| For in that manner He spoke as He chose, some things through Isaiah, some through Jeremiah, some through several prophets, or else the same thing through this prophet and through that. Further, whatever is found in both editions, that one and the same Spirit willed to say through both, but so as that the former preceded in prophesying, and the latter followed in prophetically interpreting them; because, as the one Spirit of peace was in the former when they spoke true and concordant words, so the selfsame one Spirit has appeared in the latter, when, without mutual conference they yet interpreted all things as if with one mouth. Chapter 44.– How the Threat of the Destruction of the Ninevites is to Be Understood Which in the Hebrew Extends to Forty Days, While in the Septuagint It is Contracted to Three. But some one may say, How shall I know whether the prophet Jonah said to the Ninevites, " Yet three days and Nineveh shall be overthrown,» or forty days? Jonah 3:4 For who does not see that the prophet could not say both, when he was sent to terrify the city by the threat of imminent ruin? For if its destruction was to take place on the third day, it certainly could not be on the fortieth; but if on the fortieth, then certainly not on the third. If, then, I am asked which of these Jonah may have said, I rather think what is read in the Hebrew, Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown. Yet the Seventy, interpreting long afterward, could say what was different and yet pertinent to the matter, and agree in the self-same meaning, although under a different signification. And this may admonish the reader not to despise the authority of either, but to raise himself above the history, and search for those things which the history itself was written to set forth. These things, indeed, took place in the city of Nineveh, but they also signified something else too great to apply to that city; just as, when it happened that the prophet himself was three days in the whale " s belly, it signified besides, that He who is Lord of all the prophets should be three days in the depths of hell. |
| At the time of writing, therefore, the phrase “as it is today” was probably added as a result of this desolation. That the word chorbah does not necessarily imply a state of total desolation “without an inhabitant” can be seen from other texts which use the word, for example Ezekiel 33:24 of these devastated places”) and at Nehemiah 2:17 Jerusalem was inhabited, yet the city is said to be “devastated (chorbah).’ The phrase “desolate waste, without an inhabitant’ is found at Jeremiah 9:11 refers to Jerusalem and the cities of Judah it is nowhere equated with the period of seventy years. As pointed out by Professor Arthur Jeffrey in the Interpreter’s Bible (Vol. 6, p. 485), chorbah is ‘often employed to describe the state of a devastated land after the armies of an enemy have passed (Leviticus 26:31 1:39).” It would not be inaccurate, therefore, to talk of Judah as chorbah eighteen years prior to its depopulation, if the land had been ravaged by the army of an enemy at that time. Inscriptions from Assyria and Babylonia show that, in order to break the power and morale of a rebel quickly, the imperial army would try to ruin the economic potential “by destroying unfortified settlements, cutting down plantations and devastating fields” – Israel Eph’al, “On Warfare and Military Control in the Ancient Near Eastern Empires,” in H. Tadmor 8s M. Weinfield (eds.), History, Historiography and Interpretation (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1984), p. 97. 339 verb ‘abad, " work, serve,” could also mean to serve as a subject or vassal, e.g. by paying tribute. The corresponding noun ‘ebed, “slave, servant,” is often used of vassal states or tributary nations. In fact, the technical term for “vassal” in Hebrew was precisely ‘ebed. –See Dr. Jonas C. Greenfield, “Some aspects of Treaty Terminology in the Bible,” Fourth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Papers, Vol. I, 1967, pp. 117119; also Dr. Ziony Zevit, “The Use of ‘ebed as a Diplomatic Term in Jeremiah,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. |
| Besides systematical informational and psychological influence on public opinion in the West, Human Rights Watch and its main donor and ideologist George Soros began to form “civil” and political infrastructure opposing the regime of Milosevic. This structure included dozens of non-governmental organizations, “civic groups”, human rights organizations, clubs, radio and TV broadcasting companies, newspapers and journals. It was made to create “revolutionary” atmosphere in Yugoslavia and not only to support transition of the power under control of “pro-Western” parties, but also to provide support to a new pro-western regime for some “historical stage” needed for fundamental economical and political changes in Yugoslavia ( http://emperors-clothes.com/engl.htm#1 ). American governmental funds such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), in the Board of Directors of which there are members of HRW leading structures (the same Morton Abramowitz) also took part in this broad-scale re-organization of society initiated as far back as in late 80s. Here are the words of NED functionary Paul McCarthy: “The programs of the NED supported to survive for a considerable amount of Yugoslavian free press and to ruin (marked by the author) key centers of government-controlled mass media... by reinforcing influential sources of objective information. The help provided by NED gave newspapers, radio and TV broadcasting companies an opportunity to buy necessary printing and broadcasting equipment. Among them who received our grants there are newspapers “Nasha Borba”, “Vremja” and “Danas”, an independent TV broadcasting company “TV Negotin” in southern Serbia, popular news agency BETA and Beograd radio “Radio B-92”. That is Human Rights Watch, which initiated establishing so-called “Tribunals” for the leaders of “disobedient” countries, Yugoslavia and Serbia, in the first place – Radovan Karadzic and Slobodan Milosevic. Such International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was established in February of 1993, and it was a direct violation of UN Regulations. Three months later HRW issued a “Report” on the assassination of about 260 captured Croats supposedly committed on the 20th of November, 1991 by Yugoslavian soldiers. The title of this report was extremely significant: “Punisn Now! Human Rights Publishes 8 Cases for International Criminal Tribunal in Former Yugoslavia”. Though there were no cogent arguments to charge Yugoslavian Army with assassination of more than two hundred Croats, the prestige of leading human rights organization was sufficient for much people of the West to believe that all the charges were true. |
| A person responsible in the face of God cannot behave irresponsibly to people. Of course, nothing can be higher than the responsibility of standing in front of the Lord. This responsibility has more different sensations than it would have in the system of hallmarks of the secularized world. The life of the Church in imbued with heavenly grace and the Church cannot exist in its absence. During the ordaining of each new priest, the bishop pronounces a very profound prayer: “The Heavenly Grace that always cures the sick and makes the impoverished ones plentiful […].” The Church would not have survived the unending struggle that some people and evil forces have waged against it if it did not transmit this constant care for us from above or if it did not do a never-ending correction of inescapable errors and shortcomings. What is more, the Church is a living organism. It is not a factory where you can replace the technological procedures and get quality new products almost at once. That is why the main objective is to avoid doing harm to anyone.” – About eighty percent Russians rank themselves among disciples of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Are you not dismayed by the fact the occasional ‘droppers-in’ prevail in their ranks over parishioners? – For some Russians, Orthodoxy is a strictly religious category, while for others it is much more of a cultural notion. But frankly, these divisions are very tentative. The way I see the problem, the main thing today is not the size of one or another category but their dynamics. Man changes over the course of time. The answer to your question sounds like this – and any opinion poll or any scrupulous sociologist will confirm it to you: the first category (parishioners in your terminology) is growing constantly and this growth brings in predominantly the young and educated people. It is a good thing that a very considerable part of our fellow-countrymen associates themselves with Eastern Orthodox Christianity. All of them are members of our congregation, albeit with a different depth of religious practice, without regular church attendance, and with an irregular observance of the Church canon. |
| The US Government has also long known that Scientology and Scientologists not only called for war against human targets in key scriptural directives, but had also been certifiably dishonest, conspiratorial, menacing and physically aggressive in applying the religion’s “Battle Tactics” and similar directives. Hubbard says in “Battle Tactics” that he wants his war against SPs waged in the “field of thought,” and that certainly is a front in, or facet of, the war. Where he and his Scientology and Scientologists concentrated their efforts and spent enormous sums, however, was in the field of persons, with bodies, identities, reputations, careers, families, relationships, etc. The US knew that Scientology conspired to drive Paulette Cooper’s mind insane in the field of thought, and to terrorize and sue her into ruin and silence, and get her body falsely imprisoned in the field of persons. In or out of the field of thought, Scientologists, in reality, are never permitted to reason with their victims, targets, critics, enemies, SPs, etc. Scientologists are only permitted to treat or handle such people as “fair game,” that is, to attack or pursue them, both in the field of thought and in the field of persons. The US has known for years about Scientology’s and Scientologists’ physical attacks on me, as well as a litany of other unlawful and antisocial acts against me. In all the time they have considered me an SP and an enemy, Scientologists have never reasoned with me, or acknowledged my reason, either in the field of thought, or in the field of the physical world where real humans live real lives. As is clear in the public record, the US, despite many Scientology victims’ testimony and documents, has continued to support and promote the organization as if its practices are as peaceful as prayer circles. A recent project undertaken by the St. Petersburg Times in Florida, as a great number of people are aware, has resulted in several articles based on videotaped interviews with recently escaped Scientology “executives” about serial physical violence inside the cult, particularly at the hands of ecclesiastical head Miscavige himself. |
| A typical “Close Encounter of the First Kind” involved two Portage County, Ohio, deputy sheriffs in 1966. About 5 a.m. on the morning of April 16, after stopping to investigate a parked car on a country road, they saw an object “as big as a house” ascending to tree-top level (about 100 feet). As it approached the deputies it became increasingly bright, illuminating the area all around, then stopped and hovered over them with a humming sound. When it moved away they pursued it for some 70 miles into Pennsylvania, at speeds of up to 105 miles per hour. Two other police officers saw the object clearly at a higher elevation before it went straight up and disappeared about dawn. Congressional pressure forced “Project Blue Book” to investigate this case; it was “explained” as an “observation of Venus,” and the officers who saw it were subjected to considerable ridicule in the press, leading to the breakup of one officer’s family and the ruin of his health and career ( The UFO Experience, pp. 114–124). Personal tragedies of this kind among people who have “Close Encounters” with UFOs are so common that they should definitely be included in the “typical characteristics” of this phenomenon. “Close Encounters of the Second Kind” (CE-II) are essentially similar to CE-I experiences, with the one difference that they leave some striking physical and/or psychological effect of their presence. These effects include marks on the ground, the scorching or blighting of plants and trees, interference with electrical circuits causing radio static and the stoppage of automobile engines, discomfort to animals as evidenced by strange behavior, and effects on humans which include temporary paralysis or numbness, a feeling of heat, nausea, or other discomfort, temporary weightlessness (sometimes causing levitation), sudden healings of sores and pains, and various psychological and physical after-effects, including strange marks on the body. This kind of UFO encounter gives the greatest possibility for scientific investigation, since in addition to human testimony there is physical evidence that can be examined; but little investigation has actually been undertaken, both because most scientists are afraid to get involved in the whole question of UFOs, and because the evidence itself is usually inconclusive or partially subjective. |
| “Because they were days of victory,” added Vinicius. But Petronius, alarmed lest the old general might begin a narrative of his former wars, changed the conversation. “See,” said he, “in the neighborhood of Prirneste country people found a dead wolf whelp with two heads; and during a storm about that time lightning struck off an angle of the temple of Luna, — a thing unparalleled, because of the late autumn. A certain Cotta, too, who had told this, added, while telling it, that the priests of that temple prophesied the fall of the city or, at least, the ruin of a great house, — ruin to be averted only by uncommon sacrifices.” Aulus, when he had heard the narrative, expressed the opinion that such signs should not be neglected; that the gods might be angered by an over-measure of wickedness. In this there was nothing wonderful; arid in such an event expiatory sacrifices were perfectly in order. “Thy house, Plautius, is not too large,” answered Petronius, “though a great man lives in it. Mine is indeed too large for such a wretched owner, though equally small. But if it is a question of the ruin of something as great, for example, as the doinus transitoria, would it be worth while for us to bring offerings to avert that ruin?” Plautius did not answer that question, — a carefulness which touched even Petronius somewhat, for, with all his inability to feel the difference between good and evil, he had never been an informer; and it was possible to talk with him in perfect safety. He changed the conversation again, therefore, and began to praise Plautius’s dwelling and the good taste which reigned in the house. “It is an ancient seat,” said Plautius, “in which nothing has been changed since I inherited it.” After the curtain was pushed aside which divided the atrium from the tablinum, the house was open from end to end, so that through the tabhinum and the following peristyle and the hail lying beyond it which was called the aecus, the glance extended to the garden, which seemed from a distance like a bright image set in a dark frame. Joyous, childlike laughter came from it tmm the atrium. |
| About Pages Проекты «Правмира» Raising Orthodox Children to Orthodox Adulthood The Daily Website on How to be an Orthodox Christian Today Twitter Telegram Parler RSS Donate Navigation Patriarch Kirill: By Denying God’s Truth We Ruin the World Source: TASS: Russian News Agency Andrei Vandenko 13 March 2015 The head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, of Moscow and All Russia, is reflecting on matters eternal and personal during the Great Lent. © Mikhail Japaridze/TASS On the inferno, belated repentance and sinful obstructions – Your Holiness, could you please tell us where truth should be looked for these days, and who has the monopoly on truth? – Let us try to look into this together. To me it is very clear that to live in harmony with truth in general, to live in harmony with one’s own truth, and to judge other people proceeding from on one’s own understanding of what truth is are three very different matters. Not every human idea of what is right and proper is the ultimate verity. It cannot be absolute. But is it a matter of taste then? How would you like your tea – with sugar or lemon? Each of us selects what he or she likes the most, what a particular person considers correct. If we are to follow this line of thought to the logical end, it will have to be admitted that there are no such notions as good and evil, but only a plurality of opinions and views… – You have turned to the philosophical aspect of the issue right away, but my question was about very down-to-earth matters, about what truth means for you personally. – I will certainly tell you, but first let us be finished with the previous question. Of course, the absolute truth does exist. It is the Law of God. God gave us, humans, freedom and the feeling of morality, which is embodied in consciousness. But both can be used in different ways. It is important to realize: without God the absolute truth is impossible. Nor is there a different understanding of justice. In the modern world this word is often uttered thoughtlessly. Abusing the weak is wrong. So is theft. But where is this proclaimed? What if my truth denies yours? Say, I am strong and for this sole reason I can hurt anyone else and lay hands on anything that may come my way. Do you see my point? By denying the divine truth we ruin the world. This is not even a mistake but the deepest tragedy of philosophical liberalism. Please do not confuse it with economic or political liberalism – these are superstructural ideas, while philosophical liberalism is fundamental. It is focused on personal freedom as on absolute truth.The freedom of each single individual should not be in conflict with civilization in general. |
| As we consider the reasons for the current state of our society, for socio-political and economical crisis that we are experiencing, it is important to recall the words of Bulgakov’s Proffessor Preobrazhensky, a famous literary character, “Ruin is something that starts in people’s heads”… One may even rephrase this idea and say that ruin is something that starts in our hearts and souls, which lose their light and darken. To overcome this ruin in the society, we need to overcome ruin in ourselves, clear our minds of the destructive effects of a sin, and embark on the path of repentance. There are good reasons why Saint Silouan the Athonite said, “Even the smallest sin can change the fate of the world”. Therefore, even the smallest good deed changes our world for the better, can help us to overcome the disorganization and crisis and to fulfill what God calls us to do, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven”. By Archpriest Andre i Nikolaidi Translated by Julia Frolova Tweet Donate Share Code for blog Why Does God Allow Evil? Pravmir.com team Archpriest Andrei Nikolaidi speaks on Divine Providence and His love for us Since you are here… …we do have a small request. More and more people visit Orthodoxy and the World website. However, resources for editorial are scarce. In comparison to some mass media, we do not make paid subscription. It is our deepest belief that preaching Christ for money is wrong. Having said that, Pravmir provides daily articles from an autonomous news service, weekly wall newspaper for churches, lectorium, photos, videos, hosting and servers. Editors and translators work together towards one goal: to make our four websites possible - Pravmir.ru, Neinvalid.ru, Matrony.ru and Pravmir.com. Therefore our request for help is understandable. For example, 5 euros a month is it a lot or little? A cup of coffee? It is not that much for a family budget, but it is a significant amount for Pravmir. |
| 6. The human race then was wasting, God " s image was being effaced, and His work ruined. Either, then, God must forego His spoken word by which man had incurred ruin; or that which had shared in the being of the Word must sink back again into destruction, in which case God " s design would be defeated. What then? Was God " s goodness to suffer this? But if so, why had man been made? It could have been weakness, not goodness on God " s part. For this cause, then, death having gained upon men, and corruption abiding upon them, the race of man was perishing; the rational man made in God " s image was disappearing, and the handiwork of God was in process of dissolution. 2. For death, as I said above, gained from that time forth a legal Genesis 2:15 hold over us, and it was impossible to evade the law, since it had been laid down by God because of the transgression, and the result was in truth at once monstrous and unseemly. 3. For it were monstrous, firstly, that God, having spoken, should prove false – that, when once He had ordained that man, if he transgressed the commandment, should die the death, after the transgression man should not die, but God " s word should be broken. For God would not be true, if, when He had said we should die, man died not. 4. Again, it were unseemly that creatures once made rational, and having partaken of the Word, should go to ruin, and turn again toward non-existence by the way of corruption. 5. For it were not worthy of God " s goodness that the things He had made should waste away, because of the deceit practised on men by the devil. 6. Especially it was unseemly to the last degree that God " s handicraft among men should be done away, either because of their own carelessness, or because of the deceitfulness of evil spirits. 7. So, as the rational creatures were wasting and such works in course of ruin, what was God in His goodness to do? Suffer corruption to prevail against them and death to hold them fast? And where were the profit of their having been made, to begin with? For better were they not made, than once made, left to neglect and ruin. 8. For neglect reveals weakness, and not goodness on God " s part – if, that is, He allows His own work to be ruined when once He had made it – more so than if He had never made man at all. 9. For if He had not made them, none could impute weakness; but once He had made them, and created them out of nothing, it were most monstrous for the work to be ruined, and that before the eyes of the Maker. 10. It was, then, out of the question to leave men to the current of corruption; because this would be unseemly, and unworthy of God " s goodness. |
|
|
