Lately was the political upheaval in the region of North Africa. Tunisia, a country with a mix of Arab traditions and European traditions, which is so beautiful, a country very far from political turmoil, it suddenly occurred Tunisian society movement that asks the decline of the President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, who has ruled Tunisia for more than two decades. Jasmine Revolution, thus the title of the Tunisian people's movement, who overthrew President Ben Ali from his post even the president had to flee abroad. Until this very day the protests are still happening on the streets in the city of Tunis, Tunisia's capital, demanding the improvement of political rights and their economic welfare.
As expected, people's revolution in Tunisia spread to other nearby areas. Egypt, ancient country with a world cultural heritage that is so remarkable, is now also being churned. Egyptian society demonstrated in the streets of Cairo, the Egyptian capital, demanding the resignation of President Hosni Mubarak, who has ruled Egypt for three decades. Massive demonstrations that occurred in Tahrir Square in Cairo, spread to other areas such as Alexandria, Suez and Sinai. So far, President Hosni Mubarak was still able to maintain his position.
Something natural that a society who feel the political rights as well as their economies have been oppressed for so many years, and then ask for a significant change to their fate. The changes here are almost always assumed to be a change of regime. Similarly, which took place in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Syria and Jordan.
The concern here is from the five countries with Muslim majorities, the attitude of Christian minorities in each country. Moreover, Egypt has the largest Christian population in the Middle East region. Until now, not yet clear how the people of minorities in Tunisia and Egypt to be about political turmoil in their country. That should be a major concern for minorities in Tunisia and Egypt is who will hold the administration after the dictatorial regime collapsed because the fate of their religious freedom would depend on the new government.
There are several examples of how the democratization of a country is not in line with the implementation of human rights, particularly regarding freedom of religion and freedom to practice their religion. In India, democratic country with a majority Hindu but also has the second largest Muslim population in the world, the situation of minority Christians there are also not so good, especially in rural areas. Many of the Christians in the countryside who are pressured to convert, with the destruction of churches and Christian homes. Similarly, in Indonesia, a country with the world's largest Muslim population, after the fall of the Soeharto regime in 1998 ago, Indonesia proclaimed itself as the most democratic Muslim country in the world. Political rights enjoyed by the people of Indonesia, but not so with the right to freedom of religion.
From 1998 until now has hundreds of churches, especially in western Indonesia, which closed with the reason does not have permission to establish houses of worship of local government. Not to mention the church forcibly shut down by fundamentalist groups. Indonesian police almost never take action against the fundamentalists if attacked churches, unlike the case if they attack the discotheques and entertainment spots. In Indonesia, set up bars, discos and night entertainment spots easier than establishing a house of worship for minorities. Most recently was Iraq, the land of Babylon is also experiencing the same thing. Imposition of democracy by the United States in the region would lead to instability of security. Saddam Hussein with all its ugliness to some extent still providing security for minority Christians in the region, even a Christian such as Tariq Aziz was to be a minister in the government of Saddam. Now after the fall of Saddam Hussein, there is no security for the Christian minority in Iraq, so many of them leave their homeland to a foreign country after direct threats from al-Qaeda in Iraq which will attack the Christians in the entire Middle East region.
From the experience that has been passed by the Christian minority in many countries that run democracy and not always successful in preserving harmony among religious communities, it is worth waiting for developments in Tunisia and Egypt. Is Tunisia and Egypt could become a real democratic state (such as expectations of hypocritical countries: EU and U.S.) or even retreat to the back where intolerance and fundamentalism emerged. In Europe and the U.S. are able to apply for religious freedom in full with proof that Islam, as a minority religion can develop very quickly with no hindrance . The question is can the democracy like in Europe and the U.S. exported to other countries, especially in countries with majority Muslim?
“Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.” (James 1:12, NIV)
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
The Copts of Egypt
A 2010 New Year's Eve attack on the Coptic Orthodox Church in the city of Alexandria left 23 dead. A sad event in the midst of feelings of joy to welcome the coming new year 2011, a bomb rocked the front page of the Coptic Orthodox Church in the city of Alexandria when the Copts were holding mass. Muslim extremists suspected to be responsible for these terrible events.
Pondering the events that happened in Egypt, with a deep feeling of grief, raises a lot of memory. Egypt, a country with the Arab-Muslim majority, but in Egypt also has a largest Christian community in the Middle East region. Christians, a minority in Egypt with estimates-amount of 10-12%of the total population of Egypt. Of this amount, the Coptic (which means: The Egyptians) owns 95% of the total number of Christians in Egypt.
Historically, the word Copt is derived from the Greek word Aigyptos, Which was, in turn, derived from "Hikaptah", one of the names for Memphis, the first capital of Ancient Egypt. Kaptah means "House of the god Ptah", the god who is highly respected in the era of ancient Egypt. The modern use of the term "Coptic" describes Egyptian Christians. Christianity in Egypt by Saint Mark the Evangelist. According to tradition the Coptic Orthodox Church is the Church of Alexandria Which was established by Saint Mark the Apostle and evangelist in the middle of the 1st century (approximately AD 42). While the relationship between Muslim and Coptic race started from the marriage of Muhammad (Muslim prophet) with a Coptic girl named Maria (Maria al-Qibtiyya or Mary the Copt). Mariya al-Qibti can be regarded as a political gift of a Byzantine governor of Egypt, called al-Muqawqis (which is not completely clear or completely distance of its origin, although some have argued that it was Cyrus, Patriarch of Byzantium in Alexandria). Mary gave birth to a son Muhammad, Ibrahim bin Muhammad. Only one other wife of Muhammad, Khadijah who have died, have given the child. Ibrahim died while still in its infancy.
There is a statement based on the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad which states that "The Copts are the most precious among all the foreigners, the most friendly in his behavior, the best in quality and most familiar in kinship with the Arabs in general and the Quraysh (tribe origin of the Prophet Muhammad) in particular." Likewise, the sayings of the prophet to 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (the second caliph): "After my death, God will open Egypt to you. Therefore, carefully guard the Copts in the country because they are also relatives-brothers, and they are in your protection." Saying of Muhammad is presumably a reference to 'Amir ibn al-'Ås, leader of the Arab-Muslim armies conquered Byzantine power in Egypt. In turn, 'Amir ibn al-'Ås provide sufficient warm welcome in Alexandria for the Coptic Church Father who was a native of Benjamin, who had just returned from his flight at the desert monastery of North Egyptian territory. Copts, thus, were allowed to freely practice their religion and were to a large degree autonomous, provided they continued to pay a special tax, called "Gezya”, which qualifies them as "Ahl Zemma" protégés (protected). Individuals who cannot afford to pay this tax were faced with the choice of either converting to Islam or losing their civil right to be "protected", which in some instances meant being killed.
There is a tidal race between Coptic and Muslim governments. All depends on the Muslim leaders who should run the command of the Prophet Muhammad to treat Coptic people well. As the reign of al-Hakim ibn 'Amr Allah (996-975), forcing Christians to leave their religion through coercion (this broke the Qur'an: There is no compulsion in religion). Many churches were destroyed, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem burned. But others, such as during the reign of Ahmad ibn Tulun, al-Mu'izz and al-Zahir, the Coptic get better treatment.
The position of the Copts began to improve early in the 19th century under the stability and tolerance of Muhammad Ali's dynasty. The Coptic community ceased to be regarded by the state as an administrative unit and, by 1855 A.D., the main mark of Copts' inferiority, the "Gezya" tax was lifted under Khedive Sa’id administration, and shortly thereafter Copts started to serve in the Egyptian army. The 1919 A.D. revolution in Egypt, the first grassroots display of Egyptian identity in centuries, stands as a witness to the homogeneity of Egypt's modern society with both its Muslim and Coptic sects. Makram 'Ubayd, a Coptic politician in the era of the Egyptian national movement said: "By my religion I am a Christian, but according to my homeland I am a Muslim." Today, this homogeneity is what keeps the Egyptian society united against the religious intolerance of extremist groups, who occasionally subject the Copts to persecution and terror. As is known, in part late 1970s, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Egyptian schools of which appear to be supported by Khomeini, as a result of the success of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Bearded young men (called Abou Douhun) is widely held racial violence in the young Copts, as well as Ikhwanul Muslimin (Muslim Brotherhood). May the unity of Egypt with Coptic-Muslim elements can be maintained in an equal and harmonious relationship.
READING LIST
- Iris Habib al-Masri, The Story of the Copts, M.E.C.C., Beirut, 1978
- Phillip K. Hitti, The Origins of the Islamic State, Beirut, 1966
- The Coptic Encyclopedia (8 vols.), edited by Aziz Sourial Atiya, MacMillan, New York, 1989, provides a comprehensive coverage of the Coptic church, culture, and history.
Pondering the events that happened in Egypt, with a deep feeling of grief, raises a lot of memory. Egypt, a country with the Arab-Muslim majority, but in Egypt also has a largest Christian community in the Middle East region. Christians, a minority in Egypt with estimates-amount of 10-12%of the total population of Egypt. Of this amount, the Coptic (which means: The Egyptians) owns 95% of the total number of Christians in Egypt.
Historically, the word Copt is derived from the Greek word Aigyptos, Which was, in turn, derived from "Hikaptah", one of the names for Memphis, the first capital of Ancient Egypt. Kaptah means "House of the god Ptah", the god who is highly respected in the era of ancient Egypt. The modern use of the term "Coptic" describes Egyptian Christians. Christianity in Egypt by Saint Mark the Evangelist. According to tradition the Coptic Orthodox Church is the Church of Alexandria Which was established by Saint Mark the Apostle and evangelist in the middle of the 1st century (approximately AD 42). While the relationship between Muslim and Coptic race started from the marriage of Muhammad (Muslim prophet) with a Coptic girl named Maria (Maria al-Qibtiyya or Mary the Copt). Mariya al-Qibti can be regarded as a political gift of a Byzantine governor of Egypt, called al-Muqawqis (which is not completely clear or completely distance of its origin, although some have argued that it was Cyrus, Patriarch of Byzantium in Alexandria). Mary gave birth to a son Muhammad, Ibrahim bin Muhammad. Only one other wife of Muhammad, Khadijah who have died, have given the child. Ibrahim died while still in its infancy.
There is a statement based on the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad which states that "The Copts are the most precious among all the foreigners, the most friendly in his behavior, the best in quality and most familiar in kinship with the Arabs in general and the Quraysh (tribe origin of the Prophet Muhammad) in particular." Likewise, the sayings of the prophet to 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (the second caliph): "After my death, God will open Egypt to you. Therefore, carefully guard the Copts in the country because they are also relatives-brothers, and they are in your protection." Saying of Muhammad is presumably a reference to 'Amir ibn al-'Ås, leader of the Arab-Muslim armies conquered Byzantine power in Egypt. In turn, 'Amir ibn al-'Ås provide sufficient warm welcome in Alexandria for the Coptic Church Father who was a native of Benjamin, who had just returned from his flight at the desert monastery of North Egyptian territory. Copts, thus, were allowed to freely practice their religion and were to a large degree autonomous, provided they continued to pay a special tax, called "Gezya”, which qualifies them as "Ahl Zemma" protégés (protected). Individuals who cannot afford to pay this tax were faced with the choice of either converting to Islam or losing their civil right to be "protected", which in some instances meant being killed.
There is a tidal race between Coptic and Muslim governments. All depends on the Muslim leaders who should run the command of the Prophet Muhammad to treat Coptic people well. As the reign of al-Hakim ibn 'Amr Allah (996-975), forcing Christians to leave their religion through coercion (this broke the Qur'an: There is no compulsion in religion). Many churches were destroyed, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem burned. But others, such as during the reign of Ahmad ibn Tulun, al-Mu'izz and al-Zahir, the Coptic get better treatment.
The position of the Copts began to improve early in the 19th century under the stability and tolerance of Muhammad Ali's dynasty. The Coptic community ceased to be regarded by the state as an administrative unit and, by 1855 A.D., the main mark of Copts' inferiority, the "Gezya" tax was lifted under Khedive Sa’id administration, and shortly thereafter Copts started to serve in the Egyptian army. The 1919 A.D. revolution in Egypt, the first grassroots display of Egyptian identity in centuries, stands as a witness to the homogeneity of Egypt's modern society with both its Muslim and Coptic sects. Makram 'Ubayd, a Coptic politician in the era of the Egyptian national movement said: "By my religion I am a Christian, but according to my homeland I am a Muslim." Today, this homogeneity is what keeps the Egyptian society united against the religious intolerance of extremist groups, who occasionally subject the Copts to persecution and terror. As is known, in part late 1970s, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Egyptian schools of which appear to be supported by Khomeini, as a result of the success of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Bearded young men (called Abou Douhun) is widely held racial violence in the young Copts, as well as Ikhwanul Muslimin (Muslim Brotherhood). May the unity of Egypt with Coptic-Muslim elements can be maintained in an equal and harmonious relationship.
READING LIST
- Iris Habib al-Masri, The Story of the Copts, M.E.C.C., Beirut, 1978
- Phillip K. Hitti, The Origins of the Islamic State, Beirut, 1966
- The Coptic Encyclopedia (8 vols.), edited by Aziz Sourial Atiya, MacMillan, New York, 1989, provides a comprehensive coverage of the Coptic church, culture, and history.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
The Magi in Bethlehem
From where the origin of the Magi, who came to Bethlehem seeking the new born King?
No reliable tradition deals with these particular the country whence the Magi came. Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Epiphanius fancied that they came from Arabia, founding their opinion on the fact that "Gold, Frankincense and myrrh" abounded in Yemen. Justin Martyr in his book: Dialogue with Trypho (written around the year 154), says that the Magi who came from Arab lands:
And let this be a proof to you, namely, what I told you was done by the Magi from Arabia, who as soon as the Child was born came to worship Him, for even at His birth He was in possession of His power; ….
Origen held that they came from Chaldea, which is possible. But Clement of Alexandria, Diodorus of Tarsus, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and others are probably right in bringing them from Persia. From wherever they came from, what is clear is the Magi belonged to “Goyim” (Gentiles, "non-Jewish"). If the Jews await their Messiah according to the instructions of Scripture, then goyim peoples in its own way to know God who is worshiped by the people of Israel.
So, which one is right as the origin of the Magi who came to see Jesus in Bethlehem, Arabia or Persia? Actually no need to object to about this matter, because some Arab tribes (like the Jews), have been settled in the Persian Gulf region for a long time. In subsequent periods, quite a lot of Arab tribes in the Persian Gulf are then converted to Christianity. In the Assyrian tradition says that the Magi “were apparently Aramaic speaking, they could had come only from the kingdom of Urhai or Edessa.” If this is true then it makes sense when these wise men came to the Israeli-Palestinian territory, they can communicate well with local people because they also use Aramaic in daily life, language is also used by Jesus. Kingdom of Edessa, according to Roman sources included in the classification of "the tribes of Arabia." This can be known from Roman historical sources mention that the last king, King of Edessa Abgar V Uchomo reigned in the region called "ho tes Arabias phularxos" ("including local Arab tribes").
Thus, we need not look too far to the South as the origin of the Magi, but in the East (in accordance with the instructions of Scripture) in the North Arabian region around the Persian Gulf. Icons painting on the walls of the early Church indicate the type of clothing and headgear used by the Magi; resemble clothing worn by people of ancient Persia. There are local stories stating that when the Il-Khan Empire in the Persian converts to Islam, they do not destroy churches, that there is an icon painting of the Magi on the walls because they feel these iconic paintings are paintings of their ancestors.
While on their innate (gift) that "gold, frankincense and myrrh", do not have to go far to the south (Yemen) to obtain these items because at that time the Arab kingdom Nabataea, is a bustling place of commerce, so the Magi they can buy gold, frankincense and myrrh in Arabia Petraea (Nabataea), before entering the territory of Israel-Palestine. That the Magi came from Arab countries were in line with the offerings they bring gold, frankincense and myrrh (cf. Ezekiel 27:22, Jeremiah 6:20). Judging from the Biblical events, the Magi from Arabia showed that children Ishmael also participated in the banquet Messiah, judging from the offerings they bring it, “…they shall bring gold and frankincense, and shall proclaim the praises of the LORD” (Isaiah 60:6).
Merry Christmas 2010 and Happy New Year 2011 to you all. God bless you.
No reliable tradition deals with these particular the country whence the Magi came. Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Epiphanius fancied that they came from Arabia, founding their opinion on the fact that "Gold, Frankincense and myrrh" abounded in Yemen. Justin Martyr in his book: Dialogue with Trypho (written around the year 154), says that the Magi who came from Arab lands:
And let this be a proof to you, namely, what I told you was done by the Magi from Arabia, who as soon as the Child was born came to worship Him, for even at His birth He was in possession of His power; ….
Origen held that they came from Chaldea, which is possible. But Clement of Alexandria, Diodorus of Tarsus, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and others are probably right in bringing them from Persia. From wherever they came from, what is clear is the Magi belonged to “Goyim” (Gentiles, "non-Jewish"). If the Jews await their Messiah according to the instructions of Scripture, then goyim peoples in its own way to know God who is worshiped by the people of Israel.
So, which one is right as the origin of the Magi who came to see Jesus in Bethlehem, Arabia or Persia? Actually no need to object to about this matter, because some Arab tribes (like the Jews), have been settled in the Persian Gulf region for a long time. In subsequent periods, quite a lot of Arab tribes in the Persian Gulf are then converted to Christianity. In the Assyrian tradition says that the Magi “were apparently Aramaic speaking, they could had come only from the kingdom of Urhai or Edessa.” If this is true then it makes sense when these wise men came to the Israeli-Palestinian territory, they can communicate well with local people because they also use Aramaic in daily life, language is also used by Jesus. Kingdom of Edessa, according to Roman sources included in the classification of "the tribes of Arabia." This can be known from Roman historical sources mention that the last king, King of Edessa Abgar V Uchomo reigned in the region called "ho tes Arabias phularxos" ("including local Arab tribes").
Thus, we need not look too far to the South as the origin of the Magi, but in the East (in accordance with the instructions of Scripture) in the North Arabian region around the Persian Gulf. Icons painting on the walls of the early Church indicate the type of clothing and headgear used by the Magi; resemble clothing worn by people of ancient Persia. There are local stories stating that when the Il-Khan Empire in the Persian converts to Islam, they do not destroy churches, that there is an icon painting of the Magi on the walls because they feel these iconic paintings are paintings of their ancestors.
While on their innate (gift) that "gold, frankincense and myrrh", do not have to go far to the south (Yemen) to obtain these items because at that time the Arab kingdom Nabataea, is a bustling place of commerce, so the Magi they can buy gold, frankincense and myrrh in Arabia Petraea (Nabataea), before entering the territory of Israel-Palestine. That the Magi came from Arab countries were in line with the offerings they bring gold, frankincense and myrrh (cf. Ezekiel 27:22, Jeremiah 6:20). Judging from the Biblical events, the Magi from Arabia showed that children Ishmael also participated in the banquet Messiah, judging from the offerings they bring it, “…they shall bring gold and frankincense, and shall proclaim the praises of the LORD” (Isaiah 60:6).
Merry Christmas 2010 and Happy New Year 2011 to you all. God bless you.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus Christ
2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times. "
3 Therefore Israel will be abandoned until the time when she who is in labor gives birth and the rest of his brothers return to join the Israelites. (Micah 5:2-3)
The Birth of Jesus Christ of Mary in Bethlehem was not a coincidence of events, because the Torah, Psalms and the Book of Prophets over the centuries have foretold His coming. This belief is not a bouquet of Christians because it has proved the existence of the Jewish expectation of the coming Messiah, who will be born from the city of the ancient King of Israel.
In Micah 5:2-3, quoted above, Micah just recalling the prophecy of Isaiah concerning the coming of a Messiah, who will be born by a girl (עלמה 'almah) and will hold a עמּנוּאל 'immanuel (Isaiah 7:14). In his prophecy, Micah mentions clearly that the birthplace of the Messiah who was to come to Bethlehem Ephrata. Bethlehem (which means "house of bread"), is a city in Judah, the birthplace of King David (1 Samuel 16:4, Luke 2:11). The city is well known as the place of Rachel's tomb, the wife of Jacob the ancestors of Israel (Jeremiah 31:15, Luke 2:18).
The birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem was also confirmed in the writings of Jewish Rabbis before Christ, among others, Targum, Pirqe d'rabbi Eliezer, and the Rabbis later. While the commentary to "whose origins are from of old, from ancient times" וּמוֹצאתיו מקּדם מימי עוֹלם umotsataiu miqedem mimmei ‘olam, according to Targum Aramaic refers to the pre-existence of the Messiah. In the Mishnah states that as the incarnation Memra (Word of God) then "The Messiah existed before all creation."
In the Gospel of Luke says that the angels give glad tidings to the shepherds in the fields of Ephrata, that the Messiah had just been born in the city of David. If we use the Peshitta as a reference then Luke 2:11 is as follows:
ܐܶܬ݂ܺܝܠܶܕ݂ ܠܟ݂ܽܘܢ ܓ݁ܶܝܪ ܝܰܘܡܳܢܳܐ ܦ݁ܳܪܽܘܩܳܐ ܕ݁ܺܐܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܡܳܪܝܳܐ ܡܫܺܝܚܳܐ ܒ݁ܰܡܕ݂ܺܝܢ݈ܬ݁ܶܗ ܕ݁ܕ݂ܰܘܺܝܕ݂
‘Itiled lekon ge’ir yaumana Faruqa, di tauhi Marya Mashiha ba m’dintah d’Dawid.
for there is born for you to-day the Redeemer, who is the Lord the Meshicha, in the city of David.
Use of Peshitta above, are as language approach of the events that occurred in Bethlehem Ephrathah, where in the region ± 2000 years ago Aramaic / Syriac is the language of daily life. From the text we can see that title in Mar (Lord) used for Christ, was also used in Midrash Tehilim 110 applied to the King Messiah who will come. Degree: Marya Mashiha (Messiah the Lord) is also found in extra-canonical Jewish writings of the Psalms of Solomon 5:36, written about 50 years before the birth of Jesus.
3 Therefore Israel will be abandoned until the time when she who is in labor gives birth and the rest of his brothers return to join the Israelites. (Micah 5:2-3)
The Birth of Jesus Christ of Mary in Bethlehem was not a coincidence of events, because the Torah, Psalms and the Book of Prophets over the centuries have foretold His coming. This belief is not a bouquet of Christians because it has proved the existence of the Jewish expectation of the coming Messiah, who will be born from the city of the ancient King of Israel.
In Micah 5:2-3, quoted above, Micah just recalling the prophecy of Isaiah concerning the coming of a Messiah, who will be born by a girl (עלמה 'almah) and will hold a עמּנוּאל 'immanuel (Isaiah 7:14). In his prophecy, Micah mentions clearly that the birthplace of the Messiah who was to come to Bethlehem Ephrata. Bethlehem (which means "house of bread"), is a city in Judah, the birthplace of King David (1 Samuel 16:4, Luke 2:11). The city is well known as the place of Rachel's tomb, the wife of Jacob the ancestors of Israel (Jeremiah 31:15, Luke 2:18).
The birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem was also confirmed in the writings of Jewish Rabbis before Christ, among others, Targum, Pirqe d'rabbi Eliezer, and the Rabbis later. While the commentary to "whose origins are from of old, from ancient times" וּמוֹצאתיו מקּדם מימי עוֹלם umotsataiu miqedem mimmei ‘olam, according to Targum Aramaic refers to the pre-existence of the Messiah. In the Mishnah states that as the incarnation Memra (Word of God) then "The Messiah existed before all creation."
In the Gospel of Luke says that the angels give glad tidings to the shepherds in the fields of Ephrata, that the Messiah had just been born in the city of David. If we use the Peshitta as a reference then Luke 2:11 is as follows:
ܐܶܬ݂ܺܝܠܶܕ݂ ܠܟ݂ܽܘܢ ܓ݁ܶܝܪ ܝܰܘܡܳܢܳܐ ܦ݁ܳܪܽܘܩܳܐ ܕ݁ܺܐܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܡܳܪܝܳܐ ܡܫܺܝܚܳܐ ܒ݁ܰܡܕ݂ܺܝܢ݈ܬ݁ܶܗ ܕ݁ܕ݂ܰܘܺܝܕ݂
‘Itiled lekon ge’ir yaumana Faruqa, di tauhi Marya Mashiha ba m’dintah d’Dawid.
for there is born for you to-day the Redeemer, who is the Lord the Meshicha, in the city of David.
Use of Peshitta above, are as language approach of the events that occurred in Bethlehem Ephrathah, where in the region ± 2000 years ago Aramaic / Syriac is the language of daily life. From the text we can see that title in Mar (Lord) used for Christ, was also used in Midrash Tehilim 110 applied to the King Messiah who will come. Degree: Marya Mashiha (Messiah the Lord) is also found in extra-canonical Jewish writings of the Psalms of Solomon 5:36, written about 50 years before the birth of Jesus.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
'Aqedah Yitschaq, Eid Adhha according to the Jews.
Genesis 22:1-14 tells the story of the sacrifice of Isaac, son of Abraham, as a test of faith for Abraham. God asked Abraham to sacrifice his only begotten (son of the agreement) as a manifestation of faith and obedience to God. The incident happened at one of the hills in the land of Moriah. The New Testament also mentions this incident despite the small portions, as an exemplary example of faith and obedience to God, Hebrews 11:17 says, "By faith, being tested, Abraham offered up Isaac, and receiving the promises he was offering up the only begotten".
Similar story also appears in Muslim circles, with some striking differences. In the al-Quran verse letter as-Saffat 101-112 is told about the incident that the Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) received God's command to slaughter his own son as proof of his obedience to God. What distinguishes the narrative of the Koran with the Old Testament story is in the Koran does not mention the name of the son of Abraham who want sacrificed and the Koran also does not mention the scene of the incident, while the Old Testament clearly mention the name of Isaac as a son of Abraham that will be sacrificed and hill Moriah as the site of the event. Al-Quran only mentions the child as a forbearing boy (ghulamin Haleem). At the time then, silence from the Koran about who the children of Abraham who want to cause conflict of opinion sacrificed between Islamic scholars, though at present the majority of Muslims believe that Prophet who was sacrificed was Ishmael, and the scene of the incident is in Jabal Marwah (Mount Marwah) in Mecca, but that previous scholars and some companions of the Prophet Muhammad to support the version of Isaac. While Jews and Christians believe that Isaac is the child who will be sacrificed and Mount Moriah as the place of the event. Surprisingly, in the hills of Moria is still there Mosque "Qubatush Shakrah" (The Dome of the Rock) in front of the Masjid al-Aqsa, in which Jews perform the ritual celebration of 'Aqedah Yitschaq during the Jewish New Year (Rosh Hashanah) each date 1 month Tishri.
In Judaism, commemorating the sacrifice of Isaac on Mount Moriah is not just a celebration that is a mere memorial, but contains the meaning of "redemption" (kafarot) for Jews. In Mekhilta, (a collection of rabbinic legal interpretation, Jewish rabbis) identifies 'aqedah Yitschaq to "sacrifice the Passover lamb", this event is prefiguration from the time of the Messiah a descendant of Abraham, who would come to atone for sin. While similar celebrations in Islam, called Eid al-Adhha, only a warning of past events, does not contain the meaning of "redemption" (kaffarat), although it held a large scale in the Hajj season.
n the Christian faith, the celebration of 'Aqedah Yitschaq not held because according to Christian belief, the Messiah who was to look forward, has come. Jesus, the "Passover Lamb" had been sacrificed on Mount Calvary to atone for our sins once for all. Golgotha, is geographically located adjacent to Mount Moriah. Even in the Mount Moriah there are historic sites of "Church of the Holy Sepulchre", which the Arab Christians referred to as Kanisah al-Qiyamah (The Church of the Resurrection of Jesus). In the Christian view, not 'Aqedah Yitschaq again being celebrated, but the sacrament of the Eucharist (Holy Communion), in remembrance of the Last Supper, in which the Body and Blood of Christ shed to atone for the sins of mankind.
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.
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)