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)
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
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.
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?
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?
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
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)
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)