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.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
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
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
Thursday, November 11, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)