Saints Nikodemous the Hagorite, John Chrysostom , Maximus the Confessor, John of Damascus , Cyril of Jerusalem, and many others in their commentaries on the Lord’s Prayer always have the super essential bread of life as the centerpiece of their commentary. 6 They relate the super essential bread of life to the mystery of Holy Communion. Christ tells us in the Gospel of John (6:35) that, I am the bread of Life… Christ further states at the Last Supper, Take eat this is my body… (Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:25, Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 24), as he breaks the bread and gives it to the Apostles. The Lord’s Prayer is not only an eschatological prayer pointing to the restoration of communion between God and man but it is also Eucharistic prayer that points us to a foretaste of the fruit of the Tree of Life through the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist. This Eschatological- Eucharistic nature is further strengthened by the Church in its placement of the Lord’s Prayer just before the distribution of Holy Communion in the Holy Liturgy. Through awareness of the chiasmus structure of the Lord’s Prayer, a deeper understanding of the prayer is achieved. That understanding is, as the Lord says, When you pray … leave this world behind and enter into the time of God, be restored to what you were intended to be from the beginning, Taste and See through the Holy Mystery of the Eucharist, and know what it is like to partake of the Fountain of Immortality—for you are God’s child, the Crown of His creation. Fr. Sava Medakovic Vonmem 25 ноября 2016 г. 1  Breck, John;  The Shape of Biblical Language, Chiasmus and Beyond ; St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press; Crestwood, NY; 2008; p. 35 2  Ibid; pp.39-40 3  Ibid pp. 119-123 4  Translated by Mother Mary and Kallistos Ware;  The Lenten Triodion ; St. Tikohn’s Seminary Press; South Canaan, PA; 2002; pp. 342-343 5  Compiled by Dragicevich, V, Rev. Bozidar; The Divine Liturgy Service Book, Engish, Church Slavonic & Serbian; IIU “Svetigora”; Niksic, Yugoslavia, 2002; p. 68

http://pravoslavie.ru/98920.html

Marshall I. H. Luke: Historian and Theologian (Paternoster/Zondervan, 1988). Содержание Структурно Евангелие от Луки напоминает Евангелия от Марка и от Матфея. В Евангелии от Марка жизнеописание Иисуса Христа подразделяется на два периода: галилейский и иудейский. Лука поместил историю о рождении Иисуса в самое начало (как и Матфей), а последнее путешествие Иисуса Христа в Иерусалим он дополнил некоторыми подробностями. 1:1–4 Вступление 1:5 – 2:52 Рождение и детство Иисуса Христа 1:5–25 Возвещение о рождении Иоанна Крестителя 1:26–38 Благовестие о рождении Иисуса Христа 1:39–56 Встреча Марии и Елисаветы 1:57–80 Рождение Иоанна 2:1–20 Рождение Иисуса 2:21–40 Принесение Иисуса в храм 2:41–52 Отрок Иисус посещает Иерусалимский храм на Пасху 3:1 – 4:13 Иоанн Креститель и Иисус Христос 3:1–20 Проповедь Иоанна Крестителя 3:21–22 Крещение Иисуса 3:23–38 Родословие Иисуса 4:1–13 Искушение в пустыне 4:14 – 9:50 Служение Иисуса в Галилее 4:14 – 5:11 Благие вести о Царстве 5:12 – 6:11 Начало противостояния Иисуса и фарисеев 6:12–49 Наставление Иисуса ученикам 7:1–50 Сострадание Мессии 8:1–21 Иисус говорит притчами 8:22–56 Иисус совершает чудеса 9:1–50 Иисус Христос и двенадцать апостолов 9:51 – 19:10 Путешествие в Иерусалим 9:51 – 10:24 Обязанности и преимущества учеников Иисуса 10:25 – 11:13 Отличительные черты последователей учения 11:14–54 Противостояние фарисеям 12:1 – 13:9 Готовность к предстоящему кризису 13:10–35 Спасительное действие Божьего правления 14:1–24 Иисус на обеде у фарисейского начальника 14:25–35 Цена следования за Иисусом 15:1–32 Благовестие для отверженных 16:1–31 Предупреждение о богатстве 17:1–19 Наставление ученикам 17:20–18:8 Пришествие Сына Человеческого 18:9 – 19:10 Кому возможно спастись? 19:11 – 21:38 Иисус проповедует в Иерусалиме 19:11–27 Притча о десяти минах 19:28–40 Въезд Иисуса Христа в Иерусалим 19:41–48 Судьба Иерусалима 20:1 – 21:4 Проповедь в Иерусалимском храме 21:5–38 О разрушении храма и кончине века 22:1 – 24:53 Смерть и воскресение Иисуса Христа

http://azbyka.ru/otechnik/konfessii/novy...

If the Mother of God at the moment of the Annunciation is a true icon of human freedom, of authentic liberty and liberation, then her actions and reactions in the events that follow shortly afterwards in St Luke’s Gospel illustrate three basic consequences of what it means to be free. Freedom involves sharing, silence and suffering. Freedom involves sharing. Mary’s first action after the Annunciation is to share the good news with someone else: she goes with haste to the hill country, to the house of Zechariah, and greets her cousin Elizabeth (Luke 1:39-40). Here is an essential element in freedom: you cannot be free alone. Freedom is not solitary but social. It implies relationship, a ‘thou’ as well as an ‘I’. The one who is egocentric, who repudiates all responsibility towards others, possesses no more than a seeming and spurious freedom, but is in reality pitifully unfree. Liberation, properly understood, is not defiant isolation or aggressive self-assertion, but partnership and solidarity. To be free is to share our personhood with others, to see with their eyes, to feel with their feelings: ‘If one member of the body suffers, all suffer together with it’ (1 Cor. 12:26). I am only free if I become a prosopon - to use the Greek word for ‘person’, which means literally ‘face’ - if I turn towards others, looking into their eyes and allowing them to look into mine. To turn away, to refuse to share, is to forfeit liberty. Here the Christian doctrine of God is immediately relevant to our understanding of freedom. As Christians we believe in a God who is not only one but one in three. The divine image within us is specifically the image of God the Trinity. God our creator and archetype is not just one person, self-sufficient, loving himself alone, but he is a koinonia or communion of three persons, dwelling in each other through an unceasing movement of mutual love. From this it follows that the divine image within us, which is the uncreated source of our freedom, is a relational image, realized through fellowship and perichoresis. To say, ‘I am free, because I am formed in God’s image’, is equivalent to saying: ‘I need you in order to be myself.’ There is no true person except where there are at least two persons in reciprocal relationship; and there is no true freedom except where there are at least two persons who share their freedom together.

http://bogoslov.ru/article/2254381

1998. Vol. 52. N 4. P. 349-360; Blois F., de. Dualism in Iranian and Christian Traditions//JRAS. Ser. 3. 2000. Vol. 10. N 1. P. 1-19; Greschat K. Apelles und Hermogenes: Zwei theologische Lehrer des 2. Jh. Leiden; Boston, 2000; McGowan A. Marcion " s Love to Creation//JECS. 2001. Vol. 9. N 3. P. 295-311; Морев М. П. Маркион из Синопы: Первый реформатор христианства: Дис. Саратов, 2002; Frenschkowski M. Marcion in arabischen Quellen//Marcion und seine kirchengeschichtliche Wirkung. 2002. S. 39-63; Hage W. Marcion bei Eznik von Kolb//Ibid. S. 29-38; Marcion und seine kirchengeschichtliche Wirkung=Marcion and His Impact on Church History: Vorträge der Intern. Fachkonferenz zu Marcion, gehalten vom 15.-18. August 2001 in Mainz/Hrsg. G. May, K. Greschat. B.; N. Y., 2002. (TU; 150); Markschies Chr. Die valentinianische Gnosis und Marcion: Einige neue Perspektiven//Ibid. S. 159-175; Stewart-Sykes A. Bread and Fish, Water and Wine: The Marcionite Menu and the Maintenance of Purity//Ibid. S. 207-220; Willing M. Die neue Frage des Marcionschülers Apelles: Zur Rezeption marcionitischen Gedankenguts//Ibid. S. 221-231; Tardieu M. Marcion depuis Harnack// Harnack A., von. Marcion: L " évangile du dieu étranger: Une monographie sur l " histoire de la fondation de l " église catholique. P., 2003. P. 419-561; Kelhoffer J. A. «How Soon a Book» Revisited: Εαγγλιον as a Reference to «Gospel» Materials in the First Half of the 2nd Cent.//ZNW. 2004. Bd. 95. N 1. S. 1-34; R ä is ä nen H. Marcion//A Companion to Second-Century Christian «Heretics»/Ed. A. Marjanen, P. Luomanen. Leden; Boston, 2005. P. 100-124; Hill Ch. E. Polycarp «Contra» Marcion: Irenaeus " Presbyterial Source in AH 4. 27-32//StPatr. 2006. Vol. 40. P. 399-412; Tyson J. B. Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle. Columbia, 2006; Gianotto C. L " uso delle Scritture in Marcione e negli gnostici//RicSB. 2007. Vol. 19. N 2. P. 261-273; Jones F. S. Marcionism in the Pseudo-Clementines//Poussières de christianisme et de judaïsme antiques/Ed.

http://pravenc.ru/text/Маркионом.html

39. По свидетельству Талмуда (Шаббат, 15а), Симеон стал преемником Гиллеля в Совете. Если принять предание, по которому Гиллель родился за 100 лет до н. э. (Сифре на Втор 34, 7), то тогда хронологически вполне возможно отождествить Симеона Богоприимца с сыном Гиллеля. См.: А. Cumler. Does the Simeon of Luke 2 Refer to Simeon the Son of Hillel? «Journal of Bible and Religion», 1966, р. 29-35. 40. Хагига, I; 5а; Шаббат, 10; Менахот, 110; Бава Камма, 8; Авот II, 10; Сота, 48в; Дерех Эрец, II; Сота, 14а; Сукка, 49в; ср. Мф 6, 2-4, 7; 5, 41-42; 22, 6; 31, 5. Несколько сот талмудических изречений (с параллельным русским переводом) собраны в кн.: О. Гурович. Живая мораль, или Сокровищница талмудической этики. Вильна, 1901. Основные из этих максим по-русски можно найти также в статье Вл. Соловьева «Талмуд и новейшая полемическая литература о нем» (Собр. соч. СПб., 1914, т. VI, с. 11-15). 41. Таанит, II, I. 42. Авот, i, 17. 43. Шемот Раба, 22; ср. Мф 5, 43-44. 44. Бава Камма, 93. 45. Сота, 14а, Мф 5, 45, 48. 46. Сукка, 52а; Шаббат, 105в; Санхедрин, 43в. 47. Песикто Раба, 22; Иома, 72; Танхума, отд Матэс, Сота, 22в; И. Флавий Арх XIII, 15, 5,ср Мф 23, 23, 27 См также Г. Скарданицкий. Фарисеи и саддукеи, с. 65 ел 48. Сифри, отд. Эйкев. 49. Таанит, 22а; Шаббат, 52; ср. Мф 22, 11-12 50. Бава Батра, IIa; ср. Мф 6, 15-20. 51. Макот, 24а; ср. Рим 1, 17. Цифра 613 была результатом вычислений, которые делали таннаи, изучая Пятикнижие. 52. Мк 12, 28-34. 53. Мф 23, 23-24, 28. 54. В трактате «Санхедрин» (XI, 3) сказано, что нарушивший слово книжника несет большую ответственность, чем тот, кто нарушил устав Торы. См. характерный эпизод в «Бава Мециа» (59в), подтверждающий авторитет учителя. 55. Мф 27, 18. См.: Г. Скарданицкий. Фарисеи и саддукеи, с. 65 сл. 56. Шаббат, 31 в. 57. Иома, Тосефта, 4; Сукка, II, 9. 58. Шаббат, 12, 1, 5 сл. 59. Тосефта к Хагиге, II, 9. 60. См.: Л. Каценелъсон. Бет-Шаммай и Бет-Гиллель — ЕЭ, т. IV, с. 421. 61. Эрувин, 13в. 62.  Г. Грец. История еврейского народа, т. IV, с. 197.

http://pravbiblioteka.ru/reader/?bid=708...

Another text, however, has received some (though less) attention in this connection, namely Gen 22:2 . 4138 The differences between this text and the Markan acclamation are considerably less pronounced. Although γαπητς could conceivably reflect a variant of κλεκτς (cf. Luke 9:35; other manuscripts of John 1:34 ), 4139 in the LXX it sometimes is used to translate yahid (an only son), including in Gen 22 , 4140 where it adds to the pathos of God " s call to a father to sacrifice His son; for Mark, in which Jesus» Sonship is defined in terms of the cross (14:36; 15:39), this makes good sense. That the Fourth Gospel would draw on such a tradition also makes sense, given the prevalence of the «only, that is, beloved» son motif of 1:14,18. New Disciples (1:35–42) The Baptist " s general testimony to the reader (1:29–34) gives way to a specific testimony to his disciples (1:35–36), who trust his witness (contrast 1:19–28) and experience Jesus for themselves (1:37–39; cf. 3:25–30). These disciples in turn become witnesses themselves (1:40–42). John weaves his sources into a theology of witness here, and emphasizes that even those who tentatively accept another " s witness must also experience Jesus for themselves to be fully convinced (1:39,46). On 1:36, see comment on 1:29. 1. Historical Plausibility In contrast to the previous paragraphs of the Fourth Gospel, we lack corroboration from the Synoptic accounts here (a matter which seems not to trouble the writer, in whose day perhaps numerous other sources besides the Synoptics and his own eyewitness traditions were extant; cf. already Luke 1:1). 4141 Although the Fourth Gospel is well aware of the historical tradition of the Twelve (6), 4142 he shows no interest in recounting the occasion of their call ( Магк 3:13–19 ; Matt 10:1–4; Luke 6:12–16) or the Synoptic call stories of the fishermen ( Магк 1:16–20 ; Matt 4:18–22; Luke 5:1–11; although the writer is well aware that some are fishermen and may know the Lukan tradition– John 21:3–6 ). The readiness of those disciples to abandon their livelihoods on the occasion depicted in Markan tradition (or to lend Jesus use of their boat in Luke) may actually make more sense historically if they had encountered Jesus on a prior occasion, as this narrative in John would suggest. 4143

http://azbyka.ru/otechnik/world/the-gosp...

John plays on a contrast with faith δια τν λγον of the woman (4:39) and that of Jesus (4:41). 5639 Like Nathanael, the Samaritans» initial level of faith is based on another " s testimony (4:39), which is acceptable for initial faith (15:26–27; 17:20; 20:30–31). Once they «come» and «see» (4:29; cf. 1:46), however, they progress to a firsthand faith (4:42), which characterizes true disciples (10:3–4, 14–15). Thus the Samaritans do not denigrate the woman " s testimony in 4:42; rather, they confirm it. 5640 Jesus stayed with the Samaritans briefly (4:40), but long enough for them to get to know him more fully and respond to him appropriately (4:41–42; cf. 1:39). Mediterranean culture in general heavily emphasized hospitality, from classical Greek 5641 through Roman 5642 and modern times; 5643 pagans held that the chief deity was the protector of guests, hence guarantor of hospitality. 5644 This general statement was also true in particular of Mediterranean Jewry, especially toward fellow members of their minority in the Diaspora. 5645 One should not show hospitality to false teachers, 5646 such as Jewish and Samaritan teachers would regard each other to be, but Jesus had surmounted the usual Samaritan mistrust of Jews. Thus it would have been rude for the Samaritans not to offer hospitality and rude for Jesus to have refused once they insisted, though he does not stay long. That another passage in the gospel tradition indicates that Jesus sought lodging in Samaria may indicate the friendship Jesus shared with some Samaritans (Luke 9:52); if that account is later in Jesus» ministry than this one (as it must be if, as in Luke, that occasion is linked with Jesus» final journey to Jerusalem), it may also suggest that Jesus» plan to go to Jerusalem (Luke 9:53) severely disappointed them. 5647 Then again, John actually recounts the conversion of «many» in only one Samaritan village, which could include fewer than a hundred adults despite the symbolic value he grants it; on the historical level, it is difficult to press this text " s portrait against Lukés different claims about Samaritan responses (Luke 9:51–56; Acts 8:4–25). 5648

http://azbyka.ru/otechnik/world/the-gosp...

877 Smith, John (1999), 335, connecting more explicit appearances with 18:16. If this connection held, Lazarus, Barnabas, or John Mark " s mother " s family might prove better candidates for supplying a well-to-do, priestly Jerusalem disciple (cf. Acts 4:36–37; 12:12–13; Col 4:10 ). 879 On the prophecy not arising after the event, see, e.g., Jeremias, Theology, 243–44; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 147; Keener, Matthew, 485–86. 881 E.g., Culpepper, John, 31. The objection based on John " s opposition to the Samaritans (Luke 9:54; ibid.) falls into the same category, especially in view of the explicit testimony of Acts 8:14–15 (which should be doubted no more than Lukés claim in Luke 9:54–55). 882 Carson, John, 74. Peter " s character changes even between Luke and Acts! John Chrysostom Hom. Jo. 1 attributes the Gospel directly to the «son of thunder.» 883 Fishermen were usually relatively high on the socioeconomic scale (see sources in Keener, Matthew, 151–52; Stanton, Gospels, 186; Whitacre, John, 20), but Galilee was a long way from Jerusalem (Smith, John 335). The high priest " s household could import fish from the Lake of Galilee, but probably through agents (though fishermen could make more income if they sold directly to the rich rather than through middlemen; Alciphron Fishermen 9 [Aegialeus to Struthion], 1.9). Blomberg, Reliability, 35, argues that Zebedeés wife had priestly relatives ( Магк 15:40 ; Matt 27:56; John 19:25 ; Luke 1:36, 39). 884 E.g., Thucydides 1.1.1; 2.103.2; 5.26.1; Xenophon Anab. 2.5.41; 3.1.4–6 and passim. Polybius uses first-person claims when he was an observer (e.g., 29.21.8) but prefers third-person when he is an active participant in the narrative (31.23.1–31.24.12; 38.19.1; 38.21.1; 38.22.3; cf. 39.2.2). A narrator might distance himself from his role as participant in this way to meet expectations for objectivity (see esp. Jackson, «Conventions»). 885 E.g., Dunn, «John,» 293–94. He commendably recognizes that the stages are now difficult to reconstruct; but one then wonders how it is possible to know they existed.

http://azbyka.ru/otechnik/world/the-gosp...

35 Marxsen, Mark, 150, thus objects to applying Mark " s term «Gospel» to Matthew and Luke, arguing that Matthew is a collection of «gospels» and sermons (pp. 150 n. 106; 205–6), and Luke a «life of Jesus» (150 n. 106). He is uncomfortable with the language of a Gospel «genre» (25). 36 Aune, Environment, 83, cites Quintilian 2.42; Cicero Inv. 1.27; Sextus Empiricus Against the Professors 1.263–264 for the three major categories (history, fiction, and myth or legend), though noting that they overlapped in practice (Strabo Geog. 1.2.17, 35); for distinctions between mythography and history proper, see Fornara, Nature of History, 4–12. 38 This view was proposed by K. L. Schmidt, who provided analogies among later folk literatures of various cultures. He is followed by Kümmel, Introduction, 37; cf. Hunter, Message, 30; Deissmann, Light, 466. 39 Downing, «Literature»; Aune, Environment, 12, 63; Burridge, Gospels, 11, 153. Rhetorical principles influenced narrative techniques; see, e.g., Dowden, «Apuleius.» 40 Koester, Introduction, 1:108; Kodell, Luke, 23; cf. Perry, Sources, 7. This is not to mention Lukés architectonic patterns (for which see Goulder, Acts; Talbert, Patterns; idem, Luke; Tannehill, Luke). 41 E.g., Socratics Ep. 18, Xenophon to Socrates» friends. Diogenes Laertius includes compilations of traditions, but from a variety of sources. 42 Cf. Papias frg. 6 (Eusebius Hist. ecc1. 3.39), on the hypothesis that Papias " s «Matthew» is our «Q» (cf. Filson, History, 83; rejected by Jeremias, Theology, 38). Downing, «Like Q,» compares Q with a Cynic «Life» (cf. Mack, Lost Gospel 46); contrast Tuckett, «Q.» 43 Justin 1 Apo1. 66.3; 67.3; Dia1. 103.8; 106.3 (see Stanton, New People, 62–63; Abramowski, «Memoirs,» pace Koester). 45 This is not to deny the Synoptics» substantial dependence on tradition, but tradition is not so dominant (as Jones, Parables, 36, seems to suggest) as to prohibit pursuit of literary coherence. 46 Quintilian 10.6.1–2. One should also be ready to add improvisations during the speech (10.6.5).

http://azbyka.ru/otechnik/world/the-gosp...

Crucifixion victims often had wounds, and those who had been wounded often showed their wounds to make a point (see comment on 20:20); that Jesus did so stems from pre-Johannine tradition (Luke 24:39–40, though 24is textually uncertain). Soldiers who carried out crucifixions often used rope 10755 but also used nails through the wrists, 10756 which seem to have been used for Jesus (20:25, 27). Dibelius, noting that Matthew and Mark omit the piercing of hands and/or feet, which appears only as hints in the Easter narratives of Luke (24:39) and John (20:20,25,27), thinks the hints of piercing stem from Ps 22rather than historical recollection. 10757 But Dibelius " s skepticism on this point is unwarranted for several reasons: all four extant first-century gospels omit it in descriptions of the crucifixion (as well as many other explicit details, such as the height of the cross, shape of the cross, and other variables we must reconstruct secondhand); Mark and Matthew include the briefest resurrection narratives, Mark without any appearances, so one would not expect them to recount it there; and finally, Luke and John probably supply independent attestation of a tradition that predates both of them, yet neither allude clearly to Ps 22:17 . 10758 Putting hands into Jesus» wounds would convince Thomas that this was the same Jesus (see comment on 20:20); no trickery would be possible. 10759 John omits another tradition in which Jesus confirms his bodily resurrection by eating with the disciples (Luke 24:41–43), preferring the stronger proof of his corporal resurrection. 10760 In the third-century Vita Apollonii by Philostratus, Apollonius invites two of his disciples to grasp him to confirm that he has not, in fact, been executed; 10761 but the Christian resurrection narratives were widespread in the Roman Empire by the time Philostratus dictated his stories. 10762 2C. The Climactic Christological Confession (20:28–29) Ancient writers often used characterization to communicate points about «kinds» of people. Nicodemus was slow to believe (3:2; cf. 7:50) but eventually proved a faithful disciple (19:38–42). Likewise, Thomas had missed the first corporate resurrection appearance, which convinced most of his fellow disciples; given the problem with secessionists in some Johannine communities (1 John 2:19), his missing might provide a warning to continue in fellowship with fellow believers (to whatever extent Thomas " s fellow disciples had already been disciples and believers when Jesus first appeared at that point!) Nevertheless, Thomas becomes the chief spokesman for full christological faith here (20:28–29)–and the foil by which John calls his readers to a faith deeper than the initial resurrection faith of any of the twelve disciples (20:29).

http://azbyka.ru/otechnik/world/the-gosp...

  001     002    003    004    005    006    007    008    009    010