The Magi in Bethlehem

From where the origin of the Magi, who came to Bethlehem seeking the new born King?
No reliable tradition deals with these particular the country whence the Magi came. Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Epiphanius fancied that they came from Arabia, founding their opinion on the fact that "Gold, Frankincense and myrrh" abounded in Yemen. Justin Martyr in his book: Dialogue with Trypho (written around the year 154), says that the Magi who came from Arab lands:
And let this be a proof to you, namely, what I told you was done by the Magi from Arabia, who as soon as the Child was born came to worship Him, for even at His birth He was in possession of His power; ….

Origen held that they came from Chaldea, which is possible. But Clement of Alexandria, Diodorus of Tarsus, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and others are probably right in bringing them from Persia. From wherever they came from, what is clear is the Magi belonged to “Goyim” (Gentiles, "non-Jewish"). If the Jews await their Messiah according to the instructions of Scripture, then goyim peoples in its own way to know God who is worshiped by the people of Israel.

So, which one is right as the origin of the Magi who came to see Jesus in Bethlehem, Arabia or Persia? Actually no need to object to about this matter, because some Arab tribes (like the Jews), have been settled in the Persian Gulf region for a long time. In subsequent periods, quite a lot of Arab tribes in the Persian Gulf are then converted to Christianity. In the Assyrian tradition says that the Magi “were apparently Aramaic speaking, they could had come only from the kingdom of Urhai or Edessa.” If this is true then it makes sense when these wise men came to the Israeli-Palestinian territory, they can communicate well with local people because they also use Aramaic in daily life, language is also used by Jesus. Kingdom of Edessa, according to Roman sources included in the classification of "the tribes of Arabia." This can be known from Roman historical sources mention that the last king, King of Edessa Abgar V Uchomo reigned in the region called "ho tes Arabias phularxos" ("including local Arab tribes").

Thus, we need not look too far to the South as the origin of the Magi, but in the East (in accordance with the instructions of Scripture) in the North Arabian region around the Persian Gulf. Icons painting on the walls of the early Church indicate the type of clothing and headgear used by the Magi; resemble clothing worn by people of ancient Persia. There are local stories stating that when the Il-Khan Empire in the Persian converts to Islam, they do not destroy churches, that there is an icon painting of the Magi on the walls because they feel these iconic paintings are paintings of their ancestors.

While on their innate (gift) that "gold, frankincense and myrrh", do not have to go far to the south (Yemen) to obtain these items because at that time the Arab kingdom Nabataea, is a bustling place of commerce, so the Magi they can buy gold, frankincense and myrrh in Arabia Petraea (Nabataea), before entering the territory of Israel-Palestine. That the Magi came from Arab countries were in line with the offerings they bring gold, frankincense and myrrh (cf. Ezekiel 27:22, Jeremiah 6:20). Judging from the Biblical events, the Magi from Arabia showed that children Ishmael also participated in the banquet Messiah, judging from the offerings they bring it, “…they shall bring gold and frankincense, and shall proclaim the praises of the LORD” (Isaiah 60:6).

Merry Christmas 2010 and Happy New Year 2011 to you all. God bless you.

Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus Christ

2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times. "
3 Therefore Israel will be abandoned until the time when she who is in labor gives birth and the rest of his brothers return to join the Israelites. (Micah 5:2-3)

The Birth of Jesus Christ of Mary in Bethlehem was not a coincidence of events, because the Torah, Psalms and the Book of Prophets over the centuries have foretold His coming. This belief is not a bouquet of Christians because it has proved the existence of the Jewish expectation of the coming Messiah, who will be born from the city of the ancient King of Israel.

In Micah 5:2-3, quoted above, Micah just recalling the prophecy of Isaiah concerning the coming of a Messiah, who will be born by a girl (עלמה 'almah) and will hold a עמּנוּאל 'immanuel (Isaiah 7:14). In his prophecy, Micah mentions clearly that the birthplace of the Messiah who was to come to Bethlehem Ephrata. Bethlehem (which means "house of bread"), is a city in Judah, the birthplace of King David (1 Samuel 16:4, Luke 2:11). The city is well known as the place of Rachel's tomb, the wife of Jacob the ancestors of Israel (Jeremiah 31:15, Luke 2:18).

The birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem was also confirmed in the writings of Jewish Rabbis before Christ, among others, Targum, Pirqe d'rabbi Eliezer, and the Rabbis later. While the commentary to "whose origins are from of old, from ancient times" וּמוֹצאתיו מקּדם מימי עוֹלם umotsataiu miqedem mimmei ‘olam, according to Targum Aramaic refers to the pre-existence of the Messiah. In the Mishnah states that as the incarnation Memra (Word of God) then "The Messiah existed before all creation."

In the Gospel of Luke says that the angels give glad tidings to the shepherds in the fields of Ephrata, that the Messiah had just been born in the city of David. If we use the Peshitta as a reference then Luke 2:11 is as follows:
ܐܶܬ݂ܺܝܠܶܕ݂ ܠܟ݂ܽܘܢ ܓ݁ܶܝܪ ܝܰܘܡܳܢܳܐ ܦ݁ܳܪܽܘܩܳܐ ܕ݁ܺܐܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܡܳܪܝܳܐ ܡܫܺܝܚܳܐ ܒ݁ܰܡܕ݂ܺܝܢ݈ܬ݁ܶܗ ܕ݁ܕ݂ܰܘܺܝܕ݂
‘Itiled lekon ge’ir yaumana Faruqa, di tauhi Marya Mashiha ba m’dintah d’Dawid.
for there is born for you to-day the Redeemer, who is the Lord the Meshicha, in the city of David.

Use of Peshitta above, are as language approach of the events that occurred in Bethlehem Ephrathah, where in the region ± 2000 years ago Aramaic / Syriac is the language of daily life. From the text we can see that title in Mar (Lord) used for Christ, was also used in Midrash Tehilim 110 applied to the King Messiah who will come. Degree: Marya Mashiha (Messiah the Lord) is also found in extra-canonical Jewish writings of the Psalms of Solomon 5:36, written about 50 years before the birth of Jesus.

'Aqedah Yitschaq, Eid Adhha according to the Jews.

Genesis 22:1-14 tells the story of the sacrifice of Isaac, son of Abraham, as a test of faith for Abraham. God asked Abraham to sacrifice his only begotten (son of the agreement) as a manifestation of faith and obedience to God. The incident happened at one of the hills in the land of Moriah. The New Testament also mentions this incident despite the small portions, as an exemplary example of faith and obedience to God, Hebrews 11:17 says, "By faith, being tested, Abraham offered up Isaac, and receiving the promises he was offering up the only begotten".

Similar story also appears in Muslim circles, with some striking differences. In the al-Quran verse letter as-Saffat 101-112 is told about the incident that the Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) received God's command to slaughter his own son as proof of his obedience to God. What distinguishes the narrative of the Koran with the Old Testament story is in the Koran does not mention the name of the son of Abraham who want sacrificed and the Koran also does not mention the scene of the incident, while the Old Testament clearly mention the name of Isaac as a son of Abraham that will be sacrificed and hill Moriah as the site of the event. Al-Quran only mentions the child as a forbearing boy (ghulamin Haleem). At the time then, silence from the Koran about who the children of Abraham who want to cause conflict of opinion sacrificed between Islamic scholars, though at present the majority of Muslims believe that Prophet who was sacrificed was Ishmael, and the scene of the incident is in Jabal Marwah (Mount Marwah) in Mecca, but that previous scholars and some companions of the Prophet Muhammad to support the version of Isaac. While Jews and Christians believe that Isaac is the child who will be sacrificed and Mount Moriah as the place of the event. Surprisingly, in the hills of Moria is still there Mosque "Qubatush Shakrah" (The Dome of the Rock) in front of the Masjid al-Aqsa, in which Jews perform the ritual celebration of 'Aqedah Yitschaq during the Jewish New Year (Rosh Hashanah) each date 1 month Tishri.

In Judaism, commemorating the sacrifice of Isaac on Mount Moriah is not just a celebration that is a mere memorial, but contains the meaning of "redemption" (kafarot) for Jews. In Mekhilta, (a collection of rabbinic legal interpretation, Jewish rabbis) identifies 'aqedah Yitschaq to "sacrifice the Passover lamb", this event is prefiguration from the time of the Messiah a descendant of Abraham, who would come to atone for sin. While similar celebrations in Islam, called Eid al-Adhha, only a warning of past events, does not contain the meaning of "redemption" (kaffarat), although it held a large scale in the Hajj season.

n the Christian faith, the celebration of 'Aqedah Yitschaq not held because according to Christian belief, the Messiah who was to look forward, has come. Jesus, the "Passover Lamb" had been sacrificed on Mount Calvary to atone for our sins once for all. Golgotha, is geographically located adjacent to Mount Moriah. Even in the Mount Moriah there are historic sites of "Church of the Holy Sepulchre", which the Arab Christians referred to as Kanisah al-Qiyamah (The Church of the Resurrection of Jesus). In the Christian view, not 'Aqedah Yitschaq again being celebrated, but the sacrament of the Eucharist (Holy Communion), in remembrance of the Last Supper, in which the Body and Blood of Christ shed to atone for the sins of mankind.

Glosolalia, once again.

One day, I met an old friend. Already more than 10 years, I have not seen my friend. Warm handshake and hug happened between me and my colleagues. 10 years ago, I've become a Christian while my colleagues have not. A lot of discussion about their respective religions between me and my friend, also with some other friends. Each of us, respecting religious differences between us, even more to find similarities than differences.

Now, ten years later, I remain a Christian and my friends have become Christians. Familiarity was still tied when talking about our respective lives, during the last 10 years. However, when we talk about what we believe as a religion, the warmth was not like before when we were still different beliefs. He was so eager to tell his experience to get the baptism of spirit, feeling gets outpouring of the Holy Spirit and most of all: get experience glosolalia (speak in tongues). I listened carefully to the recognition of his spiritual experiences, until at some time out of his mouth saying that people outside his church denomination "knew the Holy Spirit only with his brain, not with his heart." Continues by saying that even harder, "they are the people who are spiritually dubious, a church that does not have the Holy Spirit." I am shocked and surprised to hear such a statement.

Then I asked my friend was about whether he understood or understand the language of the Spirit that he spoke during a glosolalia, or maybe the people around him at the time of glosolalia. My friend replied that he did not know or do not understand the language of the Spirit which he said (because he was in a state of trance), while the other church members were also busy with their own experience of glosolalia.

Apparently my friend and his congregation is very glorifying glosolalia, even while they were worshiping. For them, the glosolalia phenomenon is a "tangible manifestation" of the presence of the Holy Spirit, as the events of Pentecost in Jerusalem (Acts 2:1-4) when the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles and they "began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave ability to them to speak."(Acts 2:4)

When I asked, "Isn't in Acts 2:6 it is said that the people who gathered in Jerusalem "each one heard the disciples speaking in his own language" and is described in Acts 2:8 that "wwe hear each in our own dialect (διαλεκτω dialektoo from dialektos, which means the dialect or accent) in which we were born", so it is not the language of the spirit that "for no man understandeth" as found in 1 Corinthians 14:2? He replied that tongues are a more perfect form of prayer because it is through language that the Holy Spirit speaks to the Father (1 Cor 14:2), through glosolalia language which cannot be uttered (Rom 8:26), so that the people who have glosolalia experience are a more perfect Christian because they are able to communicate directly with the Father.

Here I stop the conversation. There is a clear difference in seeing gifts of the Holy Spirit. I'm not opposed, but not overwhelming glorify glosolalia. As Romans 12:6-8 gives a list of gifts of the Holy Spirit: Prophecy, ministry, teaching, exhorting, sharing in Simplicity, taking the lead, showing mercy. For Paul, the purpose of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is "for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ." (Eph 4:12).

Paul teaches that prophecy is more valuable than tongues since prophesying "builds up an assembly" (1 Cor 14:4). While tongues serve only to "builds himself up" (1 Cor 14:4). This is Paul's emphasis on the gifts of the Spirit. Do not let the gifts of the Spirit (in this case specifically: speaking in spirit or tongues) only used for pleasure or pride, satisfy personal ego, having a spiritual experience for themselves. Congregation is encouraged to desirous of spiritual gifts, but must keep on desiring Them for the upbuilding of the church. (1 Cor 14:12)

بارك اﷲ فيكم
אלוחים יברך אותך
Ο Θεός να σας ευλογεί
Benedicite

Understanding those who are different, why do you call them as heresy?

It has become habit in the church, that throughout history there's always a different group or a little different from mainstream churches, and that happens then is, the emergence of stamp or designation that pinned heresy to those who are different. One of which was labeled as a heretic, is the monophysite.

Judging from the origin of the word, "mono" meaning one and "physis" meaning nature, the word "monophysite" means that in the person of Christ there is only one nature, which is more understood as a disposition of divine rather than human nature. But keep in mind that the term "monophysitism" which is often used by the opposing party, by the concerned even considered the words slur or insult. Actually that happens a certain degree of theological terms appear around the issue, again because of language problems.

Like for example is, the Western misunderstanding of the Coptic Church and Syria, which they call "monophysite", that the two churches are embracing Eutychian heresy. Eutyches taught that Christ, before becoming a man, He has 2 nature that after it ignites. Divinity of Christ absorb humanity as a whole.

Please note that the Coptic Church and Syrian acknowledge all Ecumenical Council until the Council of Ephesus 431. In this council, the formula Christology from Mar Kyrillos (Cyril), the father of the church of Alexandria, were confirmed. Unity Christ formulated as "mia physis ton theon logon sesarkomene" (The nature of the Word of God who became man). So, Christ is "one person from two persons, and one dual nature of two-character". Unitary dual nature of Christ that comes from two nature, ie nature of his divinity as the Word of God which is none other than God himself (Jn 1:1) and human nature as born of Mary. Meanwhile, between divinity and humanity, in such a way that no mixing and no change.

If you see an explanation as above, then the Christology actually adopted two churches, the same Christology formulated in the Council of Chalcedon 451, adopted by the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church and of course: Protestant Churches. The difference is in the use of the term of "the Subjects" that one, the Council of Chalcedon use the term "mia hypostasis", while the Council of Ephesus 431 uses the term "mia ton theon logon phisis sesarkomene" (one nature as the Word of God incarnate.)

Well that because of language barriers, the use of terms from the Greek in Christology as: hypostasis (person or Qenuma), ousia (essence), physis (nature) into its own problems when translated into Syriac or Aramaic, not to mention about understanding of these terms, which also vary from one father of the church with other church fathers. So, it is difficult to mention them as a heretical group, just as difficult to understand the differences in language that occurs that causes a difference in understanding of the term.

بارك اﷲ فيكم
Ο Θεός να σας ευλογεί
Benedicite.

Christology of the Assyrian Church

Nestorianism, a name derived from the name of Nestorius. A nickname is pinned to the East Syrian Church, the Church which calls themselves as the Assyrian Church.

Nestorius was born after 381, from a family of Persia, in Syria-Euphrates. Nestorius was a monk at the monastery of Saint Euprepius, who was ordained a priest, until he was appointed Patriarch of Constantinople (428-431) on the recommendation of the Emperor Theodosius II. Although during his life he was to fight heresy, in turn, then Nestorius also received accusations of being heretics caused by his conviction of Antiochene Christology. Nestorius was removed from the office of Patriarch, on June 21, 431, in the Council of Ephesus. In 435, he was exiled in the northern Egyptian territory.

Nestorius taught the formulas of Christology which originated in the Greek School of Antioch. Unlike the formula of the Alexandrian Christology, the Antiochene Christology accepts of the Two Natures (Physes) of Christ, which in terms of Syria called "Keyane". He also opposed the use of the term Theotokos for Mary.

One thing that becomes controversial from the Nestorian doctrine (both taught by Nestorius or his successors) is about the person of Christ. It is very difficult to conclude how the views of the Assyrian church fathers. Many errors of interpretation so that an assessment of the Assyrian Church's official view is not always appropriate. This is because it is very difficult to translate such Greek terms hypostasis, ousia, physes and forth into the Syriac language which became the language of their daily lives. The translation that later caused big problems that occur due to misunderstandings. This is evident in view of Theodore of Mopsuestia (428) based on Ariatotelian philosophy about Christology: Two persons (in here he meant hypostases) and Two Natures (physes), in voluntary union. Although Babai (d. 628), tea Catholicos of the Church of the East, That clarifies Theodore spoke of "One parsopa" of Christ, but this has become a controversy because in Quicunque Vult item 36 stated: One, altogether, not by confusion of substance (essence), but by unity of Person. This is because in practice the Syriac language translators use the word Qenuma for persons sometimes, and/or hypostases.

But if we look at the Synod of Aqaq (486) and Confessions of Ishu-yabh (585), both declared that in Christ there are: One person (parsopa), Two Natures (Keyane) in voluntary union, it can be concluded that the Assyrian Church presented the closest Christological formula to the Christology of Chalcedon. This is because they use different terms, parsopa to the Greek term: prosopon (person) and are used only for the term Qenuma hypostases. Even Calvinism would say the same thing. Official Confessions of the Assyrian Church occurred in 612, adopted a new formula, "two Natures (keyane), two Qenumeh, and one Parsopa (person) in Christ".

We can see that the formulas of Christology in the Assyrian Church was different. In the case of Two Natures (Keyane), they clearly achieved equality, but different opinions in explaining the views of hypostasis (qenuma) and / or prosopon (parsopa). But for now, views on Christology formula of Assyrian Church almost close to the view of the Council of Chalcedon (451).

READING LIST

- Alister McGrath, Christian Theology, an Introduction (Cambridge: Blackwell Publisher, 2nd. Edition, 1997)
- G. C. Berkouwer, The Person of Christ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1954)
- Henry Chadwick, History and Thaught of Early Church (London: Variorum, 1982)
- Synodicon Orientale (ed. J. B. Chabot: Paris: 1902)


NOTE:
Condolences over the earthquake (and tsunamis) in the Mentawai Islands, as well as catastrophic eruption of Mount Merapi, both in Indonesia. Hopefully you guys who have become victims, given fortitude by God.
To Mr. Marijan, caretaker of Mount Merapi, which is loyal to the end of his life keeping Merapi, may Allah accept charities, which has you give to the people around you.

The gifts of the Holy Spirit (2)

31 December 1900, Topeka, Texas.

On the evening before the new year 1901, a man named Charles Fox Parham with his pupils, amounting to ± 120 people perform prayer. They fasted and prayed earnestly to beg God to have what is called "baptism of the Holy Spirit." 11 o'clock that night; Agnes Ozman, one of his students asked to pray. Parham initially hesitant because he had never done it before. After agreeing, Parham then began to pray, suddenly Ozman began speaking in a language that sounded foreign to them. Parham argues, Ozman sounded utter sentences in Chinese. They continued to pray until the morning, but only Ozman received the new language. Not just talk, Ozman also can write letters that are similar to Chinese characters.

After the era of Parham, came William Joseph Seymour, an African-American who is also a student of Charles Parham in Stone's Folly. Seymour background (black spirituality) strongly affect the service which was held at Azusa Street, which was considered by outsiders as being exaggerated and frightening, like the rhythmic accompaniment of drums, dancing and singing and all forms of physical expression in order to prepare themselves to be possessed by a spirit. On his way, the sharp differences of opinion arise between Charles Fox Parham with the pupil: William Joseph Seymour. Later figures show that makes movements like this are widespread, such as: Demos Shakarian (Founder of Full Gospel Business Men's Fellowship International), David Johannes du Plessis (also known as: Mr. Pentecost), Dennis Bennett, Oral Roberts, Gordon Lindsay, Kathryn Kuhlman (she is well known with the term "slain in the spirit"), Billy Graham, and so on.

On December 20 to 24 January 1994, at the Toronto Airport Vineyard Church, there was what was then known as the "Toronto Blessing" in which occurs the manifestations of holy Laughter Holy Spirit, slain in the spirit, dancing in the spirit, even to the manifestation an extreme that is hearing the sounds of certain animals from the mouth of some revival meetings the participants.

Suspicion of Western Church (Catholic) on the manifestations of the Holy Spirit as a result of the bad memories of Montanism, in turn making becomes more dogmatic theology, logic, and not accompanied with the powers of the Holy Spirit and experience the energy that the human memanunggalkan with Christ. Here the spiritual drought in the Western Church so that the Charismatic movement and Pentecostalism known as the debt of the Church (West) unpaid. The phrase that often appears in such movements is: "No need to theology what is important is the Holy Spirit."

Unfortunately, the widespread experience called the "outpouring of the spirit", in turn, often leads those who experience the symptoms that indicate the existence of spiritual pride or some form of new Montanism feared by the Western Church (Catholic). This is shown by people who felt a "outpouring of the new spirit", see themselves more powerful, greater, higher than those who do not or do not have the experience and accuse the churches that do not hold the Revival Devotional is a church that does not have the Holy Spirit . Here occur spiritual elitism or spiritual caste classification. People who do not have this gift are considered as second-class Christians.

Eastern Churches, which do not have problems as happened in the West, saw signs of this spiritual pride, always warned that spiritual pride is the "supreme crime that fully take the place of all other crimes." (John Climacus), which also Abba Evagrios calls, "demon of pride is the cause of all the horrible crimes of the soul". In the Philokalia, Patriarch Kallistus and Ignatius Xanthopoulos warned, "if our minds begin to feel comfort thanks to the Holy Spirit, then Satan himself slid comforting himself into the soul ...".

READING LIST

- Jean-Jacques Suurmond, Word and Spirit at Play: Towards a Charismatic Theology (London: SCM Press, 1994)
- M. M. Paloma, "Toronto Blessing" Pages 1149-1152 in M. Stanley Burgess and Eduard M. van der Maas, eds. New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (Rev. & Exp. Ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2003)
- R. P. Spittler, "David Johannes Du Plessis." Pages 589-593 in M. Stanley Burgess and Eduard M. van der Maas, eds. New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (Rev. & Exp. Ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2003)

The gifts of the Holy Spirit (1)

The gifts of the Holy Spirit, which is popular through Pentecostal and Charismatic Movement, is the preferred teachings as well as hated by the people who call themselves Christian. Catholic Church, because they still remembered the bad memories in the past against Montanism doctrine that developed in the latter half of the 2nd century in Phrygia, there is a feeling suspicious and wary of the manifestations that are recognized as the work of the Holy Spirit that leads to suspicion of charisma of the Holy Spirit. Even in a liturgical book titled: Rituale Romanum, written around the year 1000 it is mentioned that during the manifestations of the gifts of the Holy Spirit be seen as signs that a person possessed by evil spirits that need to hold an exorcism.

In contrast, the Eastern Church (Orthodox) have never opposed the gifts of the Holy Spirit and tend to be more open to the manifestations of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Pneumatology occupies a very important place in the Eastern Church since ancient times until today. Eastern Church believes that miracles and extraordinary signs of the Holy Spirit never ceases to work in the Church for over 2000 years, so that the Orthodox Church considers that no fundamental right and not when there is a statement that the Holy Spirit has left the Church and the new restored in these last days with the emergence of reform movements of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

There are fundamental differences in emphasis on the gifts of the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of God. Charismatic Renewal Movement emphasized the nine kinds of the gifts of the Holy Spirit listed in 1 Corinthians 12:8-10, while the Eastern Church emphasized the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of God as taught by the prophet Isaiah found in Isaiah 11:2.

Mainstream Protestant churches, as expressed by figures of Reformation: Martin Luther and John Calvin, firmly oppose all manifestations of spirituality that show signs of the influence of movement Enthusiasm. In line with the new mission field that is part of the North American continent and the Industrial Revolution in Europe came the various movements of holiness which lead to the emergence of Pentecostalism and Charismatic, as shoots of Methodism of John Wesley style, with his Wesleyan perfectionism.

READING LIST

-Allan Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism: Global Charismatic Christianity (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004)
-D. William Faupel, The Everlasting Gospel: The Significance of Eschatology in the Development of Pentecostal Thought (JPTSup 10, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996)
-Roland A. Knox, Enthusiasm: A Chapter in the History of Religion (New York: Galaxy Books, 1961)

Shalah, the common heritage of Abraham's descendants

Shalah or prayer, an obligation that must be carried out by a Muslim (male) as a form of obedience and worship of a divine Creator, Allah Subhana wa Ta'ala. For a Muslim, Prayer must be carried out 5 times a day, with certain times which have been determined, but it also have 2 other prayer time that is not required (Sunnah) of Duha' and Tahajjud, so that all carried a total of prayer in a day is 7 times.

Shalah, unlike the Du'a, for shalah in Arabic shows a form of prayer in an orderly and time. Meanwhile, Du'a, a form of prayer with an undefined time nor in the form of certain movements. Shalah at the present time is identical with Islam.

For the Christian world (West), shalah is something foreign, although the reformer Martin Luther, in his book The Small Cathecisme (vol. VII, 1) is also still preserve two prayer time (breviary), namely Loudes (morning prayer) and Verper ( evening prayer), which is still known in the teachings of the early Lutheran churches.

In the liturgical tradition, the word shalah parallel with the Greek term: προσεχη (prosekee)) which is parallel * with the term Aram: tselota. From the Aramaic word is the Arabic word tselota: Shalah originated. Prayer is a form of personal daily prayers non-sacramental, which is distinguished with sacramental worship, the eucharist (Holly Communion or Holy Liturgy). The oldest reference of daily worship is contained in the book Didache, which recommend 3 times a prayer, followed the pattern of Jewish worship (Siddur). At the next time the early church developed a worship Seven Time Prayer (as-sab'ush shalawat) by observing habits of the prophets and apostles in the Bible. The most complete reference on this subject can be found in the Apostolic Constitution (in 380) and Regulae Fusius Tractate, the work of Basil the Great (330-379). Actually almost all the Church Fathers wrote about the tradition of prayer like this, for example, Jerome / Hieronymus in the West and John Chrysostomos (354-407) in the East.

The tradition of praying seven times (sab'u ash-shalawat) is maintained until today by the Eastern Churches, both Chalcedonian wing, as well as the non-Chalcedonian, though different in outward expressions of worship (ruku 'and prostration). Only the Syrian Orthodox Church which continues the Jewish ritual and other eastern culture, where worship the same pattern was also preserved by Muslims. In Surah 3:113 the Qur'an also says there is a class of people from the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) who run a prayer with prostration. 'Abdallah Yusuf' Ali noted kmetar above verse in his commentary: "according to commentators, refers to those people of the Book who eventually embraced to Islam" (Abdallah Yusuf Ali, The Meaning of The Holy Quran), but this interpretation not appropriate because even though they are being positive towards Islam, but did not mention that they received prophethood of Muhammad, so not including the Muslim faction.

Cross syndrome, rejection of Muslims on the end of the life of Jesus.

Admittedly, that Muslims more respect and give a place of honor for Jesus Christ, which they call the Prophet 'Isa al-Masih, or by calling more often: 'Isa ibn Maryam, rather than Jews. Even the story of his birth without a father and his position as a leading person in the world and the Hereafter, and proximity to God, enshrined in the Koran, Sura 3:45. According to Tafsir Ibn Kathir, meaning "wajihan fii al-dunya wa al-akhirah" (which is leading in the world and the hereafter) is that Jesus was a prominent and have high positions in the world because God revealed to him the rules of religion, and in hereafter because God allowed him to intercede with Allah, against those who followed him by Allah's leave (wa fii dar al-akhirati yusyafa’i ‘indallah fii man bi idzinni lahi fihi). Similarly, with tales of miracles performed by Jesus since childhood (Surah Ali Imran, 49) until adulthood. Even about the second coming of Jesus as a fair judge, who will defeat al-Masih ad-Dajjal (the Anti-Christ, Aramaic: Mšiha Daggala).

On the other hand, the depiction of Jesus as a noble figure who has become an irony because of the background of a particular theological encounter in the past two Semitic religions, it appears clear that 'Isa or Jesus, trying hard to be separated with Christianity. Why? Because Christianity is deemed to have been embezzled teaching Jesus the truth, and the Gospel in circulation now accused was not original anymore.

In Surah al-Fatihah verse 7:
“… ghair al-maghdubi alaihim wa la adh-dhalin.”
Which means: “… not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).” (Mohsin Khan Translation)
Surah al-Fatiha, as the core of al-Qur'an, says of the request from Muslims, that Allah will not bring Muslims on the path of those who incurred the Wrath of God (which is meant here by the Islamic theologians are the ones Jews), nor the way of those who go astray (which according to Islamic theologians addressed to Christians).

Things that are most associated with straying Christians according to Islam, in addition to the divinity of Jesus, is on the question of the end of Jesus' life, especially about the crucifixion of Jesus. The verses of the Koran does not expressly explain the late life of Jesus, only about Jesus' ascension into heaven alone the Koran strictly speaking. That is why there appears a replacement theory on the cross by others (Judas Iscariot, Simon of Cyrene), which is based on Surah 4:157-158, which does not fit grammatically with the intention of replacing, therefore among Muslim commentators themselves are also a matter of controversy other than that because of the objections to the principle of divine justice, God has acted unfair to Judas Iscariot or of Simon of Cyrene, if they were sacrificed as a substitute of Jesus on the cross. Even if the view of its context, Sura 4:157-159 is not talking about the Christian faith, but were talking about reaction to the arrogance of the Jews.

In the Surah an-Nisa (4):157, the Jews said that they had killed 'Isa son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah. Al-Qur'an to deny it by saying that they really did not kill him nor crucify him. From the Gospel records and historical records of that period, what the Koran says is correct, because the Jews did not kill and also never crucified Jesus. The fact is the soldiers Romans, who crucified and killed Jesus son of Mary. While the last phrase Surah 4:157, which states "but likened to them" (shubbiha lahum), became a problem for the Muslim commentators on this replacement theory. Grammatically, if one replaces the words of Jesus should be used instead of third person pronoun self. Thus, the word "lakin shubbiha lahum" (but which likened to them) should "lakin shubbiha lahu" (but which he likened to). Kamil Hussein, the Arab-Muslim writer, commenting on this theory: “No Cultured Muslim believes in this nowadays”.

Replacement theory like this is also in contradiction with the verses of the Koran which affirm the death of 'Jesus son of Mary. As the expression متوفيك "mutawaffeeka" (makes you die) in Surah Ali Imran (3):55. Isaac ibn Bishr said that history is very close to the Christian view: “amatihi llahi tsalatsah ayaamu tsumma batshi’hi tsumma rafa’ihi.” God made him die for three days, and then he revived and was appointed to his side.

Allah alam bi al-shawab.

La ilaha ila Allah, There is no god but Allah

La ilaha ilallâh, the first of the two sentences that become the basic creed of faith for a Muslim, which means: "There is no god but the God". It should be noted that in some Muslim countries, the term is often interpreted as "There is no Lord but God", which was not appropriate because it compared the word "god", there is a more appropriate synonym for the word "Lord" is Rabb (which may mean : Lord or Ruler). Grammatically, the phrase la ilaha ila al-Lah is a form of negation and confirmation (Arabic: al-nafiy wa al-itsbat). La ilaha is a negation (denial) that there is no god (something that is worshiped or a goal) the others, and ila al-Lah was the confirmation (affirmation) that God is the only god (gods or destination) the truth.

In everyday social life, the phrase "La ilaha ilallâh" often become the main weapon for a Muslim when in dialogue with a Christian. Trinity ideology embraced by Christianity, often considered a stumbling block in Christian-Muslim dialogue, because for a Muslim, oneness of God is something that is absolute and the basis for their faith. Trinity is a fraud against the principles of Tawhid and the Apostle Paul is the main accused of fraud Tawhid doctrine taught by Jesus.

But actually how Christians look at the unity of God? Aramaic sources of introducing the expression: Lait alaha ela de shama, which means: "There is no god except the name." The word "de Shama" is used is based on Jewish tradition that used to read YHVH as "ha Shem" which in English translation are written with capital letters "GOD". We can see the resemblance of this Aramaic phrase with the first part of the Islamic creed. About Paul, a bit weird if he was accused of being manipulative, Tauhid teachings of Jesus, because in his letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 8:4-6) mentions the Greek phrase: ουδεις θεος ει μη εις oudeis theos ei mē heis. Greek words are translated in Arabic translation TAV becomes: "La ilaha ila al-Lah al-ahad," which means: There is no god except Allah, the One.

Al-Ghazali, one of the greatest Muslim thinker, in his book ar-Radd al-Jamil li-‘ilahiyat ‘Isa bi-sharih al-Injil, expressed his approval that 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 is one proof of the gospel of the oneness of God , though of course different interpretations of the Christian faith. Confession of faith of Nicaea, called by Qanun al-Iman in Arabic, begins with the assertion: "Bi al-Haqiqati nu’minu bi ilahin wahidin, Allah al-Áb, ...", which means: "We believe in god, the One, ie God the Father, ... ". Bible verses that affirm the unity of God the other is contained in Mark 12:32 in the translation TAV: اﷲَ واحدٌ ولا إلهَ سواه "Allahu wahidun, wa la ilaha siwahu" which means: "God is One, and there is no god but Him."

From the above description can be seen that the phrase "La ilaha ila Allah" which is the basis of Islamic faith is not contrary to Christian faith because these two religions are religions that believe in oneness of God. Trinity is understood by Christians has never been a thing that is opposed by the Qur'an, but Triteisme who was opposed by the Qur'an (Surah 4:171, 5:73, 5:116), as well as Surah 2:22, 6:100,101; 112:1-4 actually addressed to the gods (polytheism) in Mecca. In Surah at-Taubah / 9:30 there is the refusal as "the Messiah is the son of God", but this rejection is more to the understanding that God could not physically have children (biological), which it never became the official views of Christianity, even the verse also contains a question mark because it is mentioned that Jews say: "Ezra is the son of God ", while very difficult to find the existence of a Jewish source mentions that Ezra (or Uzair in Arabic) is the son of God. But it must be admitted that the Islamic theologians understand these verses of the Koran as a rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Surah 2:115
to Allah belongs the east and the West: whithersoever ye turn, there is the presence of Allah. for Allah is all-Pervading, all-knowing.

Happy Eid ul-Fitr to my Muslim brothers and sisters.

Logos, in Islamic mysticism (Sufism)

In previous discussions, we mentioned about the hadith: "awwalu makhluqa llahu nuriy, wa fi riwayati ruhiy" which means: the beginning of creation God is my light, or in another narration: my spirit.

Understand the concept of Logos in Sufism, known as the Nur Muhammad, although they are pre-existence, but Nur Muhammad remains as the creation (mere creature). Christians, generally rejected the concept that the Logos or Word of God is a creation.

God said "Kun" (Be), then there was Nur Muhammad and from this, everything was then made. This is contained in the Hadith: Lau laka maa khalaqal kun (If not you O Muhammad, would not I make all that exists). Islamic Mysticism views like this, have closer similarities with the teachings of Christology of Arius (Arianism), who taught that Jesus was the first major creatures created by God. Jesus Christ is a creature of an intermediary (an intermediary being, Greece: demiurgos) between God and man.

Arius's views heavily influenced by the philosophy of Neo-Platonism developed by Plotinus and Ammonius Sakkas. Here can be seen that between the Christology of Arius and Nur Muhammad understood equally emphasized that despite everything that happens is caused by the word "kun" (Be), but everything happened from atsar (former) Light of Muhammad, in which Arianism appeared as a co-creator.

Such principles differ with the Logos in the Christian faith that draw clear boundaries between al-Khaliq الخالق (Creator) with "Makhluq" or the creature (creation). Because the creation took place solely from the word "kun", without any assistance and facilities outside the Creator. It also includes Logos, if it is assumed that the Logos is something separate from the Essence of God (the Creator), or the Logos is seen as a mere creature.

Because God is Almighty and the Almighty Creator, Allah does not need help from anyone or in any form. Logos (or in the perspective of Christian Arabs: al-‘Aqal al-Ilahi, Divine Intellect), always in the Essence of God is "'azali" or without beginning (al-‘Aqal al-Ilahi al-kainu fi adz-Dzat Ilahi mundzu ‘azali). It is a strange thing to say God created all things through His Word, but the word of God (Logos) itself is also a mere creation. So, with another word which God created the word itself?

If the Islamic states that the Koran as Kalam Allah (the Word of God) is ghair al-Makhluq (not creation), as a comparison then Kalimatullah or the Divine Logos is al-Mauludu ghair al-Makhluq (born not created).

Kalimatullah, Logos according to Islam.

In Islam, Jesus Christ or 'Isa al-Masih was called with the title Kalimah (the word of God) found in sura-sura, among others:
Surah 3:39 The angels called him when he was praying in the sanctuary: "GOD gives you good news of John; a believer in the word of GOD, honorable, moral, and a righteous prophet."
Surah 3:59 The example of Jesus, as far as GOD is concerned, is the same as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, "Be," and he was.

Who talked about the "creation" and the birth of Jesus. That Jesus was born because of the will and the word of God is mentioned again in Surah 4:171. Ibn Ishaq from the 8th century AD, in his famous (through the compilation of Ibn Hisham), ie Sirah an-Nabawiyyah (The Life of Prophet Mohammed), said that those Muslims who seek asylum in Abyssinia (Ethiopia) has notified the Christian authorities there that they believe Jesus is God's messenger, spirit and word of God, which is inserted into the Mary, the blessed virgin. King Negus, the Christian ruler of Abyssinia, agree with these Muslim people.

In the Arab Christian community known term 'wa Kalimatuhu al-mutajjasad' (and His Word which became man) as a more precise term than the Latin term Cur Deus Homo(meaning: "Why did God become man?") derived from a father of the Western Church, ie St. Anselmus. That is because in the Christian Arabs literature, the term: Allah (more specifically than the equivalent terms: Elohim, Theos, Deus, God) is more pointed to the Father.

The parallel of the Kalimatullah, in the Christian Arab community, can be compared with the Kalam Allah (the Koran). In Islam, as affirmed in the Qur'an, God has "nazzala 'alaikal kitaba bi al-Haqq" (Surah Ali Imran / 3:2, "down to thee, O Muhammad, the book of the Koran with truth") . Whereas in Christianity, the Word of God has "nazzala minas sama’i wa tajjasad bi Ruhil Quddusi wa min Maryama al-adzra’i wa ta’anas" (down from heaven, incarnated by the power of the Holy Spirit, and become a man of the Virgin Mary).

In general, Muslims do not understand Kalimatullah as Christians understand Logos. Especially if it is associated with the Christian understanding in John 1:1,14. Logos in the Christian faith is certainly not the creation or demiurgos as "intermediary beings" who is not God nor man. While Kalimatullah in Islam, some modern scholars argue that 'Isa (Jesus) called Kalimatullah because he is created because the sentence of God: "Kun" (Be) fa yakuun (hence he was) a reference to Surah 3:59 and 19:35. whereas several other commentators argue that Jesus as the 'word' means it is a form of "prophetic", or he came "to bring a word" although this opinion clearly inadequate.

For subsequent discussion, we will discuss how the idea of the Logos as the beginning of creation God in Tasawuf Islam (Islamic mysticism), which is known as Nur Muhammad (Light of Muhammad). As mentioned in a Hadith: awwalu makhluqa llahu nuriy, wa fi riwayati ruhiy (the beginning of creation God is my light, or in another narration of my spirit).

Al-Masih, Islamic term of Messiah

Jesus of Nazareth, who in the Islamic context, commonly called 'Isa al-Masih (Jesus Christ), almost always use this title for the entire period of His life, from birth until his ascension to heaven.

Titles for Jesus, the Messiah, called the 11 (eleven) times in the Koran, all contained in sura-sura sent down (revealed) in the city of Medina al-Munawwarah (called: Surah Madaniyyah), that reveals about Jesus with nature of the harder, more aggressive and more polemical, as compared with Sura-sura (letters) which is derived in the city of Mecca (Surah Makkiyyah).

In the Koran, the words "Masih" is nothing equivalent to this word, and there is no etymological information about this word. Of the 11 mention in the Koran, Nine verses directly connected with the "son of Mary", which attracts contained in Surah 9:30, that the term "al-Masih" were connected with the title "son of God", but within the framework of the rejection of people's opinions Christians that 'Isa al-Masih (Jesus Christ) was the son of God, then in verse-31 affirmed that the Messiah is the son of Mary. In the Koran, as al-Masih was not associated with the figure and the Messiah's mission as understood by Jews and Christians.

In the view of some Muslim commentators, the term "Masih" is associated with the ascetic life story of Jesus who always move around the place (a lot of stories circulating among the adherents of the Sufi). The term "Masih" is interpreted as a "wandering".

There is one interesting conversation that took place between Theodor Abu al-Qurra(dc 830), a leading Chalcedonian theologian with an anonymous Muslim scholar in the presence of the Caliph al-Ma'mun (let's say he was a Hashemite).
Abu Qurra: Tell me about the Messiah, is he created of something or not?
Hashemite: He is the Word of God and his Spirit.
Abu Qurra: The Word of God and his Spirit, are they delimited and described?
Hashemite: No.
Abu Qurra: Are they comprehensible?
Hashemite: No.
Abu Qurra: So tell me, is the Word of God Creator or create?
The Hashemite was troubled at once and became quiet. He could not say anything except “Creator”. The Caliph was astounded.

Al-Masih, as Kalimatullah (Word of God) and Rohullah (Spirit of God), are the titles of the exalted Jesus, in reference to Him as well as things that did not mean anything and was not significant for a Muslim. For a Muslim, the title Rasulullah "The Messenger" (Apostle of God) to Muhammad has a higher meaning and greater than the titles of Jesus, even a title for Jesus Rasullullah "Messenger of Allah" (Surah an-Nisa 171) also can not compare with the title "Rasulullah" for the Arab Prophet although the Qur'an itself acknowledges that the position of all the Prophet (Nabi) and the Messenger (Rasul, Apostle) is the same.

ברך B’RAKAH : Blessing of the Bread and Wine, Jesus' version.

In the Jewish Passover liturgy (called the Haggadah) that is still celebrated until today, after preparation and the opening worship and then continued with the singing of Psalm 113 and 114, the leader of worship and then say b'rakah of unleavened bread (matsah) with a prayer:

ברוך אתה יהוה אלהינו מלך העולם המוצא לחם מן הארץ
Baruk attah Adonay ,Eloheinu, Melek haolam, ha motsia Lekhem min haarets.
Blessed art Thou, O God, our Lord, who has given this bread from the earth.

Second bread slices and then distributed to people who attended, and afterwards pronounced b'rakah for wine:

ברוך אתה יהוה אלהינו מלך העולם בורא פרי הגף
Baruk attah Adonay, Eloheinu, Melek haolam, Bore p’rey haggaphen.
Blessed be our God, the King of the universe, the Creator of the fruit it of the vine!

The cup of wine is poured and then distributed to those present, then the leader prayed again. After it was all finished, then they sang together Hallel (psalms Haleluyah) as a cover banquet. The most frequently sung psalms is Psalm 115, 116, 117 and 136.

In the Supper, which Jesus did with His disciples, there are still elements b'rakah over the bread and wine, also closed with Hallel. Are difficult to ascertain is how the sound b'rakah first cup of wine which is spoken by Jesus at the Supper.

Perhaps, He slipped in the Jewish Passover liturgy, about the suffering that will be experienced, or interpreted by his own words. "The cup that I am going to drink" (Matt. 20:22), is a parable that Jesus used for His suffering. From the context, the entire paragraph on the focus to the suffering of Jesus on the cross. And based on existing facts, the early church decided that Jesus is the personification of the new Israel, with the new covenant as well.

In the Gospel record, Jesus after taking matsah (unleavened bread) and broke, he said about Himself:

Yrgp wnh wlwk0 wbs
Savu ikolu hanau pagri
"Take this and eat it. This is my body." (Mat 26:26)

And after giving the wine, Jesus said more assertive about Himself, about the meaning of His death, for those who believe:

0h=xd 0nqbw4l d40tm 00ygs Plxd Fdx 0qtydd Ymd wnh Jwklk hnm wt40 wbs
Sevu esyttau minneh khulekhon, hanau ddami dadyataqa hadatta, ddahelakh saggiyaa mitasyad le syuvaqana dhataha.
"Drink from it, all of you. For this is my blood of the new covenant that is being poured out for many people for the forgiveness of sins. (Mat 26:27-28, Peshitta & ISV)

Because the view of Jesus, the more mean Passover, as when God frees people from the bondage of sins that lead to eternal death, not just a commemoration of the liberation of Israel from the oppression of Pharaoh in Egypt, then it is very likely that Jesus different from other Jewish Rabbis. Jesus no longer say the Jewish prayer commonly recited in Aramaic:

הא לחםא עניא، כּיאכלוּ אבהתנא בּארצא דמצרים
Ha laham ‘aneya, ki akalu avahtana ba aretsa de mitsrayim.
This is the bread of misery that has been eaten by our ancestors in Egypt.

READING LIST
- A. Th. Philips (ed.), Sefer Tefilah makol hasanah. Daily Prayer with English Translation (New York: Hebrew Publishing Company, tanpa tahun)
- Chaim Stern (ed.), Sharei Tefillah le Syalom (New York: Central Conference of American Rabbis, 19920
- Rabbi Harold Fisch (ed.), Haggadah Pesah (Jerusalem: Koren Publisher Ltd, 1991)

Tragedy of the Middle East

Readings: Genesis 21:8-21

Tragedy of the Middle East here refers to events that happened in Abraham's family ± 4000 years ago in the Middle East. Unfortunately, a tragedy that continues until today.

What actually happened in Genesis 21:8-21 was motivated by the birth of Isaac, who preached in Genesis 21:1-7. Isaac's birth is a great joy for Abraham and his wife Sarah, for God's promise to them (Genesis 15:4-5) have been fulfilled. However, the initial excitement of Abraham and Sarah also means the beginning of grief for Hagar and her son Ishmael.

It is said that Sarah saw Ishmael playing with Isaac (Genesis 21:9). Then Sarah said to Abraham: "Get Rid of That the slave woman and her son, for that slave woman's son will of never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac." (Genesis 21:10, NIV) Looks like Sara's overprotective of Isaac, and perhaps also a spiteful.

Abraham who heard the words that just annoyed at the request of Sarah to expel Hagar and Ishmael. For Abraham, Ishmael was also his biological child. Divine intervention occurs, God said to Abraham, “Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”(Genesis 21:12, NIV). It turns out God is Sarah, so our bad thoughts on Sarah must be immediately removed. Then why did God take sides Sarah and ordered Abraham to obey Sarah's request?

A key issue here is the word מצחק mitsacheq which can be translated into multiple meanings. Text from Complete Jewish Bible mention "Sarah saw Yishma'El making fun of Yitz'chak, New International Version text called “Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking,”

The Apostle Paul describes the treatment of Ishmael against Isaac in Genesis 21:9 mitsacheq this by understanding the word is synonymous with the Greek word: εδιωκεν ediooken which means persecuting (Gal 4:29). My opinion, this mitsacheq words may be taken to mean that Ishmael was playing with Isaac, but the game leads to the element of "persecution".

And then tersebutlah promise of God, “because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned” (Genesis 21:12, NIV). Hagar and Ishmael were expelled from Abraham's tent. As a father, Abraham, of course experienced a deep sadness, a feeling that the fair experienced by fathers who have lost all or part with her own child, let alone his own son who had to drive it out of his house.

During this time, we see that the child is sacrificed to the God of Abraham was Isaac, through the events 'aqedah Yitshaq (binding of Isaac) in Qubatush Shakrah (Dome of the Rock) on Mount Moriah; ritual' aqedah Yitshaq also still held every Jewish New Year (Rosh Hashanah) on a month Tishri. We forget that before Abraham was to sacrifice Ishmael in Beer-Sheba desert because of the love and obedience of Abraham to God. Ishmael even really be a sacrifice, because he really leave his father and must grow up without a father's presence. But God kept His promise to Abraham, God guard Ishmael, God became Father of Ishmael in the wilderness, God made Ishmael and his descendants a great nation today is the Arab nation.

The next event, when Ishmael (or in many translations: Hagar) "crying with a loud voice" (Genesis 21:16), then what happens then “God heard the boy crying (Ibrani: וישׁמע אלהים wa yishma Elohim)” Ishmael sadness will always be heard by God, as his name: ישׁמעאל yishmâ‛ê'l, which means: God will hear.

READING LIST

- Abraham Mittch and Zhawa Glaser, The Fall Feast of Israel (Chicago: Moody Press, 1987),
- David Stern, Complete Jewish Bible (Maryland-USA, Jerusalem, Israel: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1998)
- Gordon D. Newby, A History of the Jews in Arabia (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1988)

Note: With deep regret for what happened in the vessels Mavi Marmara. There is should be no blood, which is poured out, in the Holy Land.

Christian Pentecost: Resurrection of the followers

Pentecost event, as recounted in Acts 2:1-13, where there is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit with all of the signs that accompany it, can not be understood without looking at the background of Jewish rituals and celebrations, because the Christian Pentecost event all point back to Jewish rites, even fulfill.

Greek terms: Pentēkostē, is a transliteration of the Hebrew term: hag ha-Shavu'ot (Feast of Weeks). The term Pentecost is found in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament used by Jews in the overseas (Diaspora), about two centuries before Jesus was born. The word Pentecost means the fiftieth, which is taken from a count of seven weeks are counted starting from the celebration of Passover (when Matzah (מַצָּה) or unleavened bread), which ended on 21 Nisan, until the date six months of Sivan.

One of the most interesting thing from the prayers to be read before reading the books in celebration of the hag ha-Shavu'ot (Pentecost), there is a prayer request to the Lord immediately sent the Messiah Son of David, His servant, as has been promised by God to previous prophets. Prayer, among others as follows: With the dhikr of our ancestors, as well as the Messiah, the Son of David Thy servant, Thy holy city of Jerusalem and the rest of Thy people Israel and the whole family in front of Thou, who brought the release, kindness, grace, mercy and favor, the lives and peace in this Feast of Weeks.

For Christians, Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of those prayers. Likewise, if associated with Psalm 110, the Apostle Peter affirmed that Jesus was the Messiah, who by His eternal priesthood, has fulfilled all the sacrifices and the annual celebration that must be raised by the priests the sons of Aaron.

Pentecostal celebrations associated with the "the time of the Torah given to us" (zeman mattan toratenu), which is when God's covenant with His people at Sinai with the giving Atseret ha-Debarim (Ten Commandments). There was the sound of the trumpet (שׁפר, shôphâr), gusts of winds and flames visible around the mountain. And formed a congregation of the Old Testament, the people of Israel (Exodus 19:16-25).

Christian Pentecost are also held during the seven weeks after Passover, Jesus and His ascension into heaven. Christian Pentecost event is also accompanied by the signs: a blast from the sky high wind, tongues of fire burning and foreign languages were spoken from the mouths of the disciples. This event later became the starting point of the resurrection of the followers of Jesus who claims to be the people of the New Testament, namely the new Israel. This is the fulfillment of the prophecy of Jeremiah: "... I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah ...," declares the LORD. "... I will put my law in on their minds and write it on on their hearts. I will be on their God, and they want my will from some people. (Jeremiah 31:31-33)

The phenomenon of the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles at Pentecost and they "began to speak in other Tongues as the Spirit enabled Them." (Acts 2:4). As a result, many people from various nations, who had gathered in Jerusalem “each one heard them speaking in his own language.” (Acts 2:6). Miracles happen ie “each of us hears them in his own native language (διαλεκτω, dialekto, ie dialects, patois)?" (Acts 2:8). Miracles is a dialect or accent, not tongues (a language no one understands (1 Corinthians 14:2)), because the people who were present at that place to understand the words spoken by the apostles. Messages that can be drawn from that event is if the sin in the tower of Babel has caused divisions through the chaos of languages, but instead the Holy Spirit to bring all human beings with different languages, together enter into unity through the gospel of Christ at Pentecost, the people of the NT, the new Israel.


READING LIST

- A. Th. Philips (ed.), Sepher Tefilah makol Hasanah. Daily Prayer with Home Translation (New York: Hebrews Publishing Company)
- Eugen Hoade, Guide to The Holy Land (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1983)
- The New Bible Dictionary (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1990)

Jesus according to John, the negation of "Eli, Eli, la'ma sabach-tha'ni?"

In the Gospel of Mark and Matthew contained the words of Jesus when crucified derived from Psalm 22:1 which reads: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Why art thou so far from Helping me, from the words of my groaning ? ". In John's gospel that words are not included, even the Gospel of John mentions the other words in John 19:28, "..., He said (in order to fulfill the Scripture)," I'm Thirsty. " (fact: there is no single Bible verse that is exactly the same as the words of Jesus which John mentioned it. It is true that there are two quotations implied in Psalm 22:14-15 and Psalm 69:21 which is very likely to be a reference John but not exactly the same as written and intended by John).

Back to Psalm 22:1, quoted by Mark and Matthew, if we read carefully the whole of Psalm 22 we can see that the psalm contains a complaint or lamentation. Psalm 22 begins with a complaint of suffering experienced by the psalmist be accompanied call for help to God (cf. verses 1-21), then ended with a compliment of gratitude for the help given by God (cf. verses 22-31). Suffering experienced by the psalmist is so heavy and furious, as if on the verge of death, and suffering in addition to severe by the feeling that as if God had abandoned him, away from her and not listen to him, had lunch and dinner when he asks for help to God. (Cf. verses 1-2). The psalmist also can not understand why God, which he surrendered to Him since he was in his mother's womb, has the heart to leave him, stay away and not listen to his call for help.

Complaint and lamentation of Psalm 22, quoted by Mark and Matthew, clearly does not fit the description of John about Jesus, which was so powerful, strong and powerful even "judging" Pontius Pilate, who did not need the help of a Simon of Cyrene to be shouldered his cross toward Golgotha . For John, how could Jesus the mighty, can complain and wail at the time of approaching death? It is the consistency of John about the figure of Jesus, who in John 16:32 says, "... And yet I am not alone, Because the Father is with Me." Jesus, who always believed that his Father accompanies each of his steps according to John , is unlikely to complain like that.

Mark mentions the anxiety of Jesus in Mark 14:36, "He kept repeating," Abba! Father! "All Things are possible for you. Take this cup away from me. Yet not what I want but what you want." In the verse, it appears that Jesus is fully surrendered to God the Father, but is still hoping that he can be spared, from what he have to face. According to Mark, Jesus was troubled, anxious, sad, like going to die (Mark 14:33-34). Jesus was a brave man by John just said, “Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? No, for this purpose I have come to this hour.” (John 12:27) Jesus according to John it is fully alert and do not ask for what to avoid facing him and even go ahead. In John 18:11 Jesus gives the initiative more clearly, “ ..., shall I not drink the cup which the Father has given me?”

The conclusion that can be drawn is that John seems to be entering quotations in Psalm 22, as was done by Mark and Matthew. But if Mark (and Matthew) took as a quotation of Psalm 22:1 ("My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?". John even quotes Psalm 22:14-15, although not directly, John does not quote Psalm 22:1, because the verse does not match the version of John's Christology.

READING LIST
- Claus Westermann, The Psalms: Structure, Content, and Message, Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1980.
- J.B. Green, The Death of Jesus: Tradition and Interpretation in the Passion Narratives, Tübingen, 1988.
- T.A. Mohr, Markus und Johannes passion, Zurich, 1987.

Syrian Orthodox views on "Eli, Eli, Lama sabachthani"

In Matthew 27:46 there is the phrase "Eli, Eli, Lama sabachthani" referring to the text of Psalm 22:1 Targum Aramaic dialect of Palestine. "Eli, Eli, Lama sabachthani" means: My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me.

There are things that most stirred the mind of this expression, if Jesus is the Word of God and the Word was God (John 1:1, kai theos en ho logos), and to whom Jesus called God? This question is a challenge to Christology, therefore, an answer must be prepared.

Understanding Christology, can not escape from the Bible and ecclesiastical orthodoxy (the result of church councils). 431 Council of Ephesus has formulated the unity of Christ as "mia ton theon logon phisis sesarkomene" is one of nature the Word of God who became Man. So it is said that Christ is "the one person from two persons, and one dual nature of the two inclinations." Unity of the dual nature of Christ, comes from two inclinations, the Divinity of His nature as the Word of God is none other than God himself (Jn 1:1) and His nature as a man who was born of Mary. While among his divinity and his humanity is in such a way that is not mixed with and without change.

Christ died in his nature as human beings. His humanity in such a way that does not mix with the Word of God. Therefore, his sufferings can not and will not be able to touch his deity as the Word of God is indeed overcome death. So that it can be understood Jesus' cry just before death, "Eli, Eli, Lama sabachthani".

Can be said that the Syrian Orthodox Christology formula similar to formula Christology at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which is generally embraced by the Catholic Church, Greek Orthodox and Protestant Churches. Few differences emerged is that "The Subject" is one such, the Council of Chalcedon is called the "mia hypostasis" (one person), while the Council of Ephesus use the term "mia phisis" (one dual nature). From these elements monophysite as is often alleged Syrian Orthodox (and Coptic) can not be justified. Syrian Orthodox (and Coptic) declared they never follow the heretic Eutyches but just trying to maintain the formula of Cyril's Christology at the Council of Ephesus affirmed.

LOGOS, the Word

Logos for Jews not just a voice on the air, but a creative power and highly effective. Word is not just stating something, but implementing something.

With the Word was God created the universe (Genesis 1:2,6,9,11,14,20,24,26; Psalm 33:6,9 cf Colossians 1:16, where it is said that in Him (Jesus Christ), all things made, whether visible or invisible). This title is related to the existence of the pre-incarnate Jesus and His transcendence. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." (John 1:1,3,14; cf 17:8).

In the Targum, which is a popular interpretation or paraphrases of the Old Testament, Logos called Dabar in Hebrew, which in Aramaic Targums called Memra. The Memra proceeds from God, and is His Messenger in Nature and History. In Psalm 33:6 also says "by the Word He made the universe." (By Yahweh's word, the heavens Were Made. - Webster)

In the language of the Peshitta, the Logos is called Miltha. Logos, in some parts of the NT is called rhema. Rhema is a "word" in Itself Considered, while the Logos is a spoken word, which is generally associated with what is in the minds of those who spoke.

Council of Nicea in 325 was not mentioned about Jesus as the Logos or Word, but Jesus called the Son, because the council wanted to affirm that He was not created but born. Not made of that does not exist, but are born of one substance with the Father. It is also to show that His sonship is not a metaphorical or adaptive, but real.

Filioque, a problem for the Eastern and Western Church (3)

Oneness of God, as a result of the insertion "Filioque", became nonidentical with hypostasis of the Father, but identical in essence or substance of the one God. Thus, the unity of God was no longer to-One's Personal, but the One who is not an impersonal. Herein lies the problem. Meanwhile, the Eastern churches in accordance with the Scriptures affirm that God is one, because the Father are one. Thus, the unity of God in the teachings of the Eastern Churches is the One of a personal nature. Only God is the one Personal God; that teaching from the Bible and that is also teaching the Eastern churches. Whereas in the Western Church of the One God is the essence of God is one. It is Greek philosophy, and that evidence of Hellenization that occurred in the Western Church. The Bible teaches God is personal and not the absolute existence (essence) that without the personal.

Eastern churches teach that salvation has been the result of merging with the Divine Human in Personal the Christ that one, by the Incarnation. So humans are called to "take part in the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4). Take part in the divine nature or "theosis" occurs because the alliance between the human person with a Personal God through the work of Jesus Christ. If the unity of God is the essence, the human community and God is no longer an alliance between the private individual, but the alliance or united with the essence of God, allied with the Essence-nature of God. Because only God himself who has Essence-nature of God or the essence of God, the man who allied themselves with God's essence and then have the essence of God and that means people become God himself. It became like teaching "pure Pantheism", a form of mysticism that can not be accepted by the Eastern Churches.

Western Church (Roman Catholic and Protestant) are often accused the eastern churches which teach mysticism pantheistic essence of God and the human essence melt into one as a result of rejection filioque inserts. Yet strangely, it was such a mystic, which disrupt the essence of God with the human essence, does not occur in the Eastern Churches, but occurred in the West for example in the case of Meister Eckhard, the Quakers (Society of Friends), Anabaptis, Black-Pentecostalism other. Rejection of the insertion of the word Filioque in the Nicene Creed by the Eastern Church precisely to prevent the entry of a false spiritualism mysticism as in the case of the groups mentioned above.

READING LIST
- Lukas Vischer (editor); Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ (Geneva, 1981)
- Philip Sherard; Church, Papacy and Schism (London, 1978)
- Ronald Robertson CSP, The Eastern Christian Churches (Rome, Edizioni Orientalia Christiana, 1999)
- Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church (Penguin, 1993)

Filioque, a problem for the Eastern and Western Church (2)

Addition of "filioque" seen as being dangerous by the Eastern churches. A document often referred to as "pseudo-Athanasius" (Latin: Quicunque Vult); that in the East rejected completely, both the content and origin of the St. Athanasius; contains the following: Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio: non factus; nec creatus; nec genitus (est); sed procedens "The Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son, not made neither created, not begotten, but proceeding."

From the sentence above, has clearly presupposes the existence of more than "one source of divinity". Inserting the word "Filioque", implies that the Holy Spirit that came out not only from the Father but also from the Son. If so then the Holy Spirit has two sources of origin: Father and Son. And we know that God is One God and Father (1 Corinthians 8:6). Father was only one and the "origin of all things", meaning there is only one source and there is only one point in the One God.

When the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son (Word) and then where lies the unity of God? Addition of "filioque" also causes characteristic of each hypostasis of the one God had become fuzzy or vague. If the Son / Word of God is begotten by the Father is also the source of the Holy Spirit as well as the Father, the Son therefore also have characteristic hypostasis of the Father, then He must also have the characteristic function of the divine source of "begetting the Word" and "proceeding the Holy Spirit ". Thus it will not make the Son / Word of God is not only "proceeding the Holy Spirit" but also "begat the Word"? Is not this leads to another word from the Word? Another word that is also then have the same nature with the nature of "word" has "begat Him", which is a source of the Holy Spirit and also begat another word, too, so there are continuously ad infinitum. As a result of this interpolation, the doctrine of the Trinity becomes a puzzle that strange, that can not be explained.

Formulation of Pseudo-Athanasius, that the three divine hypostasis is: et in hac trinitate nihil prius, aut posterius: nihil majus aut minus. Sed totae tres personae coaeternae sibi sunt et coaequales "and in this Trinity none is before or after another: no greater or less another, but the whole three persons are coeternal together and coequal" completely unnecessary. Because such assertion was originated from trinity framework that seems to separate from one another, so they require comparisons: great, less, or first, then. Concretely, if we understand in the context of His unity, it is not relevant to question Which is higher among the form of God, His Word or His Spirit? Thus, talking about the divine Logos and the Divine Life (Holy Spirit) in the Divine Substance, without causing counted The Eternal (Father) only confirms the aspects of the unity of God itself.

Filioque, a problem for the Eastern and Western Church (1)

The word "filioque" was added by the Western Church as a "fortress protector" of the threat of Arianism, was not clear when and where the insertion is done but at least, the Spanish Church has inserted "Filioque" in the third council of Toledo (589), if not before. From Spain, this inserts the word spread to France and from there to Germany, where it was well received by Karel the Great (Charlemagne), and adopted at the Semi-Iconoclastic council at Frankfurt (749). Great Karel also the first to start a controversy on the issue of "filioque" by accusing the Orthodox (Eastern Churches) as heretics because they say the Creed in its original form (the Creed of Nicea-Constantinople).

It is noteworthy, the Church of Rome (which is very unique with its conservative attitude) continue to use the Creed without interpolation "Filioque" to the beginning of the eleventh century. Even in the year 808, Pope Leo III wrote a letter to Karel the Great, in which stated that, although he personally believes that the Filioque is not doctrinally problematic, but he thought that was a mistake to change the words of the Confession of Faith. Pope Leo III and even then had to write the Creed without the Filioque on a silver plate and placed in the Church of St. Peter (St. Peter's Basilica).

In explaining the doctrine of the Trinity, orthodox churches in the East (whether it is leaning Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian) maintain that only one source of divinity, the form of God (metaphor: the Father). So about the eating of meat Sacrificed to idols: we know that "there is no idol in the world," and that "there is no God but one." Indeed, even though there are so-called gods in heaven and on earth (there are, to be sure, many "gods" and many "Lords"), yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom all things are and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and through whom we exist. (1 Corinthians 8:4-6, NAB)

Of one essence is eternal, the Word of God out before all ages (Divine Birth of the Son, John 1:1-3), and with it comes the Spirit of God, too. (John 15:26, "For just as the Father has life in himself, so also he gave to his Son the possession of life in himself.")

So, according to the Gospel text itself there is no parenthesis "and Son". Why the Eastern churches rejected without the slightest compromise on the interpolation "Filioque" is? Even when the Western church in 1439 in Ferrara insertion force "Filioque" as a condition for military aid against the Turks, why the Eastern churches still reject it, until they were then under the control of Islamic rule?

The Lost Years of Jesus, based on Jewish culture

Already too many theories and speculation that were written about the "lost years" in the life of Jesus. From the Apocrypha and pseudographa such as: Arabic Gospel of Infancy, Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, Gospel of Thomas; to The Lost Years of Jesus Revealed by Dr. Charles Francis Potter, Dead Sea Scrolls, A Preliminary Survey by Dupport Summer, The Lost Years of Jesus by Elizabeth Claire Prophet, James The Brother of Jesus, A Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls by Robert Einseman and other more.

Theories that appear in the books mentioned above really do not need to occur if we properly understand the culture and the Jewish religion, which became the background of the life of Jesus, "born of a woman who under the law" (Galatians 4: 4).

Then, why in the Gospels only told about his birth, the age of twelve, and jump directly to the age of thirty? If we follow the Jewish perspective, it is not something strange. According to Jewish culture, a new man may be taught in public at the age of thirty.

According to Jewish law, the age a child is classified into eight stages as follows:
1) Yeled, "the age of the baby"
2) Yonek, "age of nursing"
3) Olel, "older than the age of nursing"
4) Gemul, "age of weaned"
5) Taph, "age of toddlers begin to walk"
6) Ulem, "the kids"
7) Na'ar, "began to grow young"
8) Bahar, "teens"
Based on the classification of the above, then the New Testament, we only have 3 things written about Jesus, the baby's age (yeled), age of weaned (gemul), when he left the temple in front of Simeon and Anna; and adolescence (bahar, age of twelve) when Jesus was invited by Joseph and Mary to Jerusalem.

Then, why Jesus came at the age of twelve? The answer is because the age of twelve for the Jewish tradition of Jesus' time is very important. At that age, a boy must undergo a Jewish religious ceremony called Bar Mitzvah (son of Law). The basis of the Bar Mitzvah ceremony is a Jewish legend about Moses, who at the age of twelve left the house of Pharaoh's daughter. At the same age of the prophet Samuel that the voice of receiving divine vision; Solomon received wisdom of God and King Josiah received a vision of the great reform in Jerusalem.

At the ceremony the Jewish tradition, Jesus had to do 'Aliyah (up) and bemah (facing the pulpit to accept the yoke of the law). The ceremony is held on the Sabbath, and therefore are also called thepilin Sabbath. Bar Mitzvah age changes in the Middle Ages into the age of thirteen.

If we read the Sepher Gilgulim (a medieval Jewish literature), all Jewish children from the age of twelve began receiving ruah (spirit of wisdom) and at the age of twenty-one added to him nishama (reasonable soul). Since the age of twenty-one must enter the Jewish special school (Beyt Midrash). Stages to be served in Jewish education: Mikra (Torah reading) that started the age of five, Mishna starting age of ten, the Talmud at the age of thirteen (in the time of Jesus: age of twelve); Midrash at age to-twenty, and since the age of thirty only allowed to teach in public.

From all stages of Jewish education at the time of Jesus and see the background of Jewish religion and culture, the speculations about the missing 18 years in the life of Jesus had no historical basis at all.
The answer to the question "Where did Jesus at the age of twelve to the age of thirty?" it appears based on the data contained in the Gospels (Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3). Jesus' childhood life like the Jewish children in general and he and his family worked as a carpenter in Nazareth.

READING LIST
- David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary (Maryland, USA: Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc.., 1995)
- Dean Farrar, The Life of Christ (Melbourne: Cassel and Company Limited, 1906)
- Hayyim Halevy Donin, To Be A Jew. A Guide to Jewish Observance in Contemporary Life (Tel Aviv: Basic Book, 1991)

Theotokos, according to the Assyrian Church

The term Theotokos, which is used and applied to Mary, Mother of Jesus at the Council of Nicaea 325, has different meaning in each church. Greek term Theotokos, equalized or synchronized with a few terms: Mater Dei for Roman Catholic, Mother of God, Deipara, the birth giver for Christ, and others.

For the Assyrian Church, the term Theotokos, which if translated into Aramaic as 'Yaldath Alaha', a term that is not appropriate. The rejection by the Assyrian Church of the term 'Yaldath Alaha', which is the Syriac rendering of the Theotokos, was first raised officially in 612. Narsai, the leading scholar in the School of Nisibis and the former instructor of the school of Edessa, had discussed and rejected the term Yaldath Alaha because this term was nothing but "Mother of Godhead".

Assyrian Church saw that "Yaldath Alaha" is not the satisfactory rendering of the Greek term "Theotokos", though admittedly as the best available. As Protestants refused to use the term "Mater Dei", the term "Yaldath Alaha" is harder than that for an Assyrian to say it, because that term would mean "Mater Deitatis" or even "Mater Trinitatis", because the word 'Alaha'Is the common name to all three Persons of the Holy Trinity.

Nestorius (who from his name appears as Nestorian, for the people of Assyria) teaches that the unity of the God-man is a compound (such as in a marriage). Therefore, Nestorius against 'motherhood of Mary' as the 'Mother of God' (Theotokos), a title which is used since the time of Origen (died: 253 / 4). He argued that Mary is not the mother of Christ's divinity, but only from the nature of his humanity. In it implied a denial of the fullness of humanity of Jesus. It is impossible that the child born of Mary into the world is God. He preferred to use the term 'Christotokos'. He said: "I do not acknowledge God who was two or three months." He emphasizes the dual nature of self-nature of Christ, for his teachings contradict the teachings of Apollinaris who is seen as a pioneer of monophysitism teaching.

Christotokos for the Assyrian Church (although the term "Msikha" etymologically an equivalent word "Christ" in Greek), has a deeper meaning, not just a prophecy of the Messiah-King, but on the union of the two Natures (keyane: physis) and two qnume (hypostasis). Synod of Aqaq in 486 and the Synod of Yeshu-yabh in 585 distinguished, in their Syriac expression between the Greek term of prosopon to which they rendered the Syriac word parsopa i.e. person, and the Greek term for hypostasis to which they rendered the Syriac word Qenuma.

One more reason for rejection 'Yaldath Alaha' (Theotokos) for the Virgin Mary can be found at the Synod of Bishops in 612, which states that it is impossible that Godhead should be converted into Manhood, Manhood or into Godhead, for the essential being is not capable of change or suffering; and if the Godhead be changed, it is not a revelation, but an alteration of Godhead; and if Manhood be taken out of its nature, it is not the redemption, but the destruction of Manhood ... when we call Christ "perfect God," we do not mean the Trinity, but one of the Qnumi of the Trinity: God the Word.

The most interesting thing is when the Assyrian people (also called Dyophysites) questioned the term "Mother of God" to the Syrian Orthodox (sometimes called the Monophysites, a nickname that is considered insulting by them), "Why not Yaldath Msikha (Christotokos)? 'Yaldath Alaha'(Mother of Godhead) and 'Yaldath Barnasha'(Mother of Manhood) are alike objectionable; for the first omits, and may be taken as denying the humanity; and second fails adequately to recognize the divinity of our Redeemer. If one admitted, the other ought to be admitted too, but why not be content with the term that expresses both Natures? ".

READING LIST

- Aziz A. Atiya, A History of Eastern Christianity (London: 1968)
- Babai, Histoire de Mar-Jabalaha (ed. P. Bedjan; Paris: np, 1895)
- Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, sub voce, Nestorius (Tubingen, 1960)
- Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, sub voce, Assyrische Kirche (Tubingen, 1960)
- F. McLeod, Narsai's Metrical Homilies on the Nativity, Epiphany, Passion, Ressurection and Assension: Critical Edition of the Syriac Text (Patrologia Orientalists, Vol. 40.1.182; Turnhout: np, 1979)
- Synodicon Orientale (ed. JB Chabot; Paris: 1902)