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.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
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)
Friday, January 29, 2010
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)
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)
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
LITTLE NOTES ON CHRISTMAS (2)
So why is there a difference between the Christmas Day of Western Church (Roman and Protestant) and the Eastern Church? Actually, setting of the holiday feasts of the Church for the first time accurately counted in Egypt by an astronomer from the Coptic Church, his name is Batlimeus, which at the end of the second century AD make careful calculations on the order of al-Baba Dimitri, who served as Patriarch of Alexandria from the year 199-232 AD
Batlimous perform calculations based on the appearance of Siriuz star (Egyptian calendar was recognized by UNESCO as the most accurate calendar than any other calendar that never existed). At that time, the Roman Empire in the region use the Julian calendar (the renewal of Sosigenes, who came from Alexandria, Egypt) is calculated based on 700 years of the founding of Rome. At a later date (1582 AD), Pope Gregory of Rome modifying the Julian calendar which is called the Gregorian calendar in effect in the Western Church until now, but in the Eastern Churches still use the Julian calendar.
New problems that arise is the fact that the two calendars (Julian and Gregorian) BASED ON THE circulation of the Sun. Then there differences in the implementation of the calculation of Easter feast. Western Church who follow the Jewish Passover customs determined that the time of the celebration of Easter is right on the full moon in spring. In fact, the Jewish calendar is clearly different from the Gregorian calendar. Jewish calendar, which is BASED on the Moon circulation, has a number of days is only 354 days a year, so the difference with the Gregorian calendar by 10 days.
Therefore it on October 5, 1582 AD, the Gregorian calendar moved forward 10 days, then one day be eliminated in 1700, 1800 and 1900 AD to follow the rising full moon at Passover, as Jewish tradition. What happens then is the total difference in the celebration of Easter between the Western Church with the Eastern Churches to 13 days. This happens because the Eastern Church does not follow the tradition of the full moon at Easter. Eastern Church determined that the celebration of Passover always occurs on Sunday, does not care whether it occurs during a full moon or not, for guiding the Eastern Church is no longer the Jewish Passover, but Jesus himself, as recorded in 1 Corinthians 5:7, και γαρ το πασχα ημων εθυθη χριστος kai gar to pascha hēmōn etuthē Christos, “for Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.”
As mentioned earlier, the Egyptian calendar was made by Batlimous has set the birth of Jesus occurred on the 29th at Khiahk month, or on the 25th of the month Tebeth (Jewish calendar); then later on the basis of thirteen-day difference between the Western and Eastern Churches Easter celebration, then the Eastern Church has set a Christmas celebration for the Eastern Church was held on January 7, the difference is thirteen days from the date of December 25, which is Christmas Day for the Western Church.
Tenoo oasht emmok o piekhristos nem pekyot en aghathos nem pi epnevma ethowab je akee ak soati emmon nai nan
We worship You O Christ with Your Good Father and the Holy Spirit, for You have come and saved us.
READING LIST
* Iris Habib al-Misri, The Story of the Copts (Cairo: The Middle East Council of Churches)
* Markus Aziz Khalil, The Coptic Orthodox Church (Montreal, Canada: The Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate)
* The Modern Science of Astrology (London: UNESCO, 1966)
Batlimous perform calculations based on the appearance of Siriuz star (Egyptian calendar was recognized by UNESCO as the most accurate calendar than any other calendar that never existed). At that time, the Roman Empire in the region use the Julian calendar (the renewal of Sosigenes, who came from Alexandria, Egypt) is calculated based on 700 years of the founding of Rome. At a later date (1582 AD), Pope Gregory of Rome modifying the Julian calendar which is called the Gregorian calendar in effect in the Western Church until now, but in the Eastern Churches still use the Julian calendar.
New problems that arise is the fact that the two calendars (Julian and Gregorian) BASED ON THE circulation of the Sun. Then there differences in the implementation of the calculation of Easter feast. Western Church who follow the Jewish Passover customs determined that the time of the celebration of Easter is right on the full moon in spring. In fact, the Jewish calendar is clearly different from the Gregorian calendar. Jewish calendar, which is BASED on the Moon circulation, has a number of days is only 354 days a year, so the difference with the Gregorian calendar by 10 days.
Therefore it on October 5, 1582 AD, the Gregorian calendar moved forward 10 days, then one day be eliminated in 1700, 1800 and 1900 AD to follow the rising full moon at Passover, as Jewish tradition. What happens then is the total difference in the celebration of Easter between the Western Church with the Eastern Churches to 13 days. This happens because the Eastern Church does not follow the tradition of the full moon at Easter. Eastern Church determined that the celebration of Passover always occurs on Sunday, does not care whether it occurs during a full moon or not, for guiding the Eastern Church is no longer the Jewish Passover, but Jesus himself, as recorded in 1 Corinthians 5:7, και γαρ το πασχα ημων εθυθη χριστος kai gar to pascha hēmōn etuthē Christos, “for Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.”
As mentioned earlier, the Egyptian calendar was made by Batlimous has set the birth of Jesus occurred on the 29th at Khiahk month, or on the 25th of the month Tebeth (Jewish calendar); then later on the basis of thirteen-day difference between the Western and Eastern Churches Easter celebration, then the Eastern Church has set a Christmas celebration for the Eastern Church was held on January 7, the difference is thirteen days from the date of December 25, which is Christmas Day for the Western Church.
Tenoo oasht emmok o piekhristos nem pekyot en aghathos nem pi epnevma ethowab je akee ak soati emmon nai nan
We worship You O Christ with Your Good Father and the Holy Spirit, for You have come and saved us.
READING LIST
* Iris Habib al-Misri, The Story of the Copts (Cairo: The Middle East Council of Churches)
* Markus Aziz Khalil, The Coptic Orthodox Church (Montreal, Canada: The Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate)
* The Modern Science of Astrology (London: UNESCO, 1966)
Monday, January 18, 2010
LITTLE NOTES ON CHRISTMAS (1)
We just passed in December and for all human beings just passed the Christmas celebration. Most Christians celebrate Christmas Day on December 25, while others celebrated on January 6/7, for anyone to celebrate on January 13 (Armenia). The question that arises, why is there a difference on the celebration of Christmas?
Must be recognized that the determination of when the date of the birth of Jesus is certainly very difficult to do if not impossible. This is because in the canonical Gospels are not mentioned for sure, even when the apostles were still alive, they also never set a date of birth of Jesus much less to celebrate. That's why can be understood about the rejection of Christmas celebrations conducted by several parties (for example: Jehovah's Witnesses).
There is no clear trace of the Christmas festival before the fourth century; partly because the feast of the Epiphany (In general, this feast was the feast of the appearance of Christ in the flesh, and particularly of the manifestation of Jesus' Messiahship by His baptism in the Jordan River, the festival at once of His birth and His baptism. This feast spread from the East towards the West but when the East adopted from the West the Christmas festival, Epiphany was restricted to the celebration of the baptism of Christ, and made one of the three great reasons for administration of baptism.) in a measure held the place of it; partly because of birth of Christ, the date of which at any rate was uncertain, was less prominent in the Christian mind than His death and resurrection. It was of the Western (Roman) origin, and found its way to the East after the middle of the fourth century for John Chrysostom, in a Homily which was probably preached December 25, 386 AD, speaks of the celebration of the separate day of the Nativity as having been recently introduced in Antioch.
In the Bible, noted that the Angel Gabriel to meet Mary at 6 month after Elizabeth began to contain John the Baptist (Luke 1:26). As mentioned earlier, the historical record of the birth of John the Baptist announced by the angel, we just got in 386 AD from the writings of Church Fathers, John Chrysostom. According to Chrysostom, John the Baptist's birth notification occurs on the Feast of Tabernacle Tabernacle (Yom Kippur), which took place on the 10th of the month Tishri, when the priest Zechariah of the group's Abijah served in the Temple, Jerusalem.
Jewish calendar on the count of certain years have months to 13, so the month after the month of Tishri six may fall in the month Adar Syeni or Nisan. Therefore, the turn of service in the Temple by the priests as defined in the Torah to be shifted each year. This is very difficult and can not be used as a benchmark. But if we look at the Syrian Church traditions originating from the Mar Ephraim the Syrian, stated that the notice of the Angel Gabriel to Mary falls in the month of Nisan.
Church tradition is consistent with the record of John Chrysostom which calculates according to the Syro-Macedonians chronicle, that Mary received good news from the angel Gabriel (Annunciation of Christ) took place on March 25 (Syro-Macedonians: Xanthikos). Based on these calculations and then we get the birth of Jesus is on the 29th of the month Khiahk (this is recorded in the Coptic Didascalia Apostolorum, Khiahk is the fourth month of the Egyptian calendar), which is parallel to the 25th of the month Tebet (Tebet is the ninth month on the calendar Jew), or on December 25 in AD
READING LIST
* Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1964)
* Mar Ignatius Zakka I 'Iwas, At-Taufat ar-Ruhiyyat fii Ash-Shalat al-Fardhiyyat (Allepo: Dar Ar-Raha lin Nasyr, 1990)
* Markus Aziz Khalil, The Coptic Orthodox Church (Montreal, Canada: The Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate)
Must be recognized that the determination of when the date of the birth of Jesus is certainly very difficult to do if not impossible. This is because in the canonical Gospels are not mentioned for sure, even when the apostles were still alive, they also never set a date of birth of Jesus much less to celebrate. That's why can be understood about the rejection of Christmas celebrations conducted by several parties (for example: Jehovah's Witnesses).
There is no clear trace of the Christmas festival before the fourth century; partly because the feast of the Epiphany (In general, this feast was the feast of the appearance of Christ in the flesh, and particularly of the manifestation of Jesus' Messiahship by His baptism in the Jordan River, the festival at once of His birth and His baptism. This feast spread from the East towards the West but when the East adopted from the West the Christmas festival, Epiphany was restricted to the celebration of the baptism of Christ, and made one of the three great reasons for administration of baptism.) in a measure held the place of it; partly because of birth of Christ, the date of which at any rate was uncertain, was less prominent in the Christian mind than His death and resurrection. It was of the Western (Roman) origin, and found its way to the East after the middle of the fourth century for John Chrysostom, in a Homily which was probably preached December 25, 386 AD, speaks of the celebration of the separate day of the Nativity as having been recently introduced in Antioch.
In the Bible, noted that the Angel Gabriel to meet Mary at 6 month after Elizabeth began to contain John the Baptist (Luke 1:26). As mentioned earlier, the historical record of the birth of John the Baptist announced by the angel, we just got in 386 AD from the writings of Church Fathers, John Chrysostom. According to Chrysostom, John the Baptist's birth notification occurs on the Feast of Tabernacle Tabernacle (Yom Kippur), which took place on the 10th of the month Tishri, when the priest Zechariah of the group's Abijah served in the Temple, Jerusalem.
Jewish calendar on the count of certain years have months to 13, so the month after the month of Tishri six may fall in the month Adar Syeni or Nisan. Therefore, the turn of service in the Temple by the priests as defined in the Torah to be shifted each year. This is very difficult and can not be used as a benchmark. But if we look at the Syrian Church traditions originating from the Mar Ephraim the Syrian, stated that the notice of the Angel Gabriel to Mary falls in the month of Nisan.
Church tradition is consistent with the record of John Chrysostom which calculates according to the Syro-Macedonians chronicle, that Mary received good news from the angel Gabriel (Annunciation of Christ) took place on March 25 (Syro-Macedonians: Xanthikos). Based on these calculations and then we get the birth of Jesus is on the 29th of the month Khiahk (this is recorded in the Coptic Didascalia Apostolorum, Khiahk is the fourth month of the Egyptian calendar), which is parallel to the 25th of the month Tebet (Tebet is the ninth month on the calendar Jew), or on December 25 in AD
READING LIST
* Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1964)
* Mar Ignatius Zakka I 'Iwas, At-Taufat ar-Ruhiyyat fii Ash-Shalat al-Fardhiyyat (Allepo: Dar Ar-Raha lin Nasyr, 1990)
* Markus Aziz Khalil, The Coptic Orthodox Church (Montreal, Canada: The Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate)
Sunday, January 10, 2010
JESUS, GOSPEL AND LANGUAGES
One of the most unique and interesting of the gospel is the fact that since the beginning, the preaching of Jesus had begun in the midst of the world truly multiethnical and multilingual, which is in the Galilee region in the first century AD. The prophet Isaiah once called the ministry of Jesus as: "... but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan." (Isaiah 9:1, NIV). With a unique background is Christianity begins. Jesus himself, according to the experts are also able to speak in three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic and some Greek.
Hebrew and Aramaic has a close connection because it is a cognate language. There are a lot of the same word in both languages, as well as grammar, and syntax.
If seen from the history of the Bible, at the time of Abraham (± 1900 BC) could be said that both languages (Hebrew-Aramaic) are identical. In Deuteronomy 26:5, tells about Abraham: אֲרַמִּי אִבֵד אָבִי Arami obed Avî , “ My father was a wandering Aramean, ...". In its development (± 1100-722 BC) appears both languages separately. In the area of Jews in Palestine developed into Hebrew, while in the Aramaic kingdoms in Mesopotamia, as in Damascus, Zobah and Hamath appears Aramaic.
Hebrew (Classical) is used as an official language of the Kingdom of Israel until the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BC. While Aramaic continued to develop when the Assyrians back to controlled Mesopotamia territory(883-606 BC) that Aramaic became the official language of the kingdom. Aramaic is also used in the neighborhood of Babylon (606-539 BC) and continued later by the Persians (539-333 BC). The use of Aramaic became widespread so became the lingua franca of the Middle Eastern community (including the region of Galilee and Samaria), in addition to Greek and Latin used by the Roman Empire.
Unlike the Aramaic flourished, in the Hebrew language was so frozen decline to a mere "language of the sacred" or "language of liturgy" in the temple and also in the synagogues. Even at the time of Jesus, Aramaic was equated with the Hebrew language, regarded as a dialect of Hebrew of the Galilee. Aramaic language usage is more common in everyday social relationship with the distinguished from Hebrew (classical) which is used as a "rabbinical literary language" (otherwise known as the Mishnah Hebrew).
In the Aramaic language that Jesus spoke every day and teach His disciples. But when Jesus was about to read the Torah (Qeri'a ha-Torah) and the prophets (Nevi'im) in the synagogue, Jesus will read in Hebrew (Luke 4:18-20). As with the call of Jesus, Ελωι, Ελωι, λαμμα σαβαχθανι "Eloi, Eloi, lamma sabachthani?" (Mark 15:34) on the cross. The call comes from Psalm 22:1 which reads in Hebrew: Eli, Eli, lamah azabthani אלי אלי למה עזבתני, but spoken by Jesus does not take the Hebrew text, but comes from the Targum (the comments on the books of the Old Testament) in Aramaic. The call of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark itself is very close to the Syriac: Alohi, Alohi, l'mono shebachtheni. It is worthy of note, that a Hebrew MS. of the twelfth century, instead of עזבתני azabthani , Forsaken me, reads שכחתני shechachthani , Forgotten me.
The difficulty that comes later is that the canonical Gospels were written in Greek (not in Hebrew or Aramaic), a wider use throughout the Roman Empire, although there are data from the Fragment of Papias who said that Matthew wrote his gospel in the "Hebrew" . The Hebrew here is meant not the classical-rabbinical Hebrew language but "Hebrew dialect" which means Aramaic (cf. Matthew 26:73). And if this opinion is true, then more or less similar results with the Peshitta text, the Aramaic Gospels dating from the 2nd century AD, older than any existing Codex and used as the basis for the translation of modern Bibles.
Hebrew and Aramaic has a close connection because it is a cognate language. There are a lot of the same word in both languages, as well as grammar, and syntax.
If seen from the history of the Bible, at the time of Abraham (± 1900 BC) could be said that both languages (Hebrew-Aramaic) are identical. In Deuteronomy 26:5, tells about Abraham: אֲרַמִּי אִבֵד אָבִי Arami obed Avî , “ My father was a wandering Aramean, ...". In its development (± 1100-722 BC) appears both languages separately. In the area of Jews in Palestine developed into Hebrew, while in the Aramaic kingdoms in Mesopotamia, as in Damascus, Zobah and Hamath appears Aramaic.
Hebrew (Classical) is used as an official language of the Kingdom of Israel until the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BC. While Aramaic continued to develop when the Assyrians back to controlled Mesopotamia territory(883-606 BC) that Aramaic became the official language of the kingdom. Aramaic is also used in the neighborhood of Babylon (606-539 BC) and continued later by the Persians (539-333 BC). The use of Aramaic became widespread so became the lingua franca of the Middle Eastern community (including the region of Galilee and Samaria), in addition to Greek and Latin used by the Roman Empire.
Unlike the Aramaic flourished, in the Hebrew language was so frozen decline to a mere "language of the sacred" or "language of liturgy" in the temple and also in the synagogues. Even at the time of Jesus, Aramaic was equated with the Hebrew language, regarded as a dialect of Hebrew of the Galilee. Aramaic language usage is more common in everyday social relationship with the distinguished from Hebrew (classical) which is used as a "rabbinical literary language" (otherwise known as the Mishnah Hebrew).
In the Aramaic language that Jesus spoke every day and teach His disciples. But when Jesus was about to read the Torah (Qeri'a ha-Torah) and the prophets (Nevi'im) in the synagogue, Jesus will read in Hebrew (Luke 4:18-20). As with the call of Jesus, Ελωι, Ελωι, λαμμα σαβαχθανι "Eloi, Eloi, lamma sabachthani?" (Mark 15:34) on the cross. The call comes from Psalm 22:1 which reads in Hebrew: Eli, Eli, lamah azabthani אלי אלי למה עזבתני, but spoken by Jesus does not take the Hebrew text, but comes from the Targum (the comments on the books of the Old Testament) in Aramaic. The call of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark itself is very close to the Syriac: Alohi, Alohi, l'mono shebachtheni. It is worthy of note, that a Hebrew MS. of the twelfth century, instead of עזבתני azabthani , Forsaken me, reads שכחתני shechachthani , Forgotten me.
The difficulty that comes later is that the canonical Gospels were written in Greek (not in Hebrew or Aramaic), a wider use throughout the Roman Empire, although there are data from the Fragment of Papias who said that Matthew wrote his gospel in the "Hebrew" . The Hebrew here is meant not the classical-rabbinical Hebrew language but "Hebrew dialect" which means Aramaic (cf. Matthew 26:73). And if this opinion is true, then more or less similar results with the Peshitta text, the Aramaic Gospels dating from the 2nd century AD, older than any existing Codex and used as the basis for the translation of modern Bibles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)