| Was St. Mary Magdalene a Harlot? Question: Was Mary Magdalene a harlot before Jesus Christ drove seven demons from her? In the West, she is considered to be a repentant harlot, but I have not found anything in the Gospels to support this view. I have only found that St. Mary Magdalene became one of the Myrrh-Bearing women, who faithfully followed Christ, even to His death on the Cross. Holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Mary Magdalene was born the Galilean town of Magdala (the tribe of Issachar), located on the Western bank of the sea of Gennesaret, near Capernaum. She is mentioned in all four Gospels. After the Lord healed her of the seven devils (cf. Lk. 8:2), she joined the pious women who accompanied the Lord during His earthly life and served Him. She was a witness of the Savior's sufferings on the Cross, and was present at His burial. Before the dawn of the first day after the eventful Saturday, she and other pious women came to the tomb of Jesus Christ in order to anoint His body with sweet spices. Therefore, the Church calls them the Myrrh-Bearing women. The angel first told them of the Lord's Resurrection (cf. Mk. 16:1–8). For her great love and devotion to her Savior, she was worthy to be the first to see the risen Lord. He instructed her to announce His resurrection to the Apostles. St. Mary Magdalene appeared to the Apostles as a bringer of glad tidings. The stichera of Pascha (composed by St. John Damascene) sings of this: " Come from that scene, O Women, bearers of good tidings, and say to Sion: receive from us the glad tidings of joy of the Resurrection of Christ. Exult, rejoice; and be glad O Jerusalem, beholding Christ the King as a Bridegroom come forth from the tomb. " There is not a single word in the New Testament that would imply that Mary Magdalene was a harlot. This opinion has only taken root in Western culture. A determining stage in the formation of this opinion was the equating of Mary Magdalene with the woman who anointed the feet of Jesus in the house of Simon the Pharisee (cf. Lk. 7:36–50). The Gospel text does not provide any basis for such an assumption. The Lord forgave that woman her sins, saying, Thy faith has saved thee; go in peace (Lk. 7:50). Nothing is said here about the casting out of devils. If the Savior had done that earlier, the why would He not have forgiven her sins at that time? Right after this, the Evangelist Luke talks about (chapter 8) the godly women who served the Lord. The mention of Mary Magdalene is accompanied by the note (out of whom went seven devils), which shows without a doubt that she was being mentioned here for the first time. |
| Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct ... Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them (Rom.1:24–32). That those who “do such things deserve to die” was taken literally in the law of Moses; thus adulterers, homosexuals, incestuous people and those committing sexual acts with beasts were ordered to be “put to death” ( Lev.20:10–16 ). In following this teaching, while hoping on the mercy of God and the forgiveness of Christ for all sinners, the New Testament scriptures are even more strict in their demands regarding sexual purity. Jesus, who forgave the woman taken in adultery ( Jn.8:7–11 ) and the repentant harlot who washed His feet with her hair ( Lk.7:36–50 ), gave the following teaching in His sermon on the mount: You have heard that it was said, “You shall not commit adultery.” But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell. It was also said, “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.” But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery (Mt.5:27–32, see also 19–3–9; Rom.7:3). |
| Vol. 2. P. 313-327; Bassler J. M. The Galileans: A Neglected Factor in Johannine Community Research//CBQ. 1981. Vol. 43. N 2. P. 243-257; Carson D. A. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel: After Dodd, What?//Gospel Perspectives/Ed. R. T. France, D. Wenham. Sheffield, 1981. Vol. 2: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels. P. 83-145; idem. The Gospel According to John. Leicester; Grand Rapids, 1991; Kimelman R. Birkat Ha-Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an Anti-Christian Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity//Jewish and Christian Self-Definition/Ed. E. P. Sanders e. a. Phil., 1981. Vol. 2: Aspects of Judaism in the Greco-Roman Period. P. 226-244; McReynolds P. R. John 1:18 in Textual Variation and Translation//New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis: Essays in Honour of B. M. Metzger/Ed. E. J. Epp, G. D. Fee. Oxf., 1981. P. 105-118; Schiffman L. H. At the Crossroads: Tannaitic Perspectives on the Jewish-Christian Schism//Jewish and Christian Self-Definition. Phil., 1981. Vol. 2. P. 115-156; Minear P. S. The Original Function of John 21//JBL. 1983. Vol. 102. N 1. P. 85-98; Dauer A. Johannes und Lukas: Untersuch. zu den johanneisch-lukanischen Parallelperikopen Joh 4. 46-54/Lk 7. 1-10 - Joh 12. 1-8/Lk 7. 36-50; 10. 38-42 - Joh 20. 19-29/Lk 24. 36-49. Würzburg, 1984; Heekerens H.-P. Die Zeichen-Quelle der johanneischen Redaktion. Stuttg., 1984; Katz S. T. Issues in the Separation of Judaism and Christianity after 70 C.E.: A Reconsideration//JBL. 1984. Vol. 103. N 1. P. 43-76; Fennema D. A. John 1:18: «God the Only Son»//NTS. 1985. Vol. 31. N 1. P. 124-135; Glasswell M. E. The Relationship between John and Mark//JSNT. 1985. Vol. 23. P. 99-115; Grundmann W. Der Zeuge der Wahrheit: Grundzüge der Christologie des Johannesevangeliums. B., 1985; Meeks W. A. Breaking Away: Three NT Pictures of Christianity " s Separation from the Jewish Communities//«To See Ourselves as Others See Us»: Christians, Jews, «Others» in Late Antiquity/Ed. J. Neusner, E. |
| 46-54/Lk 7. 1-10 - Joh 12. 1-8/Lk 7. 36-50; 10. 38-42 - Joh 20. 19-29/Lk 24. 36-49. Würzburg, 1984; Heekerens H.-P. Die Zeichen-Quelle der johanneischen Redaktion. Stuttg., 1984; Robinson J. A. T. The Priority of John. L., 1985; Beasley-Murray G. R. John. Waco, 1987; Kloppenborg J. S. The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections. Phil., 1987; Bauer D. R. The Structure of Matthew " s Gospel. Sheffield, 1988; Goulder M. D. Luke: A New Paradigm. Sheffield, 1989. 2 vol. (JSNT; 20); Hengel M. The Johannine Question. L.; Phil., 1989; Kingsbury J. D. Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom. Minneapolis, 19892; Sanders E. P., Davies M. Studying the Synoptic Gospels. L.; Phil., 1989; Wahlde U., von. The Earliest Version of John " s Gospel: Recovering the Gospel of Signs. Wilmington (Del.), 1989; Boismard M.- É . Theorie des niveaux multiples//The Interrelations of the Gospels/Ed. D. L. Dungan. Leuven, 1990. P. 231-243. (BETL; 95); Marguerat D. La «Source des Signes» existe-t-elle?//La communauté Johannique et son histoire/Ed. J.-D. Kaestli, J.-M. Poffet, J. Zumstein. Gen., 1990. P. 69-93; Carson D. A. The Gospel according to John. Leicester; Grand Rapids (Mich.), 1991; Linnemann E. Is there a Synoptic Problem: Rethinking the Literary Dependence of the First Three Gospels. Grand Rapids, 1992; Schnelle U. Antidocetic Christology in the Gospel of John. Minneapolis, 1992; Wenham J. Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. Downers Grove (Ill.), 1992; Brodie Th. L. The Gospel According to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary. N. Y.; Oxf., 1993; Painter J. The Quest for the Messiah: The History, Literature, and Theology of the Johannine Community. Nashville, 19932; Strecker G., ed. Minor Agreements: Symp. Göttingen, 1991. Gött., 1993; Belle G., van. The Signs Source in the Fourth Gospel. Leuven, 1994. (BETL; 116); Ennulat A. Die «Minor Agreements»: Untersuchungen zu einer offenen Frage des synoptischen Problems. Tüb., 1994; Shellard B. |
| P. 70-85; Cs á nyi D. A. «Optima pars»: Auslegungsgeschichte von Lk 10,38-42 bei den Kirchenvätern der ersten vier Jahrhunderte//StMon. 1960. Vol. 2. P. 5-78; Kemmer A. Maria und Martha: Zur Deutungsgeschichte von Lk 10, 38ff. im alten Mönchtum//Erbe und Auftrag. Beuron, 1964. Bd. 40. P. 355-367; Locher G. F. D. Martha in Maria en de Prediking van Augustinus//Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis. Leiden, 1964. T. 46. P. 65-86; Baker A. One Thing Necessary//CBQ. 1965. Vol. 27. N 2. P. 127-137; Barrett C. K. The Gospel according St. John. L., 19782; Solignac A., Donnet L. Marthe et Marie//DSAMDH. 1980. T. 10. Col. 664-673; Dirks M. Maria und Marta//Katechetische Blätter. Münch., 1980. Bd. 105. S. 65 ff.; Fee G. D. One Thing is Needful?: Luke 10, 42//New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis/Ed. E. J. Epp, G. D. Fee. Oxf., 1981. P. 61-75; Brutscheck J. Die Maria-Marta-Erzahlung: Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung zu Lk 10, 38-42. Fr./M., 1986; Witherington B., III. Women in the Ministry of Jesus. Camb., 19872. P. 100-116; Bovon F. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Zürich, 1989. Tl. 1; Wall R. W. Martha and Mary (Luke 10. 38-42) in the Context of a Christian Deuteronomy//JSNT. 1989. Vol. 11. N 35. P. 19-35; Collins R. F. Martha//ABD. 1992. Vol. 4. P. 573-574; idem. Mary of Bethany//Ibid. P. 578-579; Constable G. Three Studies in Medieval Religious and Social Thought: The Interpretation of Mary and Martha. The Ideal of the Imitation of Christ. The Orders of Society. Camb., 1998; Beasley-Murray G. R. John. Nashville, 1999. P. 348. (WBC; 36); Metteer Ch. A. Mary Needs Martha: The Purposes of Manual Labor in Early Monasticism//SVTQ. 1999. Vol. 43. N 2. P. 163-207; Nolland J. Luke 9:21-18: 34. Dallas, 2002. (WBC; 35B); Esler P. F., Piper R. A. Lazarus, Mary and Martha: Social-Scientific Approaches to the Gospel of John. Minneapolis, 2006; Hauser-Borel S. Participantes à la Rèsurrection: Marthe et Marie selon Jean 11, 1-45 et 12, 1-11 dans l " exégèse de Jean Chrysostome, Théodore de Mopsueste et Cyrille d " Alexandrie. |
| «O Daniel, servant of the living God!» (Dan.6, 20). Servant – слуга, служитель, прислуга (Мюллер В. К. Англо-Русский Словарь. М., 1971. С. 687) «Daniel, du Diener des lebendigen Gottes» (Dan. 6. 21). Diener – слуга, служитель (Langenscheidts Grosswoerterbuch. Deutsch-Russisch. Band 1. Berlin – Muenchen, 1997. S. 408) «Danielu, slugo zyjacego Boga!» (Dn. 6, 21). Sluga –(книжн.) слуга. Sluga Bozy – раб Божий (Гессен Д., Стыпула Р. Большой польско-русский словарь. Москва – Варшава, 1967. С. 978 «Иаков, раб Бога и Господа Иисуса Христа» (Иак. 1, 1). «James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ» (Jas. 1, 1). «Jakobus, Knecht Gottes und Jesu Christi, des Herrn» (Jak. 1, 1). Knecht – слуга, работник. Knecht Gottes -раб Божий, слуга Божий (Langenscheidts Grosswoerterbuch. Указ. соч. С. 1009) «Jakub, sluga Boga i Pana Jezusa Chrystusa» (Jk. 1, 1) «Павел раб Божий, Апостол же Иисуса Христа» (Тит. 1, 1). «Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ» (Tit. 1, 1). «Paulus, Knecht Gottes und Apostel Jesu Christi» ( Tit. 1, 1). «Pawel, sluga Boga I apostol Jezusa Chrystusa» (Tt. 1, 1). Или известный стих из Благовещения Девы Марии: «Тогда Мария сказала: се раба Господня» (Лк. 1б 38). «And Mary said, behold the handmaid of the Lord» (Lk. 1, 38). Handmaid – (уст.) служанка (Мюллер В. К. Указ. соч. С. 352). «Da sagte Maria: Ich bin die Magd des Herrn» (Lk. 1, 38). Na to rzekla Maryja: « Oto ja sluzebnica Panska» (Lk. 1, 38). Sluzebnica – прислуга, служанка. (Гессен Д., Стыпула Р. Указ. соч. С. 978) Библия, книги Священного Писания Ветхого и Нового Завета. Брюссель, 1989. С. 1286, 1801, 1694,1575. The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Testament. (King James version). New York, б. г. Р. 2166, ( New Test.) 631, 586, 162. Die Bibel. Einheitsuebersetzung der Heiligen Schrift. Stuttgart, 1999. S. 1004, 1142, 1352, 1334. Pismo Swiete Starego i Nowego Testamentu. Poznan – Warszawa, 1987. S. 1041, 1372, 1356, 1181. Отметим, что в Большом Конкордансе к Библии Лютера слово Sklave (раб) употребляется около 60 раз, Skavin (рабыня) – около 10 раз, между тем, как Knecht (слуга) – выступает в разных значениях и формах единств. и множеств. числа – около 500 раз, а Magd (служанка) – около 150 раз (Grosse Konkordanz zur Lutherbibel. Stuttgart, 1979. S. 841-844; 975-976; 1301). |
| Después del sermón, cuando Nuestro Señor Jesucristo bajó de la montaña, una gran multitud lo siguió; sin duda la gente estaba muy impresionaba. Y como había ocurrido con anterioridad ( Mk. 1:40–45 ; Lk. 5:12–16 ), otro leproso se aproximó al Señor, rogando ser curado de aquella terrible enfermedad. Es necesario decir que, lejos de ser este el único caso de curación de leprosos, el Señor obró muchas curaciones milagrosas durante Su ministerio. Tampoco sorprende que este caso fuera similar al primero, ni que el Señor ordenase al leproso curado presentarse a un sacerdote para que éste, de acuerdo a la ley de Moisés, testimoniara oficialmente sobre la curación. Sin ello el leproso curado no podría reintegrarse a la comunidad de los sanos, pues todos lo evitarían con temor, sabiendo que era portador de tan cruel enfermedad. Algunos exégetas suponen que si el ahora sano no hubiese ido a Jerusalén, directamente al sacerdote, divulgando en cambio la noticia de su milagrosa sanación, esa información hubiese alcanzado Jerusalén antes de su arribo. Entonces los sacerdotes hostiles al Señor hubiesen afirmado que el hombre sanado jamás había estado enfermo. Curación del siervo del centurión. ( Mt. 8:5–13 ; Lk. 7:1–10 ). Luego, el Señor fue a Cafarnaum donde una vez más, realizó el milagro de curar al siervo del centurión romano, quien por lo visto, estaba al mando de la guarnición local de cien soldados. Algunas de las ciudades de Palestina eran custodiadas por guarniciones militares romanas. Aunque el centurión era pagano de origen, mostraba disposición hacia la religión judía, testimonio de lo cual era la sinagoga construida por él. Según san Mateo, su siervo se hallaba postrado por una parálisis, mientras que san Lucas – cuya narración es mas detallada – afirma que estaba al borde de la muerte. San Lucas relata que el centurión primero envió recado a Jesús con algunos notables de entre los judíos para que viniera y curase a su siervo; luego envió a unos amigos suyos y finalmente, como dice san Mateo, salió al encuentro del Señor cuando este se aproximaba a su casa. |
| 20 сент. 1944 г. нем. оккупационными властями А. был насильственно эвакуирован в Сев. Германию в лагерь Омштеде под г. Ольденбургом. Там во временной лагерной церкви-бараке А. открыл первый зарубежный эст. приход. С волной беженцев Эстонию покинули 22 клирика и часть мирян ЭАПЦ. В др. лагерях Германии также появились временные храмы, в к-рых богослужение совершалось на родном для эстонцев языке. В марте 1947 г. А. получил разрешение поселиться в Швеции и до своей смерти проживал в Стокгольме. 15 янв. 1948 г. им был учрежден Синод для управления 17 эст. приходами в разных странах: Швеции (7), США (4), Канаде (3), Англии (1), Германии (1) и Австралии (1). В эмиграции А. по-прежнему считал себя главой автономной Церкви, продолжая до самой смерти именоваться митрополитом Таллинским и всей Эстонии, несмотря на то что Таллинскую кафедру в это время уже занимали канонические архипастыри, находившиеся в юрисдикции РПЦ. 25 окт. 1953 г. А. был похоронен на правосл. Лесном кладбище в Стокгольме. В его отпевании не принял участия никто из офиц. представителей К-польского Патриархата. После кончины А. приходы эст. диаспоры по их просьбе были включены в местные епархиальные структуры К-польского Патриархата. Лит.: Isa Aleksandri Paulus pühitsemine esimeseks Eesti iseseiswa kiriku peapiiskopiks//Uus Elu. Tallinn, 1920. N 4. Lk. 7-10; Laar A. Ülevaade Eesti Ap.-Õigeusu Kiriku elukäigust - Eesti abipiiskopist kuni iseseisvuseni//Ibid. Tallinn, 1923. N 7-8; Samon S. ü lempr., Salasoo S. M. Kiriku ajalugu. Tallinn, 1990 (ümbertrükk); Kaljukosk A. ü pr. Eesti Apostlik-Õigeusu Kirik. 1995 Pãevastik. Tallinn, 1994. Lk. 29-37; Цыпин В., прот. История Русской Церкви. М., 1997. С. 218-219, 290-292; Нарвский архиерей: Мат-лы к биографии епископа Нарвского и Изборского Павла (Дмитровского), впосл. архиепископа Таллинского и Эстонского. Нарва, 1997. С. 41-49; Алексий II, Патриарх Московский и всея Руси. Православие в Эстонии. М., 1999. С. 377, 378, 385-390, 393, 401-405. Свящ. Александр Вершинин |
| 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). |
| Paul also appeals to this concatenation of images, when he points out to those in his Corinthian community who were seduced by wisdom, that the folly of God (Christ lifted on the Cross, as the bronze snake lifted on the pole) overcomes the wisdom of the world, and, as such, Christ is the true wisdom and power of God. In another vein, but using the same scriptural, literary or inter-textual technique, Matthew describes Christ as a new Moses, going up a mountain to deliver the law, while Paul describes Christ as the new Adam, correcting the mistakes of the first Adam, whom Paul explicitly describes as being “a type of the One to come” (Rom 5:14). This is not to imply that the Gospel itself is, as Ricoeur claimed, simply “a rereading of an ancient Scripture”. The proclamation of the death and resurrection of Christ is not straightforwardly derivable from Scripture. Rather, the death and resurrection of Christ acts as a catalyst, which then enables a subsequent rereading of the Scriptures (the Old Testament), providing the terms and images, the context, within which the apostles made sense of what happened, and with which they explained it and preached it, so justifying the claim that Christ died and rose “according to the Scriptures”. And this is indeed what we find in the Gospels, where, in the Evangelists’ descriptions of Christ and His activity, there is constant allusion to scriptural imagery, most explicitly in John, when Christ states: “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me” (Jn 5:46). Alternatively, in Matthew the same intertextuality is found in terms of prophecy-fulfilment structuring the narrative, while in Luke it appears as the hermeneutic, the principle of interpretation, taught by the risen Christ, enlightening his disciples: “Beginning with Moses and all the prophets, He interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself” (Lk 24:27, cf. Lk 24:44-49). This literary enlightening of the disciples is paralleled in John when Christ breathes on his disciples the Holy Spirit, the one he had promised, who would remind them of all things concerning Christ, leading them into all truth (cf. |
|
|
