| Taking just three of the countries in the report, the estimates are as follows: Egypt has a Christian population of 4.2 million (5.3 percent of the population) ; Syria has 1.0 million (5.2 percent); and Iraq 270,000 (0.9 percent). Of these 43.5 percent are Catholics, 43 percent are Orthodox, and 13.5 percent are Protestant. These figures have to be put into the context of the history of the Middle East. The Christians suffering today are the descendants of the oldest Christian communities in the world. In the early years of Islamic rule, Christian scholars and doctors played a considerable role in the life of Middle East countries. Monks translated medical, scientific, and philosophical texts into Arabic. But for four centuries, until the early 16th century, Christians were persecuted and massacred. Under the Ottoman Empire from that point on Christians, as well as Jews, were treated as second-class citizens. Persecution of Christians in the Islamic Middle East has intensified in recent years, and the fear now is that Christianity may be becoming extinct in the area where it has existed for two millennia. They are criticized, absurdly, as Crusaders, or as colonialists associated with the West, or as infidels. The exception, and the only country in the area where Christians possess full religious rights and can exercise them, and have increased both in absolute number and proportion of the population, is Israel. There they have grown from 34,000 to 158,000. In contrast, the number of church buildings in Iraq, once 300, is now 57. The 1987 census in Iraq, the last one taken officially, counted 1.4 million Christians; it is now about one-fifth that number. It is a poignant commentary that this Christmas period should have witnessed attacks and outbreaks of hostility against Christians. These were particularly violent in Iraq where the Assyrians, whose descendants are now part of the Assyrian Church of the East, are said to have adopted Christianity in the first century, and where the Chaldean Catholic Church dates back to the 16th century. |
| John 14:1–17 John 14:18–26 John 14:27–31 1 Be not troubled 18 Not as orphans 27b Be not troubled 3 I will come 181 will come 28 I will come 10 I am in the Father 20 I am in the Father 28 The Father is greater 12 Go to the Father 28 I go to the Father Believes in me 21 Keeps my commands 15 If you love me, keep commands 21 One who loves me keeps commands 31 I love the Father, let us so 16 The Paraclete 26 The Paraclete 30 Prince of the world Although he must omit material to make the pattern fit (and some items do not fit), he at least demonstrates the repetition of ideas, some following clear patterns. It is also possible that most of the unified Farewell Discourse as a whole yields a chiastic structure as follows: A Jesus» departure, glory, love in community (13:31–38 or-14:1) Β Jesus» coming and abiding presence (14or 14:2–15:17) C The World (15:18–16:12) a The world " s hatred (15:18–25) b The Spirit " s testimony to the world (15:26–27) á The world " s hatred (16:1–4) b» The Spirit " s testimony to the world (16:5–12) B» Jesus» Coming and Abiding Presence (16:13–33) Á Jesus» departure, glory, and unity of community (17:1–26) If this basic structure is correct, unity (17:21–23) and love (13:34–35) are essentially synonymous images; secession from the community, as in 1 John, would thus prove equivalent to hatred and death. The discourse provides an interpretive crux, corresponding to the narrator " s perspective, though the narrator has often remained silent in this Gospe1. 8020 Even before current literary-critical emphases, however, commentators could recognize that the discourse in John 13–17 clarifies the significance of the passion events of John 18–20 . 8021 A Testament of Jesus? Scholars have offered various proposals concerning the specific genre or generic associations of this discourse. Given the pervasiveness of the Last Supper tradition in early Christianity ( 1Cor 11:23 ), a meal setting for the discourse (mentioned in passing in John 13:2,4 ) may be presupposed even if John is conspicuous by his lack of emphasis on it; 8022 in this case, ancient Mediterranean readers might view the discourse as taking place in a symposium setting. 8023 This was in fact a common literary setting for important discourses and dialogues. 8024 Most traditional Jews would have continued to discuss Passover among themselves for a few hours after the meal, 8025 providing an opportunity for a discourse such as this one after the Last Supper. Some even understand the passage as Jesus» commentary on his Passover meal with his disciples–albeit before John redacted the Passover to the cross (19:36). 8026 Because little dialogue occurs, however, the observation of a general symposium setting exercises little influence on interpretation. |
| That Jesus «manifested himself» to the disciples (21:1; this provides an inciusio with 21:14) is also Johannine language (1:31; 2:11; 3:21; 7:4; 9:3; 17:6) and, on a theological level, reflects the expectation in 14:21–23 of postresurrection encounters with Christ (albeit normally in the Spirit after the first encounter of 20:19–23). Jesus was, literally, «on the sea» (21:1); this is acceptable language for «beside the sea» ( Mark 4:1; 5:21 ; cf. John 21:4,9–10 ). It might recall Jesus» theophany on the sea (6:19; cf. Mark 6:47–49 ); but this is probably overexegesis (see 6:16). When John concludes the narrative by reminding the reader that this is the «third» time Jesus was revealed to the disciples (21:14), he includes in this count only the two appearances in the upper room (20:19–23,24–29). Like John " s other counts (2:1,11; 4:46, despite the plural «signs» in 3:2), however, his language may indicate only the third time in the narrative, not the third appearance altogether. 10857 That John 21 does not enumerate all the gospels» resurrection appearances but counts only those in this Gospel seems to me a further piece of evidence favoring Johannine authorship of this chapter. 10858 This passage reflects knowledge of the tradition that Peter and at least some of his colleagues (21:3)–here presumably the sons of Zebedee (21:2)–were fishermen, a tradition undoubtedly widely known in the early church (cf. Mark 1:16–20 ). 10859 It has often been argued as well that the passage reflects knowledge of the same tradition as appears in Luke 5:1–10; although the argument depends, to some degree, on the relative paucity of extant traditions available for our modern perusal, it is probably correct. Peter acts in character, taking the lead in 21(13:24; 18:10,15; cf. Mark 14:31, 37 ), as some students in ancient schools were known to do. 10860 He also displays for Jesus his physical prowess in 21and 21:11; this might appeal to heroic or masculine ideals in the ancient Mediterranean world–perhaps acceptable provided it was used to demonstrate loyalty to his Lord (as it was in 21:7, ll). 10861 This might also be in character; at least some ancient people viewed fishermen as «tough,» inured to the labors of their trade. 10862 |
| Many ancient biographies pass quickly over the subject " s youth or background, focusing on his public career and sometimes at length on his death. 3793 Thus Josephus covers the first thirty years of his life in an opening section that constitutes less than 5 percent of his autobiography; even some of this introductory material specifically prepares the reader for Josephus " s role in the war (see Life 13–16). The Fourth Gospel, in contrast to Matthew and Luke but like Mark, turns very quickly to the Baptists proclamation and Jesus» ministry. The prologués comments about John bearing witness to the light give way naturally to the narrative of 1:19–37, where John points priests and Lévites (1:19–28) and his own disciples (1:35–37; possibly also 1:29–34) to Jesus. This section about John " s witness fits neatly into the whole narrative concerning Jesus» first disciples (1:19–51), 3794 and introduces various christological titles, some of which the Gospel will develop in more detai1. 3795 Different days become the occasion for different confessions: John confesses the coming king on one day (1:19–28), acknowledges that Jesus is that king on the next day (1:29–34), and sends his own disciples after Jesus on the next day (1:35–39). 3796 In the same way, new disciples witness to Jesus, making other disciples, in both 1:40–42 and (on the next day) 1:43–47, in both cases a self-revelatory encounter with Jesus himself being the converting factor (as in 4:42). The climactic confession of this section on discipleship comes in 1:43–47: Jesus is both Son of God and king of Israel (Messiah), and will further reveal more of heaven to the world. In Johannine ecclesiology, discipleship involves witness, and witness introduces open hearts to the Person whose power to address the truest issues of their hearts convinces them. Because much of this material about John " s witness is also attested in the Synoptic tradition, it is clear that the author of the Fourth Gospel does not fabricate John " s witness from whole cloth, but adapts existing traditions. 3797 As promised in the introduction, we will explore questions of tradition in this Gospel where it is most easily discerned, namely, in passages that overlap with the Synoptics. That much of this material is paralleled in substance elsewhere in extant sources suggests that other material in the narrative may derive from historical tradition as well, whether or not the other traditions remain extant. (The differences from the Synoptic tradition need not require an independent tradition–paraphrase was a common enough exercise and verbatim recitation was not essential 3798 –but other sources besides the Synoptics and Q existed then [cf. Luke 1:1], and the writer would not have selected only those texts now extant as if he knew which texts would remain extant and wished to impress only later generations.) |
| 3. Well aware that unity is manifested in love of God and love of neighbour, we look forward in eager anticipation to the day in which we will finally partake together in the Eucharistic banquet. As Christians, we are called to prepare to receive this gift of Eucharistic communion, according to the teaching of Saint Irenaeus of through the confession of the one faith, persevering prayer, inner conversion, renewal of life and fraternal dialogue. By achieving this hoped for goal, we will manifest to the world the love of God by which we are recognized as true disciples of Jesus Christ (cf. Jn 13:35). 4. To this end, the theological dialogue undertaken by the Joint International Commission offers a fundamental contribution to the search for full communion among Catholics and Orthodox. Throughout the subsequent times of Popes John Paul II and Benedict the XVI, and Patriarch Dimitrios, the progress of our theological encounters has been substantial. Today we express heartfelt appreciation for the achievements to date, as well as for the current endeavours. This is no mere theoretical exercise, but an exercise in truth and love that demands an ever deeper knowledge of each other’s traditions in order to understand them and to learn from them. Thus we affirm once again that the theological dialogue does not seek a theological lowest common denominator on which to reach a compromise, but is rather about deepening one’s grasp of the whole truth that Christ has given to his Church, a truth that we never cease to understand better as we follow the Holy Spirit’s promptings. Hence, we affirm together that our faithfulness to the Lord demands fraternal encounter and true dialogue. Such a common pursuit does not lead us away from the truth; rather, through an exchange of gifts, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it will lead us into all truth (cf. Jn 16:13). 5. Yet even as we make this journey towards full communion we already have the duty to offer common witness to the love of God for all people by working together in the service of humanity, especially in defending the dignity of the human person at every stage of life and the sanctity of family based on marriage, in promoting peace and the common good, and in responding to the suffering that continues to afflict our world. We acknowledge that hunger, poverty, illiteracy, the inequitable distribution of resources must constantly be addressed. It is our duty to seek to build together a just and humane society in which no-one feels excluded or emarginated. |
| Plate 55 Icon of the myrrh-bearing women at the tomb. By Eileen McGuckin. The Icon Studio: www.sgtt.org the New Testament the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection, based on apostolic memories and oral traditions, vary widely in detail. However, the fact and centrality of the resurrection constitute the bedrock of the Christian faith, attested by more than five hundred eyewitnesses ( 1Cor. 15.5–8 ). The gospels indicate that Jesus anticipated his death as blood covenant renewal and viewed his resurrection as God’s vindication of his ministry (e.g., Mk. 8.27–31; 14.22–5, 36, 61–2 ; cf. Acts 3.13–15). Matthew, Luke, and John link Jesus’ resurrection with the gift of the Spirit and the inauguration of the early Christian mission ( Mt. 28.16–20 ; Lk. 24.44–9 ; Jn. 20.19–23 ; cf. Acts 2.32–3). The Gospel ofJohn magnificently integrates the life, death, resurrection, and enthronement of the Son of God as the mutual glorification between the Father and the Son, marking the decisive victory over the power of death and the gift of abundant life through the Spirit, available to believers in the present as well as the future ( Jn. 1.14 ; 5 .24–9; 7.37–9; 12.30–1; 14.15–24; 17.1–5). In this similar rich vein, the Apostle Paul provides the most detailed theological explication of the death and resurrection of the incarnate Son ( Gal. 4.4–6 ; Rom. 1.1–4 ) and Lord of glory ( 1Cor. 2.8; 15.1–4 ). For Paul, the death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ mark the cosmic shift from the old age of sin, corruption, and death to the new era of grace, life, incorruption, and transformed bodily immortality ( Rom. 3.21–6; 5.12–21; 8.18–39 ; 1Cor. 15.50–7 ). In Paul, as in John, God’s powers of salvation are at work both now and in the future in those who are united with Christ through faith and baptism, and who enact the pattern of Jesus’ death and resurrection by crucifying their sinful passions and offering themselves as living sacrifice to God ( Rom. 6.1–23; 8.9–13; 10.9–13; 12.1–2 ; 2Cor. 4.7–18 ; Gal. 3.16–24 ). |
| Because many christological motifs recur frequently in the Fourth Gospel, we survey the background for some of John " s terms in this introduction. 2420 We will address in more detail the motifs themselves, including John " s distinctive adaptation of terms that were used more broadly in other streams of early Judaism and Jewish Christianity, at relevant points in the commentary. The Thrust of John " s Christology Christology is John " s central focus, as both the proem (1:1–18) and summary thesis statement (20:30–31) testify. Both of these passages emphasize the highest, most complete Johannine Christology: Jesus is deity (1:1,18; 20:28–31). John advocates multiple christological models, but especially emphasizes the most complete existing model, namely, that Jesus is Torah or Wisdom. No other conception available in his Jewish vocabulary better conveyed the thought of one who was divine yet distinct from the Father. The proem leads us to expect Jesus as divine Wisdom or Word to overshadow a great deal of the Fourth Gospel (without erasing other important christological motifs or historical traditions). Jesus is far greater than Moses the agent of revelation, for he is the «Word,» the content of revelation (1:17–18). Like Torah or Wisdom, Jesus is the agent of creation in the beginning (1:1–3) and is life and light (1:4–9; cf. 8:12; 9:5; 12:35–36, 46; 15:6). Throughout the Gospel as in the proem, John compares Jesus» mission to that of Torah or Wisdom sent to Israel: the world did not know him, his own did not receive him, but those who did receive him by believing him could become God " s children (1:10–13). These verses build John " s soteriology on the model of God " s earlier revelation to Moses: his people must «know,» «believe,» and «receive» God " s revelation (cf. also 3:36; 5:38,47; 12:48; 17:3). In short, John summarizes Jesus» ministry by declaring that the disciples, like Moses, «beheld his glory» (1:14). Thus the whole Gospel becomes a theophany like Sinai, but in this case John the Baptist (1:6–8, 15) and disciples perform the function of witnesses like Moses. Jesus is one greater than Moses, the Torah in flesh, and the Gospel as a whole develops this paralle1. In such a context, even the image of the «uniquely beloved (son)» (1:14, 18), which could otherwise recall Israel or the Messiah, may also recall traditional Jewish imagery for Torah here. |
| Paul, has canonized as martyrs Sts. Boris & Gleb who in the 11 th century accepted a violent death at the hands of their brother rather than defend themselves against him with violence. These two brothers are honored with the title “Passion-bearers” meaning they imitated the Lord Jesus in the acceptance of His passion and death. My own patron saint: the 10 th century King Edward of England is also honored with the title “Passion-bearer” for his refusal to defend himself with violence. On the other hand, the Church also honors soldiers who gave their lives in battle and has canonized numerous warriors as saints such as the early Christian martyrs St. George and St. Demetrios and St. Alexander Nevsky, the warrior-prince of Russia. The Church remembers the words of our Lord: “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends”. (John 15:13) In 1999 Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople summarized the teaching of our Church: “War and violence are never means used by God in order to achieve a result. They are for the most part machinations of the devil used to achieve unlawful ends. We say “for the most part” because, as is well known, in a few specific cases the Orthodox Church forgives an armed defense against oppression and violence. However, as a rule, peaceful resolution of differences and peaceful cooperation are more pleasing to God and more beneficial to humankind.” Tropar of the Holy New Martyrs of Bohemia (Tone 4) Today we all praise Christ who is both God and man, Who is glorified in His witnesses, the priests Václav and Vladimir, together with the faithful members of God’s people, the martyr Ján, and a host of men and women who did not fear the tyranny of the godless, but full of the hope of immortality, Code for blog 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. If everyone reading Pravmir could donate 5 euros a month, they would contribute greatly to our ability to spread the word of Christ, Orthodoxy, life " s purpose, family and society. Also by this author Today " s Articles Most viewed articles Functionality is temporarily unavailable. Most popular authors Functionality is temporarily unavailable. |
| The chapter also reflects standard Jewish motifs, such as the unity of God " s people, their love for God, God " s glory, obedience to God " s message, the election and setting apart of God " s people, and the importance of obeying God " s agent (Moses in Jewish tradition). One writer links such motifs specifically to the Cairo Geniza manuscript of the Palestinian Targum to Exod 19–20, 9387 another points to parallels with a hymn from Qumran; 9388 in short, most of the motifs reflect common Judaism, yet reinterpreted in a christocentric manner and reapplied to the christologically defined community. Further, to whatever degree John has adapted the discourse and prayer to encourage his audience in their particular situation, 9389 it is clear that a prayer of Jesus before his passion already stands in the passion tradition ( Mark 14:36 ). 9390 But whereas, in Mark, Jesus prays for the Father to spare him from the passion if possible ( Mark 14:36 ), here he recognizes and accedes to the Father " s purpose, requesting the hour of glorification (17:1). 9391 John does not deny Jesus» reluctance to face the cross (12:27) but places heavier emphasis on Jesus» obedience. 9392 Traditionally some have viewed Jesus» intercession in this passage in terms of the OT role of high priest 9393 (Jesus» role in some early Christian traditions; Heb 2:17; 3:1; 4:14–15; 5:10; 6:20; 7:26; 8:1; 9:11); the chapter title «Jesus» High-Priestly Prayer» has circulated since the theologian David Chyträus (1531–1600). 9394 But Jewish tradition also emphasized the intercessory role of prophets; 9395 more significantly, the probably testamentary character of the final discourse might point to patriarchal blessings, 9396 particularly the prayer and blessing of Moses ( Deut 32–33 ), 9397 as background. But because the content of these blessings does not parallel John 17 very closely, 9398 » one may need to look to the experience of John " s audience for more of the content. A variety of backgrounds are possible, but most important within the context of the Fourth Gospel is that Jesus becomes, before his exaltation, the first Paraclete, or intercessor ( Rom 8:26; 1 John 2:1 ; see extended comment on 14:16). 9399 This suggests that John 17 models part of the ministry of the Paraclete who would come after Jesus» departure (14:16) and of those who share his ministry (15:26–27). 9400 The Fourth Gospel presents the Paraclete especially as an advocate or prosecutor in the disciples» conflict with the world, but Jesus has also been promising them more direct access to the Father in prayer once he goes to the Father (14:13–14; 15:7, 16; 16:26–27). |
| 7. “Augustine on the Rule of Faith: Rhetoric, Christology, and the foundation of Christian thinking,” Augustinian Studies 36 (2005), 33-49. 8. “Athanasius’s initial defense of the term o(moou&sioj: Re-reading the De decretis,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 12 (2004), 337-359. 9. “On Not Three Persons: The Structure of Gregory of Nyssa’s Trinitarian Theology as seen in Ad Ablabium: On Not Three Gods,” Modern Theology 18 (2002), 445-474. [also printed in Sarah Coakley (ed.) Re-Thinking Gregory of Nyssa (Oxford and Malden MA: Blackwells, 2003), 15-44] 10. “On Knowing the End: Some Questions for David Ford,” Journal of Scriptural Reasoning 1 (2001) (web-based journal from University of Virginia, Dept of Religious Studies: 11. “’Remember that you are Catholic’ (serm. 52, 2): Augustine on the Unity of the Triune God,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 8 (2000), 39-82. 12. “John D. Caputo and the faith of soft-postmodernism,” Irish Theological Quarterly 70 (2000), 13-31. 13. with Stephen E. Fowl, “(Mis)reading the face of God: The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church,” Theological Studies 60 (1999), 513-528. 14. “On The Practice and Teaching of Christian Doctrine,” Gregorianum 80/1 (1999), 33-94. 15. “Imagining the End: The Augustinian Dynamics of Expectation,” Concilium 1998/4, 40-50. 16. “Christology and Faith in Augustine " s De trinitate XIII: Toward Relocating Books VIII - XV,” Augustinian Studies 29 (1998), 111-139. [also printed in V. Twomey & T. Finan (eds.), Studies in Patristic Christology (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1998), 95-121.] 17. “Augustine on God as Love and Love as God,” Pro Ecclesia 5 (1996), 470-487. 18. “Agustín y Ticonio sobre metafísica y exégesis,” Augustinus 90 (1995), 13-30. 19. “Faith, Theology and Representation,” Modern Theology 11 (1995), 23-47. [also printed in G. Jones & S. Fowl (eds.), Rethinking Metaphysics (Oxford & Cambridge MA: Blackwells, 1995), 23-47.] 20. “Between Athens and Jerusalem: Prolegomena to Anthropology in Augustine " s De trinitate,” Modern Theology 8 (1992), 53-73. |
|
|
