| 858 It was economically less disparate than most of the rest of the empire (Goodman, State, 33), and more cosmopolitan than was previously supposed (Freyne, Galilee, 171), though its predominantly rural population lived mainly in towns and villages (Freyne, Galilee, 144–45). 859 See Josephus Life 9 (of himself); m. " Abot 5:21. While Josephus certainly wishes to portray his people as especially learned to his educated Hellenistic readership, his portrayal is hardly mere propaganda. Other nations recognized the Jewish peoplés preoccupation with learning their law (Gager, Anti-Semitism, 39; see Theophrastus B.C.E., in Stern, Authors, 1:8–11], Megasthenes [ca. 300 B.C.E., in ibid., 1:46], Clearchus of Soli [ca. 300 B.C.E., in ibid., 1:50] and other examples in ibid., though some must be spurious), and the Gospel pictures of «scribes» as prominent figures in legal debate contrasts sharply with «scribes» as mere executors of legal documents throughout most of the Mediterranean world (e.g., CPJ 1:157, §21; 1:188–89, §43). Literacy in most of the empire may have averaged roughly 10 percent (Meeks, Moral World, 62). 860 Wilkinson, Jerusalem, 29–30; cf. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 69; Applebaum, «Life,» 685; see Hengel, Property, 27, on Mark 1:20 . Fish merchants could even become wealthy; cf. ILS 7486 (from Rome, in Sherk, Empire, 228). 861 Still, fishermen were not scribes; Origen felt this justified John " s insufficient clarity (Origen Comm. Jo. 13.54). 862 Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 40; cf., e.g., the full «secretarial staff,» including «the a manu/ad manum who took dictation and the copyists and clerks (librarii)» of Liviás household, in Treggiari, «Jobs,» 50; ILS 7397 (from Rome, in Sherk, Empire, 226), 7393,7401 (both from Rome, in Sherk, Empire, 228). For the papyri (usually from those of much lower economic status), cf. Longenecker, «Amanuenses,» 282–88; Milligan, Thessalonians, 129–30. 863 Josephus Ant. 1.7; 20.263–264; War 1.3. Josephus implies that his first draft was in Aramaic (War 1.3), though the extant version clearly addresses a Greco-Roman audience. At the very least, he employed a style editor to help his Greek (cf. Townsend, «Education,» 148, who also cites Ag. Ap. 1.50), though he undoubtedly underestimates his own competence (Rajak, Josephus, 46–64,230–36). |
| Shorter Studies " Antinomism, Trinity and the Challenge of Rationalism in the Theology of Sergii Bulgakov " in a special issue on Bulgakov of Studies in East European Thought, Edited by Edward Swiderski and Regula Zwahlen. Forthcoming Autumn 2012 " The Contribution of Sergii Bulgakov to Modern Ecumenism " in “That they all may be one” (John 17,21). Orthodoxy and Ecumenism – A Handbook for Theological Education, Eds. Pantelis Kalaitzidis, Thomas FitzGerald, Cyril Hovorun, Aikaterini Pekridou and Nikolaos Asproulis (Geneva/Volos: World Council of Churches, Conference of European Churches, and the Volos Academy for Theological Studies and Forthcoming Winter 2013). " A Re-envisioning of Neo-Patristic Synthesis? " : Orthodox Identity and Polemicism in Fr Georges Florovsky and the Future of Orthodox Theology " , Theologia, Forthcoming October 2012 (in Greek) " The Problem of Pantheism in the Sophiology of Sergii Bulgakov: A Panentheistic Solution in the Process Trinitarianism of Joseph A. Bracken? " in Seeking Common Ground: Evaluation and Critique of Joseph Bracken’s Comprehensive Worldview (A Festschrift for Joseph A. Bracken, S. J.), eds. Gloria Schaab and Marc Pugliese (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2012), 147-167. " Georges Florovsky " in S. J. Kristiansen and Svein Rise, eds., Fifty Theological Thinkers--From Modern to Postmodern Theologians (Forthcoming Ashgate, Summer 2012). " A Helper of Providence: " Justified Providential War " in Vladimir Solov " ev " in War in Eastern Christian Thought: Perspectives from Orthodox Christian Scholars, eds. Perry T. Hamalis and Valerie A. Karras (Forthcoming from Notre Dame UP). ‘“Waiting for the Barbarians”: Identity and Polemicism in the Neo-Patristic Synthesis of Georges Florovsky’, Modern Theology, 27.4 (October 2011), 659-691. Entry on ‘Florovsky, Georges (1893-1979)’, The Cambridge Dictionary of Christianity, Gen. Ed. Daniel Patte (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2010), 428-429. ‘The Christological Focus of Vladimir Solov’ev’s Sophiology’, Modern Theology, 25.4 (October 2009), 617-646. |
| The name of Voykov belongs with the terrorists, and not on the Moscow map, the Human Rights Center of the World Russian People’s Council says Moscow, November 10, 2015 The Human Rights Center of the World Russian People’s Council has joined those who are calling to remove the name of Pyotr Voykov (1888-1927; an active member of the Revolution movement in Russia) from the toponyms of Moscow. As is generally known, P. Voykov was one of the organizers of the Royal Family’s murder in July 1918, reports the Synodal Information Department. “Attempts to portray Voykov as an outstanding diplomat do not stand up to criticism. His place in history is not with Yevgeny Primakov and Sergei Lavrov, but together with the “Narodnaya Volya” (“The People’s Freedom” – a revolutionary organization in Russia in the early 1880s) members and the Wahhabi terrorist leaders,” the Center’s statement reads. According to the authors of the text, in the moment when Russia has intensified its struggle with terrorism, “not dividing its adherents into “good” and “bad” ones, the attempts to justify the revolutionary terrorists sound very strange.” “Our testimony is that they are no better than all other terrorists, and their names should not be on our capital city’s map,” the statement reads. The authors stress that historical figures can be judged in different ways, while not going to extremes of “black legends”, but “a tolerant attitude towards terrorists, whenever they live, can never be approved.” The Human Rights Center has noted that not only was P. Voykov involved in the murder of the Royal Family, but before the Revolution he also was “a notorious professional terrorist who was responsible for attempted assassinations of statesmen faithful to their country, and this detail of his biography is disputed by nobody.” “Recently in the Crimea several people recieved long jail terms. Like Voykov, they justified their terrorist activity by restoration of justice and care for the people. And, one day, some country may perpetuate their memory side by side with Dzhokhar Dudayev (1944-1996; the first President of the Chechen Republic who declared its independence and separation from the Russian Federation; when Russian troops were sent to Chechnya in 1994 he headed the armed resistance) and Shamil Basayev (1965-2006; a Chechen militant islamist who led guerilla campaigns against Russian forces and organized mass hostage takings of civilians during the Chechen War). And the Russian patriots will be filled with indignation concerning this, but they will be reminded that streets of their own cities and towns are filled with the names of terrorists – Khalturin, Zhelyabov, Perovsky,” the document reads. |
| replaced by mistrust because of the pollution of the environment, the constant threat of atomic war and nuclear destruction. Also, the appearance of ‘new religions’ from the Orient, fragments of teachings from ancient religions contributed to doubt about the truth of science and religion. There is a metaphysical rebellion and a search for a new world view Weltanschauung of modern man. The advancement of technology and our expanded knowledge of the universe leaves man ignorant of himself. All these events and tranformations make modern man vulnerable to the cults. The cultic religiosity is an amalgamation of oriental and western thought and practice that aims to make converts. The Unification Church It has been claimed that the Unification Church theology is not Christian. It is an “alloy of Christianity, Taoism, and Buddhism.” The teachings of the Unification Church are set forth in the Divine Principle by Sun Myung Moon. Moon describes God in explicit anthropomorphic terms: “God suffers, weeps, feels frustration, knows joy and happiness, even laughs. His will can be thwarted.” Concerning the creation of man, Moon teaches that God’s original intention was for Adam and Eve to unite and give birth to sinless children and that the human race would be perpetuated and live in perfect harmony. God’s will, however, was prevented from being fulfilled because of the ‘fall.’ It is reported that the Unification theology claims that Eve entered into sexual relations with Lucifer. The subsequent conjugal union of Adam and Eve was without God’s blessing, and hence all their descendants are not children of God but children of Satan. God made several attempts to restore humanity to perfection by sending several messiahs, but he failed. According to Moon, there were three stages for the resurrection or reconciliation of humanity to God. First, the family of Abraham, the Jews, were justified before God because of the observance of the Mosaic Law. God never spoke to them directly because of their low spirituality, |
| The Obama administration has continued and compounded the fecklessness of its predecessor administration. Most recently, in an effort to erase the humiliation produced by his reckless comment made in late July, that the White House had no policy to deal with the Islamic State, President Obama rushed to launch a policy initiative in early August. In a televised national address, President Obama announced that he had ordered military action against the Islamic State, rationalizing the move to limited air war in Iraq and Syria by invoking the US’ moral obligation to protect Iraq’s Yezidi religious minority from genocide at the hands of the Islamic State. The privations of the Yezidis certainly justified a response and aid, but the genocide and plight of the much larger Christian communities of Iraq, brutalized for more than a decade by the region’s mélange of Islamist extremist groups and actively and passively persecuted by the Baghdad government, were largely ignored in President Obama’s speech. The US government’s indifference to the genocide of Christians in the Middle East is shocking, but, unfortunately, not surprising. The demonstrated disregard for the suffering of Christians in the Middle East by the administrations of Presidents Bush and Obama is entirely consistent with a double standard established by the moralizing hypocrisy of Woodrow Wilson in the midst of the first genocide of the twentieth century. In fact, American administrations have been willing not only to turn a blind eye to genocide against Christians in the Middle East; they have gone beyond that, by consistently supporting, at least since the 1980s, Turkey’s genocide denial efforts. Yet, where is the public outrage? Although the US government has remained consistent in its indifference and duplicity on this subject, the attitude of the American public has undergone significant change. A century ago, the Turks’ genocide against Armenians and other Christians provoked public outrage and led to large-scale humanitarian relief efforts in the United States of America. A century ago, America’s civil society leaders, public intellectuals, and media mavens actively promoted awareness of the Turks’ crimes against humanity, and led popular initiatives to rescue Christians from death and suffering. The invocation in the public sphere of Christian duty and moral imperatives was sufficient to produce societal concern and action. In contrast, today, as the Islamic State completes the destruction of the historic Christian centers that Kemal’s forces did not reach, the American public’s response is one of apathy. The apathy is reflected in the measurable lack of public awareness campaigns and in the absence of activism when it comes to coverage about and support for the Christian victims of Islamist violence. |
| In spring 2000 92% set good relations in the family and with friends higher than public recognition and success in contrast to 81% in 1993 and about 71% in 1994. According to sociological standards such a high index is categorized not as the opinion of the majority, but as an integral characteristic of the whole Russian socio-cultural milieu. Besides Russian citizens show evident adherence to the democracy - the form of organization and functioning of the society (for example, equality before the law) and at the same time indifference to the ideological “values”, to which the post-Soviet Westerner liberals give so high priority, for example to the “right for non-involvement with the activities of the country”. High degree of unanimity about the object of national pride is also impressive. Victory in the World War II ranks first. Over 80% of Russian citizens are proud of it as the major event of the national history, and this is the opinion of not only senior group, but also the youngest one - with the peers of Perestroika and market reforms. Liberal “freedoms” are evidently left outside of the list of national values: they are the object of pride for about 7% of the youngest citizens and only 2-3% of the elder people. Final confirmation of traditionalism of the Russian civilization with parallel adherence to democracy are the following data: 91% of respondents in all social, demographic and age groups believe that betrayal of the Motherland is the gravest offence, which cannot be justified under any circumstances (the results of the Centre of Mass Consciousness Studies at the Independent Institute of Social and National Problems). This is the opposite of the liberal credo: “Where it is good, there is the Motherland”. In the opinion of the militant Westerner liberals, who turned out to be the “right” due to the curious post-Soviet political semantics (in the whole world liberals are always called the left, right ideology means religiousness, protective conservatism), such facts look like a relict of the “traditional society”, like “failure of modernization” and “return to archaism”. |
| Simultaneously, Russian ecclesiastics were involved in the dispute regarding the nature of monastic life in relation to land ownership. Joseph of Volotsk and his party, heavily dependent on state protectionism, defended the vast monastic estates, covering one-third of the country at the time, as the basis of monasteries’ wellbeing and intense involvement in social welfare. Their opponents, led by Nil Sorskii, defended contemplative monasticism and warned of the corruption of the church by power, both economic and political. The two parties also sharply disagreed in their attitude to heretics in general and to the Judaizers in particular. Joseph of Volotsk praised the Inquisition and justified violence against the heretics (including their public burning at the stake), while Nil Sorskii argued for tolerance and the arts of non-violent persuasion. The Josephites, as they were called, won the support of the Grand Prince and dominated the ecclesiastical life of Muscovy in the 16th century, for most of which Muscovy was ruled by two people: Vasilii III (1506–33) and his son, Ivan IV (1533–84). Crowned tsar in 1547, Ivan IV greatly expanded the state by war and conquest, and completed Muscovy’s transition to autocracy by destroying regional elites and replacing them with his own appointees. As long as it elevated and strengthened their authority, both subscribed to the ideology of Joseph of Volotsk, who, like his followers, was hopeful that a symphony of church and state in Muscovy was in sight. The whole 16th century, however, provides examples of how Russian rulers constantly kept their metropolitans in check: the latter always ran a risk of being deposed, imprisoned, and exiled (like Varlaam, 1511–21, or Ioasaf, 1539–42, or Dionisii, 1572–81), or even killed (like Philip, 1566–8), regardless of the significance of the issues involved. Metropolitan Makarii (1542–63), himself a Josephite, became the most important figure in his century’s Russian ecclesiastical, as well as cultural, life. |
| AFTER THE KOSOVO CRISIS: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CHURCHES Bishop Irenej (Bulovic) of Backa (Serbia) Report to the Inter-Christian Conference “Europe after the Kosovo Crisis: Implications for the Churches” in Oslo, November 15–16, 1999 (extracts). [Regarding the war in Kosovo], I deeply pity those who gave orders, as well as those who took part in the aforementioned ‘campaign.’ However, it is not my goal – nor is it the aim of this Conference in general – to describe or politically justify, condemn or generally evaluate persons and events within the tragedy of Kosovo and Metohija, and the drama of Europe. Each and every one of us, on the basis of his spiritual predisposition, has a certain viewpoint on this complex problematic. Still, I have to propose several of the briefest of my observations in order to expose my standpoint in relation to the implications of the conflict in general, and in relation to the implications for the Churches in particular. This will enable me to explicate my own perspective on the relations between the Churches of Europe in the near future. This tragic conflict, lamentably, is not an exception. It is but one of many similar ones, not only within the territory of the former Yugoslavia or the current Yugoslavia, but also in the wider region of Europe, not excluding its western part with its inter-ethnic strife and bloodshed and, finally, the world itself (Caucasus, Kashmir, etc.). The Serbian-Albanian rivalry in Kosovo and Metohia is not a new phenomenon. It is, literally, a multi-centennial drama. How can we solve such a complex problem, securing a solution which would more or less be just and acceptable to both peoples which are tragically and, according to my opinion, needlessly confronted? By expelling the one and retaining the other? It is clear that the expulsion of Albanians from Kosovo is not possible. Even if it were, there would not be a single theory, doctrine or idea which could justify such a thing. Besides, we know: NATO justified – that is, tried to justify – its merciless Merciful Angel action by the preclusion of the exodus of Albanians and the alleged prevention of the humanitarian catastrophe. |
| Schema-Archimandrite Moses (Putilov) 1772–June 16, 1862 As a youth, Elder Moses received the blessing of St. Seraphim of Sarov to enter the monastic life. He was sixteen when he joined the Roslavl forest ascetics, among whom were disciples of Elder Paisius Velichkovsky, and for fourteen years he exercised himself in spiritual warfare and inner concentration under their tutelage. Forced to move by the War of 1812, he lived for a time with ascetics in the Briansk forest where he forged ties with Elder Leonid. In 1821 he visited Optina, which had been revived by Paisian disciples not long before, and he was persuaded to stay and establish nearby a skete. With his younger brother Anthony and two other monks he began building, and a year later the skete church dedicated to St. John the Forerunner was consecrated. In 1825 Moses was appointed superior of the Optina Monastery, while his brother succeeded him as head of the skete. Elder Moses greatly expanded the physical plan of the Hermitage: he built the St. Mary of Egypt refectory church, additional cells for the brethren; he added stables, a kiln, a large library and an apiary. More importantly, he strengthened its spiritual foundation by inviting Elder Leonid to Optina and himself setting an example of utmost obedience and meekness. After Elder Leonid arrived, he did nothing without his blessing. His love and gentleness attracted many pilgrims, with their financial support, but his true spiritual stature remained largely hidden, just as his life was hidden in God. Counsels of Elder Moses “If you show mercy towards others–mercy will be shown to you.” “If you co-suffer with the suffering (although this does not seem difficult), you will be numbered among the martyrs.” “If you forgive your offenders, not only will all your sins be forgiven, but you shall be the children of the Heavenly Father.” “If you pray for salvation from the bottom of your heart, even a little bit, you shall be saved.” “If you berate yourself, accuse and judge yourself before God for your sins, of which you become aware through your conscience, you shall be justified.” |
| Tormenting the Souls of Religious Arabs: ‘Arab Spring’ Degrades into Sectarian Counterrevolution SOURCE: Global Research By Nicola Nasser The blind sectarian rampage, which has been waging a war on worship mosques, churches and religious shrines have become a modern Arab trade mark phenomenon, since what the western media called from the start the “Arab Spring” overwhelmed the Arab streets. The sectarian rampage is sweeping away in its rage cultural treasures of archeology and history, hitting hard at the very foundations of the Arab and Islamic identity of the region, but more importantly tormenting the souls of the Arab Muslim and Christian believers who helplessly watch the safe havens of their places of worship being desecrated, looted, bombed, leveled to the ground and turned instead into traps of death and monuments of destruction by the “suicide bombers” who are shouting “God Is Great.” The only regional precedent for the destruction of worship places on such a scale was the destruction of some one thousand mosques since the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. A research by Israeli professor Ayal Banbanetchi, Rapaport noted that after 1948, only 160 mosques remained in the area. In the following years, this number shrank to 40, meaning that 120 were destroyed. Palestinians in the Gaza Strip documented the names and locations of 47 mosques that were destroyed completely and 107 others partially damaged by Israeli bombing during the “Operation Cast Lead” in 2008. May be because those crimes went unpunished the western public opinion turns a blind eye to the new Arab phenomenon. Most likely, t he leaders of the Israeli fundamentalist Jewish “Temple Mount and Land of Israel Faithful Movement” are watching closely and wondering whether the current destruction of mosques by the Muslims themselves would be enough justification to carry out the movement’s public threats to build the “third temple” on the debris of Al-Aqsa Mosque, Islam’s third holiest site, in Jerusalem. |
|
|
