| As a result of the Coptic rejection of the writings of the Fathers and anything related to Byzantium, the monastic movements in Egypt developed a spiritual alternative movement influenced by the Egyptian Gnostic philosophy which undermined the body and overlooked the fact of Christ’s complete incarnation. This shaped Oriental spirituality, with its Monophysite Christology. As explained in the previous articles, this expels deification and any sort of communion between God and man. That is why Severus of Antioch, in his explanation of Christology, refuses deification . Another influential factor with consequences for the Coptic Church was the Islamic victory in Egypt. The influence of Islamic culture and though can he seen in the writings of the current Coptic Patriarch, Shenouda III. He easily adopts the Severian and other oriental attitudes in order to reconcile with Islamic understanding of the impossibility of having a God-man communion. Shenouda says: “it is impossible that any of the fathers of the church taught deification.” This comes within the context of Shenouda’s series of excommunications against his opponents, including Bebawi, regarding their attempts to bring back the patristic tradition. Stephen Davies, from Oxford University, says: “Shenouda’s objection to this doctrine (Deification) is also motivated by particular cultural and interreligious sensitivities… This latter concern comes to expression in an extraordinary and unprecedented fashion when the patriarch adopts the language of Muslim anti-Christian diatribe and directs that polemical rhetoric against the monks of St. Macarius Monastery. First, he criticizes Mathew the Poor and his followers for being guilty of Al-Tahrif , the ‘corruption’ of Scripture”. Then Shenouda explains the mystery of Eucharist by dividing Christ, as the Severian Christology acknowledged, taking only the human nature without the divine nature. He says: “Our Master Christ said, “who eats my body and drink my blood” (Jn 6:56) he did not say who eats my divinity and drink my divinity…God is Spirit (Jn 4:24) and Spirit cannot be eaten or drank Moreover the one who eats the divine nature and remains in him will become after receiving communion a god and those in church worship him. Also here is another problem: what about those who receive unworthy? Do they also eat the divinity and drink the divinity and thus eat judgment (1Cor 11:29)?” |
| Helsinki, 1974; Weischer B. M. Die Glaubenssymbole des Epiphanios von Salamis und des Gregorios Thaumaturogos in Qerellos//Oriens Chr. 1977. Bd. 61. S. 20-40; idem. Die ursprüngliche nikänische Form des ersten Glaubenssymbols im Ankyrotos des Epiphanius von Salamis//Theologie und Philosophie. Freiburg i. Br., 1978. Bd. 53. S. 407-414; idem. Traktate des Epiphanios von Zypern und Proklos von Kyzikos. Wiesbaden, 1979; Huebner R. M. Die Hauptquelle des Epiphanius (Panarion, haer. 65) über Paulus von Samosata, Ps.-Athanasius, contra Sabellianos//ZKG. 1979. Bd. 90. S. 201-220; idem. Epiphanius, Ancoratus und Ps.-Athanasius, Contra Sabellianos//Ibid. 1981. Bd. 92. S. 325-333; Orphanos M. A. The Procession of the Holy Spirit according to Certain Greek Fathers//Θεολογα. 1980. Τ. 51. Σ. 95-99; Mees M. Textverständnis und Varianten in Kap. 5 des Johannesevangeliums bei Epiphanius von Salamis//Lateranum. Vat., 1980. Vol. 46. P. 250-284; idem. Textformen und Interpretation von Jn 6 bei Epiphanius//Augustinianum. R., 1981. Vol. 21. P. 339-364; idem. Die antihäretische Polemik des Epiphanius von Salamis und ihr Gebrauch von Jn 4//Ibid. 1982. Vol. 22. P. 405-425; Lucchesi E. Un corpus épiphanien en copte//AnBoll. 1981. Vol. 99. P. 95-100; Vall é e G. A Study in Anti-Gnostic Polemics: Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Epiphnius. Waterloo (Ont., Canada), 1981; Young F. M. Did Epiphanius Know What He Meant by Heresy?//StPatr. 1982. Vol. 17/1. P. 199-205; Abramowski L. Die Anakephalaiosis zum Panarion des Epiphanius in der Handschrift Brit. Mus. Add. 12156//Muséon. 1983. Vol. 96. P. 217-230; Εγγλεζκη Β. (Αρχ. Παλου). Επιφνιος Σαλαμνος, πατρ το Κυπριακο Ατοκεφλου//Απστολος Βαρνβας. 1983. Τ. 44. Σ. 12-18, 42-46; Crouzel H. Encore sur divorce et remarriage selon Épiphane//VChr. 1984. Vol. 38. P. 271-280; Quasten J. Patrology. Westminster, 1986. Vol. 3. P. 384-396; Schultze B. Das Filioque bei Epiphanius von Cypern//Ostkirchliche Studien. 1986. Bd. 35. S. 105-134; 1987. Bd. 36. S. 281-300; Maraval P. |
| Samuel, «Kairos» Samuel, S. Johnson «The Kairos of the Galilaioi: An Indian Liberationist Reading of John 1–7.» Jeevadhara 25 (1995): 149–60. Sanchez Navarro, «Acerca» Sanchez Navarro, Luis A. «Acerca de ΡΑΩ in Jn.» Estudios biblicos 55 (1997): 263–66. Sanchez Navarro, «No existe» Sanchez Navarro, Luis Α. «ΡΑΩ no existe en Jn.» Burgense 37 (1996): 579–81. Sanday, Criticism Sanday, William. The Criticism of the Fourth Gospe1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1905. Sanday and Headlam, Romans Sanday, William, and Arthur Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. 5th ed. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902. Sanders, Figure Sanders, E. P. The Historical Figure of Jesus. New York: Penguin, 1993. Sanders, Hymns Sanders, Jack T. The New Testament Christological Hymns: Their Historical Religious Background. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism Sanders, E. P. Jesus and Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah Sanders, E. P. Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies. London: SCM, 1990. Sanders, John Sanders, J. N. A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John. Edited and completed by B. A. Mastin. Harper " s New Testament Commentaries. New York: Harper & Row, 1968. Sanders, Judaism Sanders, E. P. Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 B.C.E.–66 C.E.. London: SCM, 1992. Sanders, Law Sanders, E. P. Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Sanders, «Patmos» Sanders, J. N. «St John on Patmos.» NTS 9 (1962–1963): 75–85. Sanders, Paul and Judaism Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Sanders, «Simon» Sanders, Boykin. «In Search of a Face for Simon the Cyrene.» Pages 51–63 in The Recovery of Black Presence: An Interdisciplinary Exploration, Essays in Honor of Dr. Charles B. Copher. Nashville: Abingdon, 1995. Sanders, Tendencies Sanders, E. P. The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition. SNTSMS 9. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. |
| Tentative possession of Canaan (ca. 1210; described in Josh) Judges (ca. 1200–1025) Deborah (ca. 1125) Philistine victory at Aphek (ca. 1050) Samuel and Saul (described in 1 Sam) David (ca. 1010–970; described in 2 Sam) Solomon (970–931) and the monarchy to ca. 850 (described in 1 Kings) 1st Temple built (4th yr. of Solomon) Ahab (853; year of Battle at Qarqar) Elijah-Elisha and the monarchies through to their destructions (described in 1 & 2 Kings) Amos and Hosea (ca. 750) Fall of Samaria (721) Hezekiah Byzantium founded (660) Josiah (640–609) and Reform Deut Zeph, Nahum, Hab Jeremiah Ezekiel Fall of Jerusalem and Exile (587) Exilic codification of Scripture Cyrus establishes Persian Empire (539–333) Return (538 f.) Hag, Zech 1–8 2nd Temple built (519–515) Zech 9–14, Mal Ezra and the Torah (458) Neh (445/444) 1, 2 Chr, Ruth Joel, Jon Plato (347) Greek Period (333–63 B.C.) Alexander conquers Palestine (333–330) Let Jer (317?) LXX Translation begins Tob (225–175) Bar (200–60?) Sir (before 180) I Enoch (date unknown) Dan (167–164) 1 Esd, Esth (after 164) Jdt (135–105) Qumran founded Additions to Dan: Song of Thr, Sus, Bel (2nd c) Add Esth (114 f.) 1Macc (104) 2Macc (104–63) Letter of Aristeas, 3Macc (ca. 100) Wis, Pr Man (late 1st c.) Roman Period (63-A.D. 135) Birth of Jesus (6 B.C.?) Judaizers Docetists Dualists Jesus’ ministry (ca. 30) Paul’s Letters: 1 Thess, Gal, 1 & 2 Cor, Philp, Rom, Philm Martyrdom of Peter and Paul (64) Jewish Revolt and Destruction of Jerusalem (66–70), Mk Completion of Pauline corpus: 2 Thess, Col, Eph. Lk-Acts Jn, 1–3 Jn 2 Esd, 4 Macc (dates uncertain) Rev (ca. 95) 1 Clement (95/96) Gnostics Montanists Modalists Advent of Rabbinic Pharisaism Roman persecutions Epistle to Barnabas, Didache (ca. 100) Jas, 1 Pet, Jude Ignatius of Antioch (115) Pastoral Letters; 1 Tim, 2 Tim, Titus Bar Cochba Revolt (132–135); Aelia Capitolina f. 2 Pet (ca. 140) Shepherd of Hermas (ca. 148) Protoevangelium of James (ca. 150) 2 Clement (date unknown, possibly ca. 150) |
| 140 The Lord’s description of Himself as the true vine in which the disciples are called to remain, comes precisely at the moment when He appeals to them, “Abide in me” ( Jn. 15:1–5 ), cannot be seen as unrelated to the idea of Israel as the “vine” (see above). For John, the Church, as comprising those who are “of the truth”, is the true Israel (cf. C.H.Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 1953, p.246) with which the “Son of Man” is identified. This is indicated, for example, by the way John transfers the passage from Gen. 28:12 into his Gospel ( Jn. 1:51 ) by replacing the word “Jacob” with the phrase “the Son of Man” (cf. C.H.Dodd, ibid.) 142 The fact that the Pauline Churches had different ways of expressing their consciousness regarding the Divine Eucharist from those familiar to the Johannine Churches is indicated also by the different terminology they used to designate the Eucharist. Thus, for the Pauline Churches, the favored term is the “body”, whereas, for the Johannine Churches, it is the “flesh” of Jesus Christ; perhaps on account of John’s battle against Docetism, as was the case with Ignatius. See G.H.C.Mac Gregor, “The Eucharist in the Fourth Gospel” in New Testament Studies, 9 (1963), p.117. For both of these terms see J.Jeremias, Die Abendmahlswörte Jesu, 1949 (2ed.), p.103f. In the end the Pauline term “the Body of Christ” to denote the Eucharist prevailed in the Church as is shown by the ancient phrase “The Body of Christ” which accompanied the giving of Holy Communion, and to which the communicant answered “Amen” (see Hippolytus, Apost. Trad., ed.Dix, p.41; Apost. Const., VIII, 13:15; and Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., VI, 43.19) 143 For a detailed analysis of these images see P.Minear, Images of the Church in the New Testament, 1960. Cf. also E.Mersch, Le Corps Mystique du Christ, I, p.143f 144 See inter alios E.Schweitzer, “ΣΩΜΑ” in T.W.N.T.; eiusdem “Die Kirche als Leib Christi in den Paulinischen Antilegomena” in Theolog. Literaturzeitung (1961), pp.241–256; O.Michel, Das Zeugnis des N.T. von der Gemeinde, 1941, p.44f.; J.A.T.Robinson, The Body, 1952; E.Best, One Body in Christ, 1955; R.P.Shedd, Man in Community, 1958, p.161f.; R.Bultmann, “The Transformation of the Idea of the Church...” in Canadian Journal of Theology, 1 (1955), pp.73–81; K.Barth, Die Kirchliche Dogmatik, IV/l, 1953, p.741; P.Minear, op.cit.; J.Schneider, Die Einheit der Kirche nach N.T., 1936, p.60f. For RC views see inter alios T.Soiron, Die Kirche als der Leib Christi nach der Lehre des hl.Paulus, 1951, p.9–32; H.Dieckmann Die Verfassung der Urkirche, dargestellt auf Grund der Paulusbriefe und der Apostelgeschichte, 1923, p.107 f.; F.Mussner, Christus, das All und die Kirche, 1955; L.Cerfaux, La Théologie..., p.150ff; and J.Hamer, L’Église est Une Communion, 1962, p.50f. For an Orthodox view in very general terms, see V.Ioannidis, “The Unity”, loc.cit., p.178f |
| Далее, выяснению учения о Троице посвящены: е) К Симпликию о вере. F) К Авлалию о том, что не три Бога, g) К Еллинам на основании общих понятий. h) Слово против Ария и Савеллия. и) Слово о Святом Духе против Македониан. j) Слово о Божестве Сына и Духа и похвала праведному Аврааму. Предметом следующих двух сочинений служат вопросы эсхатслогические: к) О душе и воскресении, I) О младенцах, преждевременно похищаемых смертью . Наконец, в защиту свободы воли против фатализма написано сочинение – Против учения о судьбе. III. Нравственно-аскетические сочинения: а) К Армонию о том, что значит имя и название христианин. b) О совершенстве и о том, каким должно быть христианину. К Олимпию монаху, с) О цели жизни по Боге. Об истинном подвижничестве. d) О девстве. IV. Проповеди Григория Нисского немногочисленны и по своим достоинствам стоят гораздо ниже ораторских произведений Василия Великого и Григория Богослова . По содержанию проповеди Григория можно разделить на догматические (на свое рукоположение), нравственные (против ростовщиков, против тяготящихся церковными наказаниями, о нищелюбии и благотворительности, против отлагающих крещение, слово к скорбящим и преставившимся от настоящей жизни в вечную), похвальные (в честь первомученика Стефана, великомученика Федора Тирона, Григория Чудотворца , сорока мучеников, Ефрема Сирина , Василия Великого , преп. Макрины), произнесенные в большие праздники. V. Письма – числом 26. Сочинения, признаваемые неподлинными: Jn diem natalem Domini. De ascensione Domini. Jn ex scripturae verba «Faciamus nominem ad imaginem»; Ex quaestionibus de eo, quid sit «ad imaginem»; De anima (принадлежит Немезию). Testimonia ady. Judaeos; Contra manichaeos sillagismi X. Сомнительные: De pauperibus amandis or. sec., ep. canonica ad Litoium, De fugienda fornicatione, De laudibus martyris Tlieodori. Хорошего критического издания всех творений Григория Нисского до сих пор не имеется. Наиболее полным служит изд. Migne. Р. gr. XLIV-XLVI. Русский перевод творений Григория Нисского печатался в «Христианском Чтении» за 1826; 1830; 1831; 1834; 1842; 1847. |
| Parents must pay attention to what constitutes home entertainment, namely television and music, which have such a strong influence on children. Television would be an excellent invention if suitable programs were selected and it were used in moderation. In practice, television has an adverse effect on children. Occupying the most preeminent place in the home, like an idol in a pagan family, it not only devours a lot of time but also habituates children to a passive diversion of no educational value. Many studies report that TV programs as a rule are permeated with violence, triviality and even profanity. This is the most dangerous form of pollution. Besides, children who spend much of their time watching television have a poor learning record. They become wilful, rude and begin to manifest objectionable behavior early. It has also been noted that television has a hypnotic and obsessive effect. People who regularly watch TV develop such a passionate fondness for it that they can no longer live without it. In this regard it becomes similar to the habit of smoking or drinking. Television gradually takes away any desire to read, meditate, pray or do something worthwhile. Therefore, parents who, for the sake of their children, abstain from acquiring a television or keep it under strict control, do the right thing. Music, as all art, should bring out in an individual elevated and noble feelings. There is a broad selection of good classical and folk music. Unfortunately, one cannot say the same about contemporary music, such as rock-and-roll or “heavy metal,” which brings out in the listeners stormy, erotic and wicked feelings. Some of these contemporary songs even contain anti-religious and occult language. Christian parents have the responsibility to protect their children from such pollution. It may seem to some parents that many of the self-limitations imposed by our faith are too severe and unnecessary in our days. But they must remember the words of the Gospel regarding the perils of a wide road, followed by the majority, and of the narrow road leading to salvation. In these pre-antichrist times, Christians should realize that the world is wrapped in evil, and that, as Jesus said, the “prince of this world – is the devil” (1 Jn. 5:19; Jn. 12:31, 14:30). |
| Guia Para El Estudio De Los Cuatro Evangelios Скачать epub pdf La Venida de Nuestro Señor Jesucristo al Mundo El prólogo del Evangelio: su autenticidad y propósito ( Lk. 1:1–4 ; Jn. 20:31 ) Los cuatro versículos iniciales del primer capítulo del Evangelio de san Lucas pueden ser considerados como el Prólogo de los Cuatro Evangelios. En ellos el santo Evangelista habla de «la rigurosa investigación efectuada sobre todo» lo transmitido por él y señala el propósito con el cual fueron escritos los Evangelios: «conocer el sólido fundamento de las enseñanzas cristianas.» A este propósito san Juan el Teólogo añade en su Evangelio ( Jn. 20:31 ): «para que creáis que Jesús es el Cristo, el Hijo de Dios y creyendo tengáis vida en su nombre». Como es evidente en el prólogo de san Lucas, él asumió la tarea de escribir su Evangelio pues para ese tiempo habían aparecido muchos relatos similares, pero carentes de autoridad y cuyo contenido no era muy satisfactorio. Él consideró que su deber era confirmar en la Fe al excelentísimo Teófilo y simultáneamente, claro está, a todos los cristianos en general. Por ello escribió un relato sobre la vida de Nuestro Señor Jesucristo verificando cuidadosamente toda la información proveniente de las palabras de los »testigos oculares y servidores del Verbo.» Debido a que san Lucas era uno de los setenta discípulos de Cristo le resultaba imposible ser testigo de todos los hechos , tales como el nacimiento de Juan el Bautista, la Anunciación, el Nacimiento de Cristo, la Presentación de Nuestro Señor en el Templo. Es indudable que una significativa parte del contenido de su Evangelio se basa en las palabras de testigos oculares, es decir, se fundamenta en la Tradición, tan categóricamente rechazada por los protestantes y los sectarios. El principal y mas importante testigo de los mas tempranos eventos de la historia de los Evangelios fue ciertamente, la Santísima Virgen María . No en vano san Lucas destaca en dos oportunidades que Ella mantenía el recuerdo de todos estos sucesos guardándolos en su corazón ( Lk. 2:19 y 2:51). |
| «Pilato, pues, oídas estas razones saco afuera a Jesús, y se sentó en el tribunal, en el lugar llamado «litóstroto» y en arameo «gabbatha»... Entonces, pues, se lo entrego para que fuera crucificado» (Jn. 19:13–16). De la casa de Pilato, donde se desarrolló esta escena, sobrevivió a la destrucción de Jerusalén del año 70 después de J.C. el «litóstroto,» «el embaldosado.» El hallazgo ha de agradecerse a los trabajos realizados durante muchos años por el arqueólogo padre L. H. Vincent. Lo consiguió gracias a los datos precisos contenidos en el Evangelio de San Juan. La palabra lithostroton quiere decir «embaldosado.» El arameo «gabbatha» equivale a «altura.» En tiempos de Jesucristo, junto a las murallas del templo, en dirección noroeste, sobre un promontorio, es decir, en un lugar elevado, «se alzaba la formidable torre denominada «Antonia.» Herodes I la había hecho construir y le había dado el nombre de un amigo suyo. La guarnición romana había instalado allí sus cuarteles, en el año 70 después de J.C., Tito, al conquistar Jerusalén, hizo demoler dicha fortaleza. Sobre sus ruinas se realizaron más tarde nuevas construcciones. Exactamente allí donde estaba situado el patio de esta fortaleza encontró Vincent un pavimento liso de 2.500 metros cuadrados de construcción romana y típica de la época de Jesús. Aquí es donde Jesús compareció ante Pilato mientras, fuera, la multitud vociferaba. Sobre este pavimento es donde fue azotado ( Jn. 19:1 ), cosa que siempre precedía a la crucifixión, cual hace constar reiteradamente Josefo. Para ejecutar tan horrible castigo, el cuerpo era desnudado y azotado hasta que la sangre manaba de las heridas. Después, los soldados romanos se apoderaron de Jesús para dar cumplimiento a la sentencia, es decir, a la crucifixión. Cicerón la califica de la «más cruel y espantosa sentencia de muerte.» Josefa la reputa como la más lastimosa de todas las muertes. Esta típica forma romana de dar cumplimiento a una pena capital no la conocía el régimen penitenciario de los judíos. |
| Plate 55 Icon of the myrrh-bearing women at the tomb. By Eileen McGuckin. The Icon Studio: www.sgtt.org the New Testament the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection, based on apostolic memories and oral traditions, vary widely in detail. However, the fact and centrality of the resurrection constitute the bedrock of the Christian faith, attested by more than five hundred eyewitnesses ( 1Cor. 15.5–8 ). The gospels indicate that Jesus anticipated his death as blood covenant renewal and viewed his resurrection as God’s vindication of his ministry (e.g., Mk. 8.27–31; 14.22–5, 36, 61–2 ; cf. Acts 3.13–15). Matthew, Luke, and John link Jesus’ resurrection with the gift of the Spirit and the inauguration of the early Christian mission ( Mt. 28.16–20 ; Lk. 24.44–9 ; Jn. 20.19–23 ; cf. Acts 2.32–3). The Gospel ofJohn magnificently integrates the life, death, resurrection, and enthronement of the Son of God as the mutual glorification between the Father and the Son, marking the decisive victory over the power of death and the gift of abundant life through the Spirit, available to believers in the present as well as the future ( Jn. 1.14 ; 5 .24–9; 7.37–9; 12.30–1; 14.15–24; 17.1–5). In this similar rich vein, the Apostle Paul provides the most detailed theological explication of the death and resurrection of the incarnate Son ( Gal. 4.4–6 ; Rom. 1.1–4 ) and Lord of glory ( 1Cor. 2.8; 15.1–4 ). For Paul, the death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ mark the cosmic shift from the old age of sin, corruption, and death to the new era of grace, life, incorruption, and transformed bodily immortality ( Rom. 3.21–6; 5.12–21; 8.18–39 ; 1Cor. 15.50–7 ). In Paul, as in John, God’s powers of salvation are at work both now and in the future in those who are united with Christ through faith and baptism, and who enact the pattern of Jesus’ death and resurrection by crucifying their sinful passions and offering themselves as living sacrifice to God ( Rom. 6.1–23; 8.9–13; 10.9–13; 12.1–2 ; 2Cor. 4.7–18 ; Gal. 3.16–24 ). |
|
|
