| In a personal appeal to the Prime Minister, the signatories warned that his plans will actually weaken society. “Marriage between a man and a woman is the fundamental building block of human society,” they said. “These proposals would radically undermine the nature and place of the family in our society. We cannot believe that this is what you intend and therefore ask you to pause before taking such a damaging step.” A total of 53 religious leaders have signed the letter, which notes that concern about the proposals is not confined to any single faith. Followers of all faiths and those without any religion are unhappy about the proposals, they said. “We are disappointed that the Government has failed to engage in meaningful debate with the many different faith communities in Britain. It has wrongly assumed that opposition to the redefinition of marriage is confined to a small number of Christians.” The House of Commons has spent several days debating the details of the proposals, but the religious leaders said ministers are rushing the process. “The haste with which this legislation is being driven through Parliament and the failure to talk to all religions will mean that the problems which we have repeatedly highlighted will be written into law with serious and harmful consequences for the health of society, family life, and human rights such as freedom of religion and of speech.” FULL LIST OF SIGNATORIES 1. Bishop Doye Agama, (Presiding Bishop, Apostolic Pastoral Congress) 2. Bishop Angaelos (General Bishop, Coptic Orthodox Church, UK) 3. Dr Hamid Aldubayan (Chair of Regents Park Mosque) 4. Shaykh Dr. Haitham al-Haddad, Founder and Executive Director, MRDF 5. Mr John Beard (Buddhist) 6. Mr James Bogle (Barrister, Vice-Chairman of the Catholic Union) 7. Khurshid Drabu CBE, Dr Ahmed Al Dubyan, Islamic Culture Centre 9. Rev Canon Ben Enwuchola (Anglican Chaplain to the Nigerian Community) 10. Mrs Sarah Finch (Member of General Synod) 11. Sheikh Suliman Gani (Imam, Tooting Islamic Centre) |
| Апология написана Мелитоном в связи с появлением «новых декретов» Марка Аврелия против христиан. Что это за декреты – неизвестно (см. специальную литературу). Возможно, это были какие-то указания, вызванные местными волнениями. Принимая во внимание значение фрагмента, мы предлагаем читателям перевод (взяв за основу текст М.Е. Сергеенко; ср. также перевод в наст, изд., с. 207 –8), сверенный и исправленный по оригиналу с максимально доступной нам точностью, отмечая также возможные варианты интерпретации. ТЕКСТ Евс. ЦИ IV, 26, 5 –11: Eusebius Werke II.1. Die Kirchengeschichte. Ed. E.Schwartz. – GCS 9.1. Leipz., 1903, p. 384 1 –386 15 ; SC 31 (P., 2 1986 rev. et. corr.), éd. G.Bardy, p. 209.11; Hall, p. 62.4. ЛИТЕРАТУРА 1 Zeiller J. À propos d " un passage énigmatique de Méliton de Sardes relatif à la persécution contre les chrétiens. – Revue des Études Augustiniennes 2, 1956, 257 –63. Sordi M. I «nuovi decreti» di Marco Aurelio contro i cristiani. – Studi romani 9, 1961, 361 –78. Gabba E. L " Apologia di Melitene da Sardi. – Critica storica 1, 1962, 469 –82. Попытка реконструировать содержание апологии. Aland К. The relation between Church and State in early times. A reinterpretation. – JThS 19, 1968, 115 –27. Sclineemelcher W. Heilsgeschichte und Imperium. Meliton von Sardes und der Staat. – Κληρονομι 5, 1973, 257 –76. Франц. перевод: Histoire du salut et empire romain. Méliton de Sardes et l " état.– BLE 75, 1974, 81 –98. Weijenborg R. Méliton de Sardes lecteur de la Première Apologie et du Dialogue de saint Justin. – Antonianum 49, 1974, 362 –66. Анализ § 6 и специально слова γρας. ПЕРЕВОД (4) А в книге к императору он так повествует о том, что было при нем 2 против нас: (5) «Ибо никогда такого не бывало: сейчас в Асии по новым эдиктам гонят и преследуют богочестивый народ, так как бесстыжие доносчики и любители чужого, пользуясь распоряжениями 3 как предлогом, открыто разбойничают, ночью и днем грабя ни в чем не повинных [людей]». (6) И дальше он говорит: «Если это делается по твоему приказу – хорошо, пусть так и будет! Ибо справедливый царь никогда не мог бы постановить решения (βουλεσαιτο) несправедливого, и мы с радостью принимаем почесть такой смерти. Одну только приносим тебе просьбу, дабы ты сам прежде, познакомившись с творцами такой склоки, по справедливости рассудил бы, достойны ли они смерти и наказания или избавления и спокойствия. – Но если от тебя и не могло бы исходить это решение ( βουλ ατη) и это новое распоряжение (διταγμα), каковое не подобало бы даже против враждебных варваров 4 , – то тем более мы просим тебя не презреть нас в таком публичном грабеже». |
| John prepares the way of Yahweh (1:23)–and hence of Jesus–and testifies of Jesus» preexistence (1:30). Jesus proves to be one greater than Moses (2:1–11). Jesus would come down from heaven more like divine Wisdom or Torah than like Moses (3:13, 31). Like Torah or Wisdom, Jesus is the bread of life (6:48). He existed as divine before Abraham existed (8:56–59). Jesus is far greater than the «gods» to whom God " s Word came at Sinai (10:33–39). Repeatedly in John the Scriptures testify to Jesus» identity and mission, but the climax of this motif appears when we learn that Isaiah spoke of Jesus when he beheld his glory in the theophany of Isa 6 ( John 12:39–41 ). Jesus is the perfect revelation of the Father (14:8–10) and shared the Father " s glory before the world existed (17:5,24). His self-revelation can induce even involuntary prostration (18:6), and confession of his deity becomes the ultimately acceptable level of faith for disciples (20:28–31). Where Jesus parallels Moses, he is greater than Moses (e.g., 9:28–29), as he is greater than Abraham and the prophets (8:52–53) or Jacob (4:12). Elsewhere, however, Jesus parallels not Moses but what Moses gave (3:14; 6:31), and even here, Moses should not get too much credit for what was «given through» (cf. 1:17) him (6:32; 7:22). Moses may have given water in the wilderness from the rock, but Jesus is the rock himself, the foundation stone of the new temple (7:37–39). How do Jesus» «signs» contribute to this high Christology (as they clearly must– 20:30–31)? Even though John has specifically selected them (21:25), most signs in the Fourth Gospel are of the same sort as found in the Synoptic tradition, which often applies them to the messianic era (Isa 35:5–6 in Matt 11/Luke 7:22). As in the Synoptics, the closest biblical parallels to Jesus» healing miracles are often the healing miracles of Elijah and Elisha. But in some other signs, John clearly intends Jesus to be greater than Moses: for his first sign he turns water to wine instead of to blood (2:1–11; cf. Rev 8:8). Later he feeds a multitude in the wilderness and, when they want to make him a prophet-king like Moses (6:15), he indicates that he is the new manna that Moses could not provide (6:32). The walking on water sign (6:19–21) probably reflects faith in Jesus» deity even in Mark. In this broader Johannine context, the healing miracles themselves may further evoke one story about Moses: people who beheld the serpent he lifted up would be healed. Yet Jesus parallels not Moses but the serpent, through which healing came directly (see 3:14, in a context addressing Wisdom, Torah, and Moses). Those who «see» him (parallel Johannine language to «believe» and «know» him) are healed. |
| – Что, на ваш взгляд, является главным в работе иконописца? – Самое важное – связь с Богом. И она приходит и через искусство. Важно помнить, что ты – существо, созданное Господом, а значит, когда ты работаешь, все твои составляющие должны быть устремлены ко Христу. Господь всегда с тобой. Везде, где ты есть. Он тебя поддерживает, Он тебя ведет. Причем больше Своим отсутствием, чем Своим присутствием. Отсутствие Бога – это та боль, которая двигает тобой, когда ты осознаешь и переживаешь Его присутствие в Его отсутствии. Это рождает боль и жажду Бога. А также очень важна приверженность Преданию Церкви – нужно крепко держаться за это. Следование Преданию отсекает эгоизм. Это как постоянное напоминание: «Не ты это сделал! Ты опираешься на плечи атлетов – своих предшественников». Я сам по себе – ничто; только вместе с теми, кто прошел по этому пути до меня, я что-то. Я боюсь наслаждаться своей работой и стараюсь напоминать себе притчу о талантах. Но при этом неполезно и «зацикливаться» на мыслях о своем недостоинстве. Главное – быть настроенным и нацеленным на связь и общение с Богом. И Господь может всё покрыть благодатью и поднять тебя над твоей греховностью, над твоей немощью. Работы иконописца Николая Цилсавидиса Рейтинг: 6.8 Голосов: 131 Оценка: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 скрыть способы оплаты Смотри также Комментарии Msergiya Radonej 9 мая 2014, 11:59 Прекрасные работы, а можно координаты Николая, хотелось пригласить его к нам в монастырь, мы в поисках тех кто смог бы расписать наш отреставрированный храм Михаила Архангела. юлия астафиева 21 июня 2013, 17:00 Hello, My Name is Julia Astafiev, Im born in Russia and I like the Icons that you drow a lot.I live in St.Louis State Missouri in USA now and I go to St.Basil the Great Russian Ortodox Church. We are going to build a new church and we will need an iconografer. It will be a great blessing to have Nicolay as painter of Icons for our new church, that approximtly is going to be next year. You can call our priest Very Rev. Father Martin 314-835-1569 or send information to www.stbasilthegreat.org or call me 314-456-4414 or send information to my julia.wanless@yahoo.com. And there might be a good apportunity to go to Russia. I love to go to St.Serguius Holy Trinity Lavra or You can come to America to visit Holy Vergin Cathedral and pray on the Relics of St. John of Shanhay and San Francisco in America. |
| But do we see this in actuality? How few of us read their epistles, and how few of us strive to understand them! How often and with what indifference do we abandon the word of God, which is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart (Heb. 4:12), and turn to earthly wisdom, the rudiments of the world (Gal. 4:9; Col. 2:8), which does not in the least reveal to us the divine wisdom hidden throughout the world and in the life of mankind! Doesn't it also happen that these words of the Apostles are even laughed at amongst us, just as they were amongst the sophists and philosophers of Athens, from whom the Apostle Paul departed with a heavy spirit, to preach in other cities (Act. 17:18, 32–33; 18:1 1 Col. 3:1–7)? Aren't the preachers of these words of the Apostles also subjected even now to persecutions, even unto bonds, like the great Apostle of Christ, Paul (2 Tim. 2:9)? Isn't the reason why unbelief is increasing in our time: that we do not want to hear and know about that living, fiery faith, which comes not from opinion or the logic of flesh and blood, but from heavenly, divine revelation (Mt. 16:17), as did the rock, Simon Peter? Is the reason why Christian love is becoming more and more scarce among people that we have completely forgotten Paul, whose mouth was always opened unto the people, and whose heart was enlarged (cf. 2 Cor. 6:11), in order to embrace with tender love all those whom he begot in the Gospels through Christ Jesus (1 Cor. 4:15)? As long as the earth stands, it will stand only on twelve foundations, which are the Apostles of Christ (Rev. 21:14; Eph. 2:20). But if instead of approaching Christ, the Chief Cornerstone, and as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood (1 Pet. 2:5), we build upon a foundation other than Jesus Christ, then each one's work will be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is (1 Cor. 3:11-13), and the fire from which the present world shall perish (cf. 2 Pet 3:7-12) will destroy it more and more, so that new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness (2 Pet. 3:13) might appear. |
| My soul magnifies the Lord and my Spirit rejoices in God my Saviour, for He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden. For behold, hence-forth all generations shall call me blessed; for He who is mighty has done great things for me and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation (Lk 1.47–50). The main theme of the feast of Mary’s entrance to the Temple, repeated many times in the liturgical services, is the fact that she enters the Temple to become herself the living temple of God, thus inaugurating the New Testament in which are fulfilled the prophecies of old that “the dwelling of God is with man” and that the human person is the sole proper dwelling place of the Divine Presence (Ezek 37.27; Jn 14.15–23; Acts 7.47; 2 Cor 6.11; Eph 2.18–22; 1 Pet 2.4; Rev 22.1–4). Today is the preview of the good will of God, of the preaching of the salvation of mankind. The Virgin appears in the temple of God, in anticipation proclaiming Christ to all. Let us rejoice and sing to her: Rejoice, O Divine Fulfillment of the Creator’s dispensation (Troparion). The most pure Temple of the Saviour, the precious Chamber and Virgin, the Sacred Treasure of the Glory of God, is presented today to the house of the Lord. She brings with her the grace of the Spirit, which the angels of God do praise. Truly this woman is the Abode of Heaven! (Kontakion). The fortieth chapter of Exodus about the building of the tabernacle is read at Vespers, together with passages from the First Book of Kings and the Prophecy of Ezekiel. Each one of these readings all end with exactly the same line, “for the glory of the Lord filled the house [tabernacle] of the Lord God Almighty” (Ex 40.35; 1 Kg 8.11; Ezek 44.4). Once again on this feast, the Old Testament readings are interpreted as symbols of the Mother of God. This “glory of the Lord” is referred to the Mother of Christ and it “fills” her and all people after her who “hear the word of God and keep it” as the Gospel of the festal liturgy proclaims (Lk 11.37–28). The epistle reading at the Divine Liturgy also proclaims this very same theme (Heb 9.1–7). |
| Theologically, the discourse underlines the theme of Jesus» continuing presence with his people. 8046 In place of an eschatological discourse preceding the passion, as in the Synoptic traditions and probably traditions known to the Johannine community (which was, however, also capable of eschatological interpretation; cf. Rev), John treats his audience to an emphasis on the present experience of Jesus» presence through his past return to them. 8047 7995 E.g., Becker, «Abschiedsreden.» For a thorough summary of views on composition and redactional questions, see Segovia, Farewell, 20–47. 8011 Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete, 127. First John has more in common with this discourse than with the rest of the Gospel (perhaps because this discourse focuses on Jesus» message to disciples), though this need not imply the Epistlés author redacting this discourse (Smalley, Epistles, xxix). 8012 " Day, «John,» 770; see further 736–37. Similarly Witherington, Wisdom, 248, who attributes the repetition to sapiential style and «successive discourses given in a short span of time.» 8022 The lack of emphasis may, however, speak against a eucharistie interpretation (pace Moloney, «Reading»). 8024 E.g., Plato Symp.; Xenophon Symp.; Cicero Tusc; Plutarch Dinner; T.T.; Athenaeus Deipn.; Aulus Gellius 7.13. For elements of a mock symposium, see Trimalchiós dinner in Petronius Sat. In a Diaspora Jewish setting, see Letter of Aristaeus (specifically, Hadas, Aristeas, 42–43), which may draw on 1 Esd 3–4 (the latter is not, however, a dinner setting); in the Gospels, Luke 7:36–50; 11:37–54; 14:1–24 (Aune, Environment, 122). 8025 Stauffer, Jesus, 118. Even after a main meal (perhaps occurring here in 13:2) had been finished, people could drink more (Xenophon Cyr. 8.4.9). 8027 E.g„ Homer I1. 13.95–124; Battle of Frogs and Mice 110–112, 132–159; Polybius 15.10; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 6.6.1–6.9.6; Appian R.H. 8.7.42; 8.17.116; C.W. 4.16.126; Arrian Alex. 3.9.5–7. Such exhortations, however, also occur outside military contexts (e.g., P.Tebt. 703.40–43). |
| Especially in America today, the word “closed” carries negative connotations. One of the worst accusations possible is that of “ closed -mindedness.” A politically correct culture will not tolerate anyone or anything that is closed, for to be so is de facto “bigoted” and “intolerant.” Therefore closed communion—referring to the long-standing tradition of communing only those who are members of a unified body—is becoming an ecclesial “sin.” Ironically, most of us would admit that a healthy society is built upon “closed” marriage. The point here is that the expression “closed communion” is not an adequate or faithful description of the ecclesiology that undergirds the traditional practice of communion. For in reality there is no such thing as “open” or “closed” communion—there is either communion or there is not. In other words, either there exists a communion of faith expressed in a common understanding of doctrine and worship, sacramental and spiritual practice, or such communion does not exist. The criteria for a communion of faith here is no different from the boundaries that existed in the first Christian congregation: And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship (literally: communion ), in the breaking of the bread, and in the prayers . A more precise description of what has been practiced for most of Christian history would be called “ monogamous communion.” This phrase indicates fidelity and commitment to a tangible, historical tradition and to a body of membership that likewise has committed themselves to the same. It is more faithful to the organic biblical terminology identifying the Church as Christ’s own Body (1 Cor. 12:27), His Bride (Rev. 21:9), the Israel of God (Gal. 6:16), God’s field and building (1 Cor. 3:9), and the Vine to which individual members are then grafted in (Rom. 11:17). As we shall see, “monogamous communion”—the practice of maintaining fidelity to a body of belief as confessed, lived, and embodied tangibly in continuity with and within an identifiable community of believers—is the historical practice of the Church. It has been so, not merely as one option among many, but as the very expression of earliest understanding of ecclesiology. |
| [Спб. 1912, IV, 12 – четверг недели жен мироносиц.] Некоторые поправки и дополнения к I-й и II-й книгам I-я книга I: XLVI,355, где второе «находит» опустить! I: LVIII,436 «неизвестный Theolog»–эmo Pastor Krasikoff. I: 55. Для Дeяh. XXVI, 14 cp. Екклез. XII, 11: словеса мудрых, якоже остны воловыя. I: 137,11 ев. «по утру» (вместо «по утрату»). I: 173,1 с ев. « 2Кор. 11:22 » опустить! I: 211,96 cp. I: 448,501. I: 237,10. См. и у Н. А. Переферковича в журнале «Восход» 1930 г., кн. I, стр. 57. I: 238,21. Переферкович (вм. «Пеферкович»), а ко всему примечанию см. еще I: 250,81. 465,49. I: 245,57. Касательно ссылки на Аполлинария о человеческом предсуществовании Христа см. с одной стороны у проф. А. А. Спасского, Историческая судьба сочинений Аполлинария Лаодикийского с кратким предварительным очерком его жизни (Сергиев Посад 1895), стр. 155 сл. 262–3. 299. 307 сл. и др. (и ср. у Н. Н. Глубоковского в «Христианском Чтении» 1901 г. 10, стр. 615–6), а с другой стороны см. Rev. Robert L. Оттеу, The Doctrine of Incarnation II (London 1896), p. 56 и Prof. Dr. Ad. Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte II, vierte Aufl. (Tübingen 1909), 8. 328–9. I: 250, Для русских статей г. Ал. Брагина разумеется не собственно немецкий их перевод, а немецкая книга этого автора Die freireligiösen Strömungen im alten Judenthume: ein Beitrag zur jüdischen Religionsphilosophie von Dr. phil. Alexander Bragin (Berlin 1896), а о ней см. у J. Halevy в «Revue semitique», Octobre 1898, p. 375–6. I: 252, стрк. 5 в прим. 94. «Мессия не считался» (вм. «не считался»). I: 259,1–2 ев. «идеального» (вм. «библейского»). I: 271,16 ев. «предсуществующему» (вм. предшествующему»). I: 275, стрк. 2 в прим, 189 нужно читать так: «III (1894), 10, р. 291 и в книге Paul the Man, the Missionary and the Teacher (London 1898), p. 304». I: 276,192см. I: 864,538. I: 276,198. Исправляя перевод Aug. Wunsche’s Die Leiden Messias, S. 64–65, Dr. Joseph Klausner передает это место так (Die messianischen Vorstellungen des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter der Tannaiten, Berlin 1904, S. |
| Центральное место в системе ветхозаветных Ж. занимала Ж. «всесожжения», ( - термин образован от глагола - восходить, возноситься и указывает на восхождение жертвенного дыма к Богу),- жертвенное животное сжигалось на жертвеннике полностью; такая форма Ж. была широко распространена в древнем мире (в частности, в Угарите - DeGuglielmo. 1955; Tarragon. 1980; можно также отметить, что древнегреч. глагол θω, от к-рого образовано слово θυσα - жертва, первоначально обозначал именно сожжение жертвенного животного и лишь со временем стал употребляться в смысле заклания животного или отсечения от тела закланного животного к.-л. частей для совершения Ж.- A Greek-English Lexicon/Comp. H. G. Liddell, R. Scott; Rev. and augmented by H. S. Jones. Oxf.; N. Y., 199610. P. 813; Frisk H. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Hdlb., 1960. Bd. 1. S. 698-699; Behm. 1938). Ж. «всесожжения» должна была приноситься ежедневно (Исх 29. 38-42; Числ 28. 3-8; Иез 46. 13-15); по субботам, новомесячиям и праздникам количество приносимого во время этой Ж. увеличивалось (Числ 28. 9-31; 29. 2-4, 8). ВЗ подчеркивает, что ежедневные всесожжения представляют собой «непрестанное», или «постоянное», приношение Господу, поэтому соответствующее евр. слово ( ) со временем стало термином для их обозначения. Непрестанность приношения укрепляла связь Израиля с Богом и Его присутствие среди Его народа, так что прекращение этих Ж. во время плена стало признаком духовной катастрофы (Дан 8. 11-12). Ж. «всесожжения» также могла иметь искупительное значение (ср.: Иов 1. 5; Лев 1. 4), но оно не было главным (или рано перестало быть таковым). Ж. «всесожжения» приносилась и по различным частным поводам (Лев 12. 6-8; 14. 10, 19-20, 22, 31; 15. 14-15, 29-30; Числ 6. 10-11, 14, 16). Именно эту Ж. можно назвать Ж. в самом строгом смысле слова, и она предопределила дальнейшее богословие Ж. как в иудаизме, так и в христианстве (см.: Watts. 2006). Следующий вид ветхозаветных жертвоприношений - «мирная» Ж. ( , также , или просто , см.: Rentdorff. |
|
|
