Yes, I agree with you on all points of your answer, for its part, wanted only to inform you that such a question as Holy Scripture, religion requires more attention, study. The same can also be applied to art.
An understanding of this art - as a faith. It will either give up or not. One of the teachings are not going to either the artist or righteous.
I am well studied primary sources, understood and thought through. As you can see, I use the sacred tests in the right order. I was impressed with the idea of Christ as well as unpleasant ideas of the Old God. But I, alas, I understand that this is just terrible and beautiful ideas.
I have the persistent impression that his conscious atheism I "occurs in the patient callous" believer or quasi-faithful forum members. In order not to hurt - I have the desire to stop the offensive. After all, we are each other's still not "pereubeseduem.
But I, alas, I understand that this is just terrible and beautiful ideas.
What could be more realistic idea?
The idea of (al-Greek. Ἰδέα - visibility, shape, form) - the concept of (mental image) of a reality (the idea or representation about it). In this sense, the term is used in philosophy, psychology, social sciences and humanities.
In addition, the term has a special meaning, characteristic of certain philosophical trends, in this case the idea is the perfect prototype of reality.
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
Этот пользователь сказал Спасибо Тютчев за это полезное сообщение:
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled
In my opinion, much better not to get involved in discussion of the Covenant, from the standpoint of its critics, not possessing sufficiently material. Attempts to hurriedly 'read' and draw up a proposition like 'God is - God does not exist "and to criticize elected seats is as ludicrous as similar efforts have most often quoted on the forum (why is interesting?) Bulgakov's hero" read "correspondence" Engels this ... as it is, the devil ... with Kautsky. Inevitably, it is equally ludicrous to be made and conclusions. The Bible - a very ambiguous document and the "correct" understanding of its texts requires great research and work ethic. Lowering the context, you can lose meaning. For example as a Catholic, and in the Eastern Church until the Reformation era Bible reading was generally prohibited. This - a fact. And there is now such an opinion, why it was done:
Читать дальше...
GV Nosovskii, Fomenko
MATHEMATICAL BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
CHAPTER 2 HISTORY MANUSCRIPTS AND EDITIONS OF THE BIBLE
1. WHAT IS A Biblical canon. WHY IN THE MIDDLE AGES THE CHURCH PROHIBIT Lay people read the Bible?
Scaliger chronology of the biblical books, manuscripts and their dating is very vague and insufficiently substantiated. In fact, it rests on the authority of history and theology of the Reformation, when the question of biblical chronology and history has become an important weapon in the fight against Catholic and Protestant camps, engulfed in the XVI-XVII centuries throughout Western Europe.
Today the Bible - it is a well-defined collection of books. There are several versions of the Bible: the canon of the Orthodox, Catholic, Jewish. Some of the books of one of the canon is not included in the other. However, it concerns only a few books. In general, it is virtually the same canon. But we should not think that in this (or nearly so) as the biblical canon existed previously XVI-XVII centuries. This is not so. Of course, some scattered books of modern Bible, often in other editions, differing from the modern, there were transcribed in the XIV-XVII centuries. Some of these truly ancient manuscripts XIV-XVI centuries survived to our time. But first, the set does not give them a modern Bible. And secondly, even those parts of the modern Bible, which can be found in the manuscripts of XIV-XVI centuries, there are often in another edition.
The very composition of modern biblical canon is not so ancient, as many probably think. In the first half of XVII century in Russia, for example, it was quite another. This is evident from the complete list of books of the Old and New Testaments, placed in Helmsman - canonical church book, the text of which must be reconciled with special care. It turns out, for example, that the New Testament included then several times more than today BOOKS. Many of these books to us today is unknown. We do not know that they were written. It is noteworthy that in the New Testament were, it turns out, the New Testament books such as Joshua (along with the Old Testament), the New Testament Chronicles (along with the Old Testament), some book of the genealogy (?!), a certain book, Jesus Semiramin (?!), Testament Paley, second, etc. Apocalypse And in the Old Testament is missing, for example, Esther (and this - in 1620).
Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that the Bible as the book IS NOT THE BOOK ministry. That is not used in its entirety at worship in the church. As a Christian, and in Judaism. Liturgical - that is readable in the church and existing as a separate canonical liturgical books - are the only parts of the Bible. Namely, in the Christian church - New Testament (except Revelation) and the Psalter. These books are separate from the Bible as the divine service and have their names: the Gospel, the Apostle, Acts, Psalms. In addition, there is a so-called Paremeynik containing passages from the Old Testament, arranged in order of their reading. These passages do occasionally read in the church, but by no means exhaust the Old Testament. In addition, it is possible that Paremeynik could change in XVI-XVII centuries, as it is read in the church is very small and its change could be simply overlooked parishioners.
And in the Jewish church used the Torah (Pentateuch version) and the Talmud (the interpretation of the Act). Again, not the entire Bible.
Thus, the modern Bible, not a liturgical book, could easily be changed and edited, even in the XVI-XVII centuries. Then the books were expensive, so the Bible, as well as other books for home reading, it was rare. Consequently, changes in it could happen unnoticed to all but a narrow circle of specialists-theologians.
Moreover, in the Catholic Church was formally forbidden to read the BIBLE, and the prohibition was lifted only in the XX century. Namely, we know that the "bull of Pope Gregory IX in 1231 PROHIBITED read it (the Bible - Auth.), And the ban was formally lifted only by the Second Vatican Council" [132], p.67. Historians report: "The Church prohibit the distribution of books to write the sacred among the laity, and considers a serious crime translations of these books with an incomprehensible Latin in the vernacular" [169], p.24. The decision of the cathedral in Beziers (supposedly in 1246 BC) said: <<As for the books of God, the laity NOT HAVE THEM EVEN in Latin, but that the divine books in the popular vernacular, the AVOID them at all nor the clergy OR from the laity. "In an edict of Charles IV, the late XIV century, states:" The laity of both sexes on the canonical precepts unbecoming READ WHAT WHATSOEVER of Scripture, at least in the vernacular, so that a poor understanding they did not fall into heresy and error ">> [169], p.25.
<<In the era of the Reformation, Cardinal Hosius wrote, on behalf of the Roman Curia, the argument about the use of the Bible (Hosius, "De expresso verbo Dei"), which put it this way: "to permit people to read the Bible means to give sanctuary to dogs and casting pearls before swine." Council of Trent (ie, in the XVI century - Authors.) Forbade the laity to read "heretical" translations of the New Testament course, and reading the Old Testament book allowed only under the supervision of the Bishop ...>> [170], Volume 1, P.234.
Thus, commonly the parishioners of the Catholic Church Bible appeared as if little by little, "illegally" and strictly speaking - is unclear WHEN. It is not clear - when a church decree of Pope banning Bible reading is no longer enforced in practice. So in the Catholic media in the XVI-XVII centuries with the Bible much could be done invisibly to the eye. And then to pretend that "it always was."
Exactly the same situation was also provided to the orthodox Jewish Church (except the Karaites). "Orthodox Jews Reading the Bible is to not allow them to get acquainted only with the Talmud, the Bible interpret the archaic legal provisions in a more modernized form of" [95], p.99. Therefore, with the Jewish (or Jewish) Bible, too, could occur significant but subtle change anyone (except for a narrow circle of individuals) until the appearance of the first printed editions. But they appeared not so long ago. For example, only "in 1731 (that is, in the XVIII century - Auth.) Founded the first printing house in the Crimea, which released three years later the first book in DREVNEEVREYSKOM LANGUAGE" [95], p.112.
It is worth noting that "the first translation of the New Testament in the Hebraic language belongs to the time of the Reformation, and belongs to Seb.Myunsteru ... the entire New Testament in drevneevreyskom language printed in London in 1661 and in poliglotte Guttera" [170], Volume 1, .237. Publication Guttera is, ostensibly, in 1587 and goes back to the publications of the alleged 1477, 1488 and 1494 years [170], Volume 1, P.259.
With regard to the Karaites, a Turkic-speaking there (see [66], s.542) of the Jews, then they were allowed to read Torah. They were "isolated within Judaism, an opposition official doctrine, based on the Talmud [95], p.99. Moreover, in the XVIII century, "they do not follow the Talmud, and they worship only the Torah, ie the Pentateuch, the first part of the Old Testament of the Bible" [95], p.87. But this is - just a small amount of the modern Bible.
Thus, in orthodox Judaism was forbidden to read the whole Bible, and in karaimizme complete Bible did not exist, except the Pentateuch.
In the everyday life of the Orthodox Church, and in the East, in the Middle Ages, reading the Bible prohibits. "Hierarchy in the" Message to the patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Churches of the Orthodox faith "prohibits all indiscriminately and strong leadership have read some biblical Book, and in particular the Old Testament A" [162], p.93. This message was written in 1723 [162], p.96. It is believed that in ancient Russia, although not in such an open form, as in Catholic countries, sometimes heard voices calling ALLOW Commoners Read the Bible "[162], p.97.
As we shall see, these supposed prohibition to read the Bible in the Middle Ages really mean that the Bible at that time had not yet been finally written. And most likely, all these prohibitions were invented and has already written to the XVII-XVIII centuries and attributed to the medieval emperors and popes, to explain the striking from the standpoint of the history of Scaliger fact that at least until the end of the XV century (and indeed until the end XVI century, see below), the Bible in the modern sense did not exist. Not only in the East, but also in the West.
A well-known church historian AV Kartashov, wrote: "FIRST TO THE WHOLE OF THE EAST manuscript (before the advent of the printing press) was a Bible in 1490, founded by Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod ... Such EARLY INTEREST in mastering the complete biblical text was in Russia in XV century" [156], s.600. Thus, if in the end of the XV century revival of interest in the complete Bible is considered by specialists as too early, what can be said about XIII and XIV centuries? At that time, as we see, no one in the East, the Bible does not even interested. And in the West have not read, because the "forbidden". The question is - who will read it at that age? YES AND THEN SHE DOES EXIST AT ALL? http://www.chronologia.org/bible/bible2_1.htm
... the view was a sharp and often unjust criticism, but, in my view, sufficiently reasoned and worthy of trust.
And this is what the professionals write about matters of faith, unbelief (is that jerry could find):
Читать дальше...
- There is an age-old debate on the evidence of the existence of God. Who - I consider them unanswerable, who - some controversial. But even assuming that such evidence is, why we should worship him. What do I, an individual human unit, it is he or not?!
- That's right - this is the main question "what do I care!". Because there is no evidence that they are useless. Well, prove to me that the star Beta in the constellation Cygnus, not two planets, and three. And what do I care about that? So we should not know that God is, and love Him. None of the arguments and evidence in man does not love kindles. Chesterton once said that "the most miserable creature - is an atheist, who sees the sea sunset and he had no one to say thank you for this beauty. However, in order to notice the contradiction between his head atheistic convictions and thirst of the heart to say "thank you" - also need a logical effort. And to make this conflict stand on the side of the heart - need the will.
- Maybe you do not need to strive to know God, but just blindly?
- There are two mistakes: First, when a person is too early to capitulate to the difficulty of learning and too early to hang the label "is unknowable." Second - when the person in the "fully armed", as it seems, is a region where the problem ends and the mystery begins. Then his arms "does not work, but he does not understand. To feel this border, you need a certain flavor, a certain level of philosophical education. Professionally educated mind knows the limits of their competence.
As he wrote St.. John Damascene, St. 7 th century: "Not all in God knowable, but not all unknowable. Not all knowable be expressed, but not all inexpressibly unknowable. There is a God that knowable and be expressed, and there is that knowable by us, but on some nonverbal level.
Orthodoxy is not easy. Orthodoxy is so difficult and vital that it is a place even for the sake of simplicity, and simple men.
Chanting "simple" faith is harmful. Any incivility avenging themselves - including the lack of culture and religion. You can give as printers in a sad example of reprint edition of the complete works of St. John Chrysostom. This is the greatest and most popular Orthodox theologian. The first volume appeared in 1991, the twelfth - in 2004. Copies of the first volume 75000 copies. 12 th Edition - 3000 copies. That is 25 times dropped readership of St. John Chrysostom, for a total increase in the undeniable Orthodox, in my opinion, extremely negative symptom. Poppy cheap pamphlets about "the blessed elder" and "end times" repulsed by the church people a taste for serious spiritual nourishment. And even the priests. In the Russian Church, about 30 000 clergymen. And, it turns out only one of them wants to get acquainted with the works of Chrysostom ...
And outside the Church religious "simplification" leads to an increase of sects and the occult.
Kuraev, "Why are the Orthodox?"
Or the relationship of Christianity with Judaism, respectively - the relationship of the Old and New Testaments
Читать дальше...
: - Should Christianity refusing the undertaking of their undoubted kinship with Judaism?
- Of course, in Christianity is the proximity to the Jewish tradition. That it creates conflict. Where clearly defined border conflict does not happen. Where the boundary is unclear, there are problems and tensions. There is a shared heritage and common shrines, which are interpreted differently, sometimes radically different.
That preceded the emergence of Christianity, was the expectation, the last step. Those steps, which lead to the goal, do not condemn, we must understand that they need to go. The only live on this step is not necessary to stay. However, having climbed to the top, spit over the side down, too, especially not worth it. The same - and with the movement ebionitov. They have played a positive role in preparing for the adoption of Christianity and a part of Israel, and part of the Roman Empire. And today, when the sun lit the Gospel truth long ago, try to extinguish it, to pretend that everything is still, to return back to the pre-Christian times - this is dangerous. It is one thing - Paganism to Christ, who does not know Christ, and therefore not opposed to it, another thing - Paganism, which make war against Christ's Gospel. One thing - partial twilight, twilight. But when the sun rose, and you zhzhesh splinter and say: "Close the windows, because there are splinter" - now that is not dangerous.
Wines of Israel - this is probably the main secret of the gospel, and it must be understood precisely as a mystery. By and large Jews are not to blame for that does not know Christ. Do not confuse the guilt of those who cried out to Pilate: "Crucify him!" And those who just passed. This different states dushi.Apostol Peter said to the Jews: "But I know, brethren, that you, like your rulers have done so out of ignorance" (Acts 3, 17). Apostle Paul says that "no one can say that Jesus is Lord, but by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor.12, 3). You see, there goes the streets of Jerusalem Yeshua ha Nozri and accept this carpenter and evangelist of the Creator of the universe is impossible, although you can memorize the Bible, skillfully "juggling" with quotations from her and know by heart all the prophecies about the coming of the Messiah, they knew them, many Jews . Only if God will reveal to you his Spirit, that Jesus is Lord, that Jesus is the Christ, only in this case, you can find him.
This blessed gift - the knowledge of Himself - gives only God Himself, so dependent on God, whom He would call to the apostolate, and who did not call. Remember in the Old Testament: The Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart and he stopped seeing the obvious and did not want to let the Jews out of Egypt. The fact that Moses and the Israelites, it was obvious to the Pharaoh - was not so.
Also in the case of Christ. In sectarians fashionable today to say, "Behold, you priesthood ofariseilis, and if today Jesus came to earth, you too would have crucified him." You know, I am deeply convinced that this is true, but there is nothing anti-Catholic.
First, it is very important to realize that the events in the Gospels to have occurred with each of us: not for the sins of the Jews Christ suffers, but for my sins. And secondly, if Christ came to earth today with the same purpose, and that 2000 years ago, that is affected, then if that is their goal - so there would be a must. He just would have blinded the minds: yours, my bishops, etc., unless, of course, his task would be to suffer. Another thing, we know that the second coming of Christ on earth will be glorious, and, accordingly, the above argument will no longer operate.
A priest from the Vyatka diocese told me an episode of his biography. When he was first-graders, I often read the gospel his grandmother (she was very weak: poorly seen and with difficulty walking). Then one day in Passion Week, when he read her chapters on the trial of Christ and His crucifixion, Granny suddenly from the last energy rose from his chair, turned to an icon, crossed herself and said: "O Lord, glory to Thee, that thou art not for us, to the Russian came, and then after what a shame for the whole world would be.
That's very Christian, good experience of the Gospel. We have no right to point fingers and say, "did they, and we would have acted differently." They had no choice because the choice appears when the Lord opens your heart in the knowledge of who Christ is, and then you have to choose between the Old and New. And if you do not see a new, if you are not given until this blessed knowledge, then you continue katishsya in the rut of the Old Testament.
Kuraev, "Why are the Orthodox?"
Эти 3 пользователя(ей) сказали Спасибо Mark за это полезное сообщение:
Why should I fear? 666 or by another-coded name of the Roman Emperor Nero's time '70s he who quelled a Jewish revolt and destroyed the temple. This is a Jewish war. And here I? This applies only to Jews, who generally have only themselves to blame. They rose in revolt despite the freedom that they had. In 33 Iafe could avert the threat of rebellion and defeat. He lived to 90! years, he is crucified Christ, according to legend.
Further history is the history of the collapse of Roman civilization, through the introduction of the Christian religion. So I think religion a political weapon to crush the major civilizations. Renaissance, and how many were lost? When the rulers of the people want kakogonibud otedinitsya, they invent their own religion.
Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Jews, masulmane all believe in one god. If God was all he would be reconciled and was one religion. But it is precisely among these nations prozoshli and occur even in a war that killed the greatest number of people
It is in the order of a conversation.
01.09.2009, 23:59
Линейный вид
Похожие темы