them. But that is the foundation on which Jesus and his followers build. Just as American law builds on British – it is what happens. And as you say, it has already been covered.
I will just add that I am not an expert on the Judaic faith but my teacher had a very dear friend who was a Jewish scholar, who was my teacher for a time also. I have a different ‘take’ than Saker on this, but intellectually and in my heart I know that scholar was a very good man. So I am not speaking here any words against the Hebraic texts because I am not a scholar in that field. It is my understanding that while the Septaguint was used for many texts quoted in the Gospels, some of the texts (I can’t say which) were closer to the Hebrew.
I remember one teacher who gave the Hebrew translation of a Genesis phrase to be “and the grass grassed” – indicating that the very elements of life were themselves creating life from the getgo. I thought that was a beautiful, poetic description, don’t think it is realized in the Greek.
Similarly, we can’t get the impact of ‘en arche epoyaysen’ (‘in the beginning created’) unless we see that our English word ‘poem’ comes from the same root word – God ‘poemed’ the world; as Paul says ‘we are God’s poem.’ Any translation has its limitations, and going to the Greek we see creation not in scientific terms but as poetically being made as a poem is made…
Here I will insert that the Orthodox, to my understanding, are much freer than other Christians to use both mind and heart in searching for the truth, rather than letting leaders do that for them. That doesn’t mean questioning our sacred texts, but we love to discourse about them and indeed that is how the faith has developed from the founding texts and traditions and will continue to do so.
The sacred texts are the Gospel writings, just those. But both before and after come Prophets and Fathers of the Church, which have an order of sanctity according to the truths they support. As do all manner of writings to a lesser degree, down to even great works of literature. As John said, the world could not contain the books that could be written and are being written. I don’t leave out any of them!
I will read your explanations above as you suggest, but they really don’t impinge on what I am saying here. It is most certainly best to aspire to sinless behavior as should we all, and as I said above, all are responsible.
There is a timeless element to Christianity, just as there was to Creation itself. The point at which timelessness touched earthly being happened, in our faith, twice to the highest degree, but even in every inspired thought of any human being, saint or sinner, small miracles happen every day. That is the poem ongoing.
Sorry if I bemuse you. I bemuse lots of folks!