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)
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Thursday, May 20, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, April 16, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, April 12, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
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)
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.
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)