MYSTAGOGY

The Weblog Of John Sanidopoulos

BannerFans.com
  • Home
  • ABOUT
  • SAINTS & FEASTS
  • RESOURCES
  • BOOKSTORE
  • DONATE
Loading...

MYSTAGOGY

MYSTAGOGY
My Photo
J.Sanidopoulos
This weblog offers insights and analysis on various matters of life and thought from a 21st century Orthodox Christian perspective, among other things.
View my complete profile
http://www.facebookloginhut.com/facebook-login/ http://www.facebookloginhut.com/facebook-login/

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Support Mystagogy

Mystagogy relies on your financial support to continue and to expand. We hope you value what is offered here. If so, please show your support with either a one-time donation or a monthly subscription by clicking here: DONATE

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (366)
    • ►  June (40)
    • ►  May (71)
    • ►  April (67)
    • ►  March (77)
    • ►  February (9)
    • ►  January (102)
  • ►  2012 (1047)
    • ►  December (99)
    • ►  November (59)
    • ►  October (69)
    • ►  September (58)
    • ►  August (74)
    • ►  July (116)
    • ►  June (121)
    • ►  May (125)
    • ►  April (138)
    • ►  March (96)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (89)
  • ►  2011 (1427)
    • ►  December (60)
    • ►  November (65)
    • ►  October (84)
    • ►  September (63)
    • ►  August (107)
    • ►  July (40)
    • ►  June (133)
    • ►  May (161)
    • ►  April (198)
    • ►  March (174)
    • ►  February (161)
    • ►  January (181)
  • ▼  2010 (2462)
    • ►  December (221)
    • ►  November (211)
    • ►  October (149)
    • ►  September (200)
    • ►  August (187)
    • ►  July (209)
    • ►  June (170)
    • ►  May (199)
    • ►  April (236)
    • ►  March (240)
    • ▼  February (227)
      • Anthropomorphisms of God In Scripture
      • "If Palamas Is A Saint, Then Let Him Drown Us"
      • Saint Gregory Palamas and His Family
      • The Significance of Gregory Palamas for Orthodoxy
      • "You Feed on Men's Flesh and Blood"
      • Influence of the Russian Liturgy (1904)
      • Sermon for the Second Sunday of Great Lent
      • The Novel Ascetic Feat of Thalelaios the Cilician
      • The Baptism and Martyrdom of the Comedic Actor Gel...
      • Sinners Are Without Reality and Without Mind
      • Why Psychiatry Needs Therapy
      • Greek Orthodox Fasting Cleanses Body and Soul
      • Exotic Birds Play a Good Missionary Role
      • Orthodox American Figure Skater Wins Olympic Gold ...
      • The Strange Church of St. Photini in Mantinea
      • Saint John Kalphes the Neomartyr
      • Divine Liturgy Etiquette
      • $1000 If You Name Your Child Muhammad
      • Liberals and Atheists Smarter?
      • A Biochemical Link Between Misery and Death?
      • Sermon for the Friday of the Second Week of Great ...
      • Greek Crisis Is More Spiritual Than Economic
      • World's Oldest Joke Book (4th cent.)
      • Saint Tarasios and the Death of Emperor Leo V
      • Should We Promote Faithlessness in Our Churches?
      • The Ascetic Makarios and Nikos Kazantzakis
      • On Genuine Theology: The Science of Sciences
      • Richard Dawkins And His Faithful Followers
      • Atheists Challenge Darwinism
      • The West Initiated the Dissolution of Greece
      • The Use of Candles in the Orthodox Church
      • Cross Appears in the Skies of Russia
      • Why Do Orthodox Constantly Seek God's Mercy?
      • Explaining Away Jesus’ Resurrection: Hallucination...
      • 1st and 2nd Finding of the Head of John the Baptis...
      • Patriarch Kirill Meets With Greek Prime Minister
      • Prayer & Song for China: St. Nikolai Velimirovich
      • Temple In Turkey Predates Egyptian Pyramids
      • "St. Seraphim of Sarov": Russian Cartoon with Gree...
      • Many Confess, Few Repent
      • Scientific Dictatorships: Aldous Huxley in 1962
      • The Right Hand of Saint Polycarp of Smyrna
      • Saint Polycarp, the Friend of the Apostles
      • To Be A Fool For Christ's Sake
      • Amazing Facts You Never Knew About Yourself
      • Vatican’s WWII Identity Crisis
      • Archaeologist Uncovers Support for King Solomon
      • Orthodoxy and the Russian Armed Forces
      • The Ascetics of Karoulia on Mount Athos
      • The Root Issues of Western Scholasticism
      • Nine Righteous Children Martyrs of Kola
      • Finding of the Relics of Apostles and Martyrs at E...
      • Metropolitan Nicholas Responds to Elton John
      • There Was No "Byzantine" Empire
      • About Fasting and Prayer
      • Fasting Reduces Bad Cholesterol
      • Presidents and the Paranormal
      • TV's Scary Turn
      • Save the Department of Byzantine and Modern Greek ...
      • Top 5 Science Conspiracies, Theories and Hoaxes
      • Is Your Bod Flawed by God?
      • On the Rarity of Brave People Today
      • What Difference Does God Make Today?
      • What is Fortune Telling?
      • Islamic Child Preacher on Egyptian TV
      • Christian Zionism Not Part Of Christian Tradition
      • On the Sunday of Orthodoxy: St. Luke of Crimea
      • The Synodikon of Orthodoxy
      • Sermon for the First Sunday of Great Lent
      • Saint Tikhon: Sermon on the Sunday of Orthodoxy
      • "On The Church" by Fr. John Romanides
      • Are Holy Icons ‘Idols’?
      • Sermon for the First Friday of Great Lent
      • 34 Holy Martyrs of Valaam Monastery
      • A Strange Custom Related to St. Theodore the Tyro
      • Lyudmila Yanukovich – Godmother of Forty Orphans
      • Three Little Bops: A Warner Brothers Conspiracy?
      • Three Miraculous Athonite Akathist Icons
      • The Philanthropy of Saint Philothei the Athenian
      • Woods Apology Clinton-esque
      • Elton John: 'Jesus was a compassionate, super-inte...
      • "Obedience" by St. Nikolai Velimirovich
      • Codex Sinaiticus Controversy Resolved
      • Wife of Televangelist Benny Hinn Files for Divorce...
      • Dumped But Dispassionate
      • Five Rare Icons Stolen in 1978 Return to Greece
      • A Challenge to Anti-Dialogue 'Fanatics'
      • Defense of Bishop Artemije of Kosovo
      • Religion Among the Millennials
      • Health Benefits of Fasting Seen in Dolphins
      • Sexual Reorientation Therapy: An Orthodox Perspect...
      • "Three Hermits" by Leo Tolstoy
      • Fusing Orthodox and Pentecostal Worship???
      • The Basis of the Acceptance of the Tome of Leo
      • The Strange Teachings of Muhammad
      • Naturalism’s Moral Foundations
      • Skull of St. Bridget Probably Not Authentic
      • The Triumph of Orthodoxy in the Fifth Century
      • A Peaceful Soul Generates a Pure Heart
      • The Gift of Faith and Truth Belongs to the Humble
      • Testimony Regarding Tattoos
      • Russian Cartoon About the Tikhvin Mother of God Ic...
      • Panegyric to Great Martyr Theodore the Tyro
      • Icon of the Mother of God "Tikhvin" on Mt Athos
      • Fr. John Karastamatis' Murderer Denied Parole
      • Myrrh Flows From Icon of St. Evgeny Rodionov
      • Orthodox Cross to be Planted at Southernmost Point...
      • Global Warming Honcho Finally Fesses Up
      • PNAS: Free Will Into the Dumpster
      • Evolution A Fact?
      • Pews vs. Standing: An Orthodox Controversy
      • The Russian Orthodox Church's Growing Power
      • Relations Between Greece and Russia
      • Bulgarian Orthodox Online TV Launched
      • Christ the Artist
      • Sermon for the First Wednesday of Great Lent
      • The Wood Carved Statue of St. George in Kastoria
      • The Health Benefits of Fasting
      • Historical Inaccuracies of the Movie "AGORA"
      • Poll Results for Most Blasphemous Movie
      • St. Nikolai Velimirovich on Fasting
      • Saint Anthimos of Chios (+1960)
      • Clean Monday and It's Traditional Observance
      • Climategate U-Turn's
      • Greece Shows Euro Isn’t Working
      • Study Shows Abstinence Education Works
      • Elder Ephraim of Katounakia
      • "Forgiveness": A Poem by St. Nikolai Velimirovich
      • On Adam's Lament
      • St. Theodore the Studite: Cheesefare Sunday
      • Sunday of Forgiveness: Cheesefare Sunday
      • The Protestant Canon Refuted
      • Cheesefare Saturday: The Ascetic Fathers and Mothe...
      • Saints Martinian the Righteous, With Zoe and Photi...
      • Saint Symeon the Myrrhgusher of Serbia
      • Life Lessons from a Pencil
      • Priest Suspected of Thefts at Monasteries
      • More Russians to Observe Great Lent
      • Heartfelt Appeal to All Romanian Orthodox Abroad
      • Rehabilitating the Memory of Saint Valentine
      • Who Said Orthodox Don't Know How To Party...
      • Greece is NWO Test Ground
      • Trivialization Nation: Are We Devaluing Our Values...
      • Septuagint vs. Masoretic: Which Is More Authentic?...
      • Monotheism and the Origin of Religion
      • Why Christians Are Leaving the Middle East
      • The "Beautiful Dolls" of St. Theodora the Empress
      • 38 Year Old Hindu Converts to Orthodoxy
      • Orthodoxy and Hollywood
      • Saint Theodora the Empress
      • Mixed Martial Arts Champion is a Pious Orthodox
      • Orthodox Liturgical Courtesy to Catholics in the 1...
      • Byzantine-era Street Uncovered In Jerusalem
      • 4th Century Icon of St. Agnes in Rome
      • Shedding Light on the Catacombs of Rome
      • Saint Haralambos and the Demon Possessed
      • Money Can't Buy Happiness...
      • St. Haralambos and the Sacrifice of the Bull
      • Miracle of Saint Haralambos in Filiatra (1943)
      • Paradise and Hell In the Orthodox Tradition
      • Unbelief and the Indifference in Religion
      • That There Are No Contradictions in Holy Scripture...
      • Holy Martyr Nikephoros of Antioch
      • St. Peter of Damascus: Eight Types of Knowledge
      • Elder Paisios' Last Day At the Hospital
      • Fear Evil Like Fire
      • Haitian May Have Survived 4 Weeks in Rubble
      • Two Experiences of Death
      • Greeks in Present-Day Istanbul
      • Contemporary Greece and Westernization
      • Obama's Favorite Theologian: Reinhold Niebuhr
      • The Conundrum of the Parthenon Marbles
      • The Great Martyr Theodore Stratelates
      • Prophet Zechariah the Sickle-Seer
      • Saint Seraphim of Sarov: On Despair
      • Elder Ephraim of Philotheou: On Temptations
      • The Childhood Fasting of Hosios Loukas
      • Hosios Loukas and His Monastery
      • G. K. Chesterton on Religion and Darwinism
      • Angels Appear on Icon to Children in Ukraine
      • Meatfare Sunday: Sunday of the Last Judgment
      • The Sacrifice of Christ as "Expiation"
      • Roots of African Americans
      • Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in Kalamata
      • Counsels of Sts. Barsanuphius the Great and John t...
      • Critique of Francis Dvornik's "The Photian Schism"...
      • Saturday of Souls
      • Preview of "A Pilgrim's Way" Orthodox Documentary
      • Primordial Soup? Would You Believe...
      • Are Chimps and Humans Really All That Much Alike?
      • Fr. Dumitru Staniloae - Christianity, Science, Phi...
      • LOVE VERSUS FEAR: The Uniqueness of the Orthodox M...
      • Academic Theology is Not Enough for Salvation
      • Egypt Restores St. Anthony's Monastery
      • Sin Is a Fearful Evil, But Not Incurable
      • Ouija Boards Sold as "Toys" - A Good Idea?
      • Benjamin Creme's "Metreiya" is an Unwilling Messia...
      • The Feeling of Fear in Chinese Society
      • A Familiar Image of Orthodoxy in Turkey
      • St. Isidore of Pelusium: On Evil Thoughts
      • On How You Cannot Argue With an Ignorant Person
      • We Ought To Repent for the Sins of Others
      • Elder Paisios and the Pornographer
      • Father Arseny: Fact or Fiction?
      • Where St. Nicholas Planas Liturgized Daily
      • "The Century of the Self" Documentary
      • Ecumenism and Schismatic Old Calendarism
      • The Missionary Example of Saint Nicholas of Japan
      • A Miracle of St. Symeon the God-Receiver
      • Parole Hearing of Fr. John Karastamatis
      • Russian Church to Appoint 400 Priests as Military ...
      • Russian and Catholic Churches Agree on Contemporar...
      • Russian Church Opened 900 New Parishes in 2009
      • Truth or Dare with Dr. Ken Miller
      • The Myth of Byzantine Caesaropapism
      • The Ritual Purification of Women in Leviticus and ...
      • Does the Pure One Have Need of Purification?
      • St. Sophronius of Jerusalem's Candlemas Sermon
      • Origins of the Feast of the Presentation of Christ...
      • St. Mark of Ephesus Trampling the Pope
      • Papism: The Insurmountable Obstacle of Christian U...
      • Rhythms of a Trebizond Pilgrimage
      • Serbian Patriarch Apologizes to Muslims
      • The Newly-Revealed Four Martyrs of Megara
      • The Veneration of St. Tryphon in the Roman Empire
      • Sts. Perpetua, Felicitas and Those With Them
      • Saint Brigid (Bridget) of Ireland
    • ►  January (213)
  • ►  2009 (874)
    • ►  December (160)
    • ►  November (124)
    • ►  October (140)
    • ►  September (116)
    • ►  August (86)
    • ►  July (97)
    • ►  June (60)
    • ►  May (42)
    • ►  April (49)

Topics

  • Abortion (1)
  • Alexandros Papadiamandis (1)
  • Almsgiving (4)
  • America (156)
  • Angels (52)
  • Anglicans (3)
  • Annunciation (2)
  • Anthony the Great (3)
  • Anthropology (23)
  • Antiochian Archdiocese of America (10)
  • Apocrypha (1)
  • Apologetics (81)
  • Apostles and Early Church (164)
  • Art (41)
  • Athanasius the Great (3)
  • Atheism-Agnosticism-Skepticism (207)
  • Augustine of Hippo (4)
  • Balkans and Russia (61)
  • Basil the Great (3)
  • Bible (41)
  • Bible Difficulties (1)
  • Biblical and Christian Archaeology (11)
  • Biblical and Christian Archeology (94)
  • Biblical Criticism (30)
  • Bioethics (1)
  • Byzantine Music (1)
  • C.S. Lewis (2)
  • Calendar Issue (3)
  • Canon Law (36)
  • Catholicism and Papacy (158)
  • Celtic Saints (1)
  • Childless Mothers (1)
  • Christian Living (172)
  • Christology (63)
  • Church and Society (1)
  • Church History (50)
  • Climate Change (1)
  • Conspiracies (93)
  • Constantine the Great (5)
  • Coptic Church (44)
  • Cross (91)
  • Cults (83)
  • Cyril and Methodios (1)
  • Cyril Loukaris (1)
  • Cyril of Jerusalem (1)
  • Demetrios of Thessaloniki (2)
  • Demonology (7)
  • Desert Fathers (12)
  • Divine Liturgy (8)
  • Divorce (5)
  • Documentaries (9)
  • Dormition Fast (35)
  • Ecclesiology (86)
  • Ecumenical Patriarchate (158)
  • Ecumenical Synods (7)
  • Ecumenism (106)
  • Elder Aimilianos of Simonopetra (2)
  • Elder Cleopa of Romania (2)
  • Elder Ephraim Katounakiotis (2)
  • Elder Epiphanios Theodoropoulos (2)
  • Elder Eusebius Yiannakakis (1)
  • Elder Iakovos of Evia (1)
  • Elder Paisios the Athonite (34)
  • Elder Porphyrios (7)
  • Elder Sophrony of Essex (6)
  • Entrance of the Theotokos (2)
  • Ephraim of Nea Makri (1)
  • Ephraim the Syrian (2)
  • Eschatology/Death (181)
  • Ethical and Moral Issues (70)
  • Europe (85)
  • Events (14)
  • Family and Parish (81)
  • Famous People (6)
  • Fasting (5)
  • Feasts of the Church (95)
  • Fr. George Florovsky (4)
  • Fr. George Metallinos (1)
  • Fr. John Romanides (7)
  • Fr. Seraphim Rose (1)
  • Freemasonry (1)
  • Funny (48)
  • George the Great Martyr (6)
  • Globalization (1)
  • God (69)
  • Gothic and Horror (38)
  • Great Lent (9)
  • Great Lent and Holy Week (333)
  • Greece and Greeks (213)
  • Greek Archdiocese of America (GOA) (66)
  • Gregory of Nyssa (1)
  • Gregory Palamas (9)
  • Gregory the Theologian (2)
  • Hagia Sophia (8)
  • Halki Seminary (2)
  • Halloween (5)
  • Happiness (1)
  • Health (1)
  • Health and Creation (138)
  • Heresy (102)
  • Holidays (17)
  • Holy Light (1)
  • Holy Matrimony (2)
  • Holy Mysteries (Sacraments) (142)
  • Holy Unction (1)
  • Holy Week (27)
  • Homosexuality (2)
  • Iconography (293)
  • Isaac the Syrian (3)
  • John Chrysostom (6)
  • John Climacus (2)
  • John the Baptist (10)
  • Judging (1)
  • Justin Popovic (1)
  • Lay Holiness (2)
  • Literature (28)
  • Literature and Book Reviews (89)
  • Liturgics (93)
  • Logic / Reason (1)
  • Luke of Crimea (2)
  • Mariology (274)
  • Marital and Relationship Issues (97)
  • Maximus the Confessor (2)
  • Maximus the Greek (2)
  • Medieval History and Theology (58)
  • Meteora (3)
  • Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos (21)
  • Middle East (55)
  • Miracles (454)
  • Missions (105)
  • Modern Saints and Elders (537)
  • Modernity (30)
  • Monasticism (129)
  • Monk Moses the Athonite (6)
  • Moral Stories (2)
  • Moscow Patriarchate (1)
  • Mothers (2)
  • Mount Athos (312)
  • Movies (132)
  • Music (112)
  • My Family and Friends (25)
  • My Writings (1)
  • N.T. - Acts of the Apostles (2)
  • N.T. - Colossians (1)
  • N.T. - John (4)
  • N.T. - Luke (1)
  • N.T. - Mark (6)
  • N.T. - Matthew (4)
  • N.T. - Revelation (1)
  • N.T. 1 Corinthians (1)
  • N.T. 1 Timothy (1)
  • N.T. Hebrews (1)
  • N.T. Luke (3)
  • Nationalism (6)
  • Nativity and Theophany (234)
  • Nektarios of Aegina (6)
  • Neomartys Under Turks (11)
  • New England (19)
  • New Martyrs Under Turks (2)
  • New Testament (181)
  • New Testament Exegesis (7)
  • Newly-Revealed Saints (3)
  • Nicholas of Myra (8)
  • Nicolae Steinhardt (3)
  • Nikephoros the Leper (2)
  • Nikodemos the Hagiorite (2)
  • Nikolai Velimirovich (8)
  • O.T. - Genesis (1)
  • Old Testament (150)
  • Old Testament Exegesis (9)
  • Oriental Orthodox (2)
  • Orthodox Church In America (OCA) (13)
  • Orthodox Converts (101)
  • Orthodox Diaspora (10)
  • Orthodox Extremism (150)
  • Orthodox Theologians (66)
  • Orthodoxy (39)
  • Orthodoxy in Abkhazia (1)
  • Orthodoxy in Africa (64)
  • Orthodoxy in Albania (13)
  • Orthodoxy in America (142)
  • Orthodoxy in Armenia (18)
  • Orthodoxy in Asia (46)
  • Orthodoxy in Asia Minor (171)
  • Orthodoxy in Australia (6)
  • Orthodoxy in Bulgaria (99)
  • Orthodoxy in Crete (8)
  • Orthodoxy in Cyprus (100)
  • Orthodoxy in Czech Republic (1)
  • Orthodoxy in Estonia (3)
  • Orthodoxy in Ethiopia (8)
  • Orthodoxy in Finland (2)
  • Orthodoxy in France (1)
  • Orthodoxy in Georgia (71)
  • Orthodoxy in Germany (1)
  • Orthodoxy in Greece (458)
  • Orthodoxy In Holy Land (22)
  • Orthodoxy In Israel (140)
  • Orthodoxy in Italy (3)
  • Orthodoxy in Kazakhstan (1)
  • Orthodoxy in Latin America (2)
  • Orthodoxy in Lebanon (1)
  • Orthodoxy in Macedonia (16)
  • Orthodoxy in Mainland Greece (6)
  • Orthodoxy in Moldava (4)
  • Orthodoxy in Poland (2)
  • Orthodoxy in Romania (88)
  • Orthodoxy in Russia (416)
  • Orthodoxy in Serbia (140)
  • Orthodoxy in Syria (7)
  • Orthodoxy in the Cyclades (4)
  • Orthodoxy in the Dodecanese (12)
  • Orthodoxy in the Ionian Islands (3)
  • Orthodoxy in the Saronic Islands (2)
  • Orthodoxy in Thessaloniki (2)
  • Orthodoxy in Ukraine (60)
  • Orthodoxy in Uzbekistan (2)
  • Orthodoxy in Western Europe (73)
  • Ottoman Occupation (7)
  • Paganism and the New Age Movement (98)
  • Panteleimon the Martyr (1)
  • Paranormal and the Occult (198)
  • Pascha and the Pentecostarion (256)
  • Patriarchate of Alexandria (1)
  • Patriarchate of Antioch (5)
  • Patriarchate of Russia (1)
  • Patristic Writings (16)
  • Patristics (325)
  • Pentecostalism (4)
  • Personhood (1)
  • Philanthropy (11)
  • Philosophy (82)
  • Photios Kontoglou (3)
  • Photis Kontoglou (1)
  • Pneumatology (3)
  • Podcast (2)
  • Politics (143)
  • Polls (2)
  • Pop Culture (54)
  • Postmodernism (6)
  • Prayer (4)
  • Prayer / Fasting / Alms (159)
  • Priesthood (10)
  • Prison Ministry (6)
  • Prophecies (56)
  • Protestantism (120)
  • Psychology (73)
  • Religion (85)
  • Religion: Buddhism (19)
  • Religion: Hinduism (41)
  • Religion: Islam (185)
  • Religion: Jews and Judaism (58)
  • Repentance and Confession (3)
  • Roman (Byzantine) Empire (203)
  • Romiosini (35)
  • Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) (6)
  • Saint Nicholas (4)
  • Saints (847)
  • Saints of Africa (1)
  • Saints of America (3)
  • Saints of Crete (8)
  • Saints of Georgia (4)
  • Saints of Ionian Islands (8)
  • Saints of Lesvos (1)
  • Saints of Mainland Greece (16)
  • Saints of Mount Athos (9)
  • Saints of Patmos (1)
  • Saints of Romania (3)
  • Saints of Russia (9)
  • Saints of Scotland (2)
  • Saints of Serbia (4)
  • Saints of the Cyclades (2)
  • Saints of the Dodecanese (2)
  • Saints of the Holy Lnd (1)
  • Saints of Ukraine (5)
  • Scandal (56)
  • Science (2)
  • Science-Intelligent Design-Darwinism (249)
  • Secularism (97)
  • Seraphim of Sarov (2)
  • Sexual and Gender Issues (107)
  • Shrines and Relics (564)
  • Soteriology (80)
  • Spiritual Fatherhood (4)
  • Spirituality (221)
  • Sports (20)
  • sShrines and Relics (1)
  • St. Cyril Loukaris (1)
  • St. John of Kronstadt (1)
  • st. John the Baptist (2)
  • St. John the Russian (1)
  • St. Luke of Simferopol (1)
  • St. Maximus the Confessor (1)
  • St. Nektarios (2)
  • St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite (1)
  • St. Nikolai Velimirovich (3)
  • Strange (37)
  • Sts. Bartholomew and John (1)
  • Substance Issues (14)
  • Symeon the New Theologian (3)
  • Television and Media (45)
  • Television and Media. (1)
  • Theodicy/Evil/Suffering (84)
  • Theology (98)
  • Theophilos of Campania (1)
  • Theotokos Icons (19)
  • Tradition (62)
  • Triodion (8)
  • UFO's and Alien Life (2)
  • Uniates (6)
  • v (1)
  • Vice and Sin (111)
  • video (1)
  • Videos (80)
  • Violence-Crime-Persecution (161)
  • Virtue (118)
  • Youth Ministry (107)

Subscribe To

Posts
Atom
Posts
All Comments
Atom
All Comments

Visitor Map
Create your own visitor map!

Thursday, February 25, 2010

World's Oldest Joke Book (4th cent.)


The oldest joke book in existence, Philogelos, is a Roman book written about the 4th century AD around the time of Constantine the Great (in Greek). The book is mostly quips from two guys, Hierokles and Philagrios, about whom little is known.

Like modern comedy, Roman comedy at the time of Constantine was based on the fortunes and foibles of a gallery of stock characters: the drunk, the miser, the braggart, the sex-starved woman, as well as a classic type known as the Scholasticus, variously translated as "pedant," "absent-minded professor," or "egghead."

There's a great video here, in which Brit comedic legend Jim Bowen does ancient Roman material from Philogelos in a modern comedy club.

Examples:

- Scholasticus meeting a friend exclaims, "Why, I heard you were dead!" The other replies, "Well, I tell you that I'm alive". "Yes," persists Scholasticus, "but the man who told me so is more truthful than you!"

- A son says to his father, "Base man! Don't you see how you have wronged me? If you had never been born and stood in the way I should have come into all my grandfather's money."

- An Abderite saw a eunuch talking with a woman and asked him if she was his wife. When he replied that eunuchs can't have wives, the Abderite asked: "So is she your daughter?"

Ok, so these aren't exactly knee slappers to our modern ears. Some of the jokes are no longer understandable as funny because of differences in customs and lifestyle. For instance there's a lot of jokes about lettuce. Fourth century Romans loved lettuce jokes because they evidently were dirty jokes (???).

- An intellectual was eating dinner with his father. On the table was a large lettuce with many succulent shoots. The intellectual suggested: "Father, you eat the children; I'll take mother."

Well, maybe not much has really changed in 1600 years.

Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 5:35 PM No comments: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Funny, Roman (Byzantine) Empire
Reactions: 

Saint Tarasios and the Death of Emperor Leo V

St. Tarasios, Patriarch of Constantinople (Feast Day - February 25)

Saint Tarasios was the son of one of the foremost princes in Constantinople, and was originally a consul and first among the Emperor's private counselors. Then, in 784, he was elected Patriarch of Constantinople by the Sovereigns Irene and her son Constantine Porphyrogenitus. He convoked the Seventh Ecumenical Council that upheld the holy icons, and became the boast of the Church and a light to the clergy.

In the year 806, on the 25th of February, Saint Tarasios died a glorious death, and all of Constantinople mourned the passing of their faithful and zealous patriarch. Emperor Leo V the Armenian came to the throne in 813 and restored Iconoclasm and had the Orthodox Patriarch Nikephoros deposed. Seven years later, in 820, Emperor Leo felt that the end of his life was drawing near. It was then that he encountered a terrifying vision.

Saint Tarasios appeared in a dream to Emperor Leo and the hierarch was very angry. Turning to someone standing nearby, Saint Tarasios said: "Michael, thrust a sword against him" while pointing to the emperor. Michael obeyed and thrust a sword against Leo. Leo, stirred from that dream, made haste to the monastery nearby which contained the relics of Saint Tarasios. There he made known his dream to the monks and had some of the monks arrested, imprisoned and tortured in his attempt to discover who this Michael was that was planning his assassination. His intention was to have this Michael killed.

The following day was the Feast of the Nativity of the Lord, and Leo was in church. There he was assassinated by the supporters of Michael II the Amorian (820-829). Though Michael was an iconoclast, he prohibited public discussion of the controversy and restored the iconophiles whom Leo V had either attacked or banished. Michael however did not restore Patriarch Nikephoros and even persecuted the future Patriarch Methodios I.

Thus, God glorified His servant Tarasios and delivered to destruction Leo, who refused to serve God in a holy manner.

Apolytikion in the Fourth Tone
The truth of things hath revealed thee to thy flock as a rule of faith, an icon of meekness, and a teacher of temperance; for this cause, thou hast achieved the heights by humility, riches by poverty. O Father and Hierarch Tarasios, intercede with Christ God that our souls be saved.

Kontakion in the Third Tone
Thou didst make the Church to shine with thy most Orthodox doctrines, teaching all to venerate and worship Christ's sacred image; so didst thou convict the godless and hateful doctrine of all them that fought against Christ's ven'rable icon; O Tarasius our Father most wise and blessed, to thee we all cry: Rejoice.

Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 12:17 PM No comments: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Iconography, Miracles, Roman (Byzantine) Empire, Saints
Reactions: 

Should We Promote Faithlessness in Our Churches?


[Though there is absolutely no evidence to support the theory that H1N1 virus can be transmitted through the use of a common spoon in receiving the Eucharist, it has become apparent that churches have taken steps to abolish this tradition of the Church in certain circumstances. The letter below reveals this.

There are three essential reasons why the Church adopted the use of the common spoon in receiving the eucharist: 1. To prevent crumbs from falling; 2. To prevent wine from spilling; 3. To prevent the misuse of the eucharist. Of course the common spoon is not a full proof prevention of these things, but it is the best possible method according to the experience of the Church.

Furthermore, there is no full proof method in preventing the transmission of a virus in church. If the priest handed the eucharist, who is to say he does not have a virus? When we eat
antidoron at the end of the Liturgy, how can we know the person cutting the bread isn't infected? When the priest puts his hand underwater to bless the holy water we receive at Theophany, again how can we know the priest isn't infected? Should we also abolish kissing the hand of the priest? There are many arguments which show how illogical it is to prevent this centuries old practice of the Orthodox Church, and why paranoid feelings among the faithful require education rather than submission, especially when they cannot offer any evidence to support their paranoia.

More can be read
here, here, here and here. - J.S.]

The Feb. 20-26, 2010 issue of the Greek-American newspaper, The National Herald had the following in its Letters to the Editor section:

In our Dec. 26 edition we published a commentary by Dr. John Collis, M.D., which we titled "Traditions of Orthodoxy and Science Need not Clash: A Discussion on H1N1". His original title was "Communion and the Common Spoon" which was a call for discussion about the use of the common spoon in Greek Orthodox Churches. The distinguished physician, a former member of the Archdiocesan Council, succeeded in stimulating discussion, as we have had many responses. We published one, along with further coments by Dr. Collis on Feb. 6. Here follow three more on both sides of the issue:

RUTLAND, VERMONT CHURCH PROVIDES PLASTIC SPOON

To the Editor:

In response to the article written by John Collis, M.D., this is to inform you of the procedure in use this winter at our Greek Orthodox Church in Rutland, Vermont (St. Nicholas Orthodox Church).

The priest instructs the parishioners who prefer to use individual plastic spoons to be first in line. Then as each one of them approaches, an altar server provides a plastic spoon and the priest administers holy communion to each of them with the plastic spoon. Each spoon that is used is discarded.

Then, those that wish to receive Holy Communion with the common spoon do so immediately afterwards. It works very well and all are pleased with this procedure.

During this winter season, most parishioners are using plastic spoons.

-Theodore Corsones
Rutland, Vermont

[ Note: There has been a large reaction to my posting and the postings of others on this issue, and it seems some are linking this practice observed at the Rutland parish with Ecumenism and still others are placing blame on Metropolitan Methodios and calling this a heresy. This is my brief response to these charges:

"As glad as I am to see Orthodox taking a stand against the practices of the Rutland parish (which only serves Liturgy once a month by the way), I agree that it is fallacious to link this with Ecumenism and to place any blame on Metropolitan Methodios. This is above all an issue of education and faith. We certainly do not have enough information to link this practice with Ecumenism or the approval of the Metropolitan. Much worse things happened in the Church prior to Ecumenism, so why all the blame goes there is a bit absurd. For example, according to primary sources during the Iconoclastic controversy in the 8th century, some Orthodox went so far that they were adding paint from icons into the communion wine. Others were using icons as godparents to children. In some places, the communion bread was being placed onto the hands of the saints depicted in icons before being consumed by the people. Aberations they all may be, but not heresy. Condemnable error comes when the truth is rejected, and there is no indication that anyone in Rutland, including the priest, really understands the reasons behind the use of a common spoon and why using disposable plastic spoons is so wrong." - J.S.]
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 11:18 AM 11 comments: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Health and Creation, Holy Mysteries (Sacraments), Orthodoxy in America
Reactions: 

The Ascetic Makarios and Nikos Kazantzakis


In his autobiography Report to Greco, Nikos Kazantzakis describes his forty day sojourn on Mount Athos in 1914 with the poet Angelos Sikelianos. It is at this time that he had the following conversation with the ascetic Makarios:

Kazantzakis: "You live a difficult life, my elder. I also wish to be saved. Is there no other way?"

Makarios: "More convenient?" said the ascetic as he smiled with compassion.

"More human, my elder.

"Only one way."

"How do they call it?"

"Ascent. You must climb a ladder; from satiety in food to hunger; from satiety in drink to thirst; from joy to pain. At the peak of hunger, thirst and pain sits God. At the peak of good times sits the devil."

"I am still young. The earth is good. I have time to choose."

The ascetic stretched out his five bony fingers, squeezed my knees, and nudged me.

"Wake up, my child, wake up, before death wakes you up."

I shuddered.

See also: Ascent: The Spiritual Trajectory of Nikos Kazantzakis
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 10:06 AM 1 comment: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Christian Living, Eschatology/Death, Literature and Book Reviews, Mount Athos
Reactions: 

On Genuine Theology: The Science of Sciences


The Science of Science

V. Rev. Fr. Paul Jannakos
Jan 13, 2010

In the Orthodox Church we believe that God reveals Himself to us in truth. This means, basically, that as human beings we have the inherent ability to know God directly and simply i.e., personally. Just as Enoch and Noah “walked with God,” (Gen. 5:24, 6:9), and just as Moses “spoke with the Lord face to face, as a man speaks to a friend,” (Ex. 33:11), so are we able to enter into the same intimate communion with the Triune God. The knowledge of God that is the outgrowth of becoming united with Him is what we call theology. As such, all genuine theology is not merely the knowledge about God, but the knowledge of God - because it is experiential in nature.

In Western Christendom, unfortunately, theology came to be just this - the knowledge about God. Unlike the Christian East, theology became something scholastic, something appropriated to academicians who conversed with each other over philosophical abstractions. Even today, the discipline of theology in most American seminaries, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, remains, for the most part, thoroughly scholastic. Some of the more “liberal” theologians have even gone so far as to conclude that nothing reliable can ever be known about God. According to this line of thinking, God (or whoever he or she or it happens to be) is so far above and beyond our human realm that he/she/it cannot be understood.

For this reason theology has become meaningless to the majority of people in our country. And why not? For if theology is nothing more than an academic pursuit consigned to an intellectual minority, then what good is it? If one begins the discussion with the declaration that God cannot truly be known, then why would anyone want to bother with it in the first place? No doubt this is the source of the disinterest and disdain that our society displays towards what we as Orthodox Christians call the “science of sciences.”

Even so, it is important for us to remember what St. Gregory the Theologian once said. "For we do not theologize in the manner of Aristotle, (that is in the abstract way of the philosophers), but in the manner of the fishermen” - referring of course to the Holy Apostles. For St. Gregory, theology is the outcome of the living encounter with God the Father, through His Son and in the Holy Spirit. St. Anthony the Great touches on this as well when he says, “The theologian is the one who prays, and the one who prays in the theologian.”

Here, too, we arrive at the greatest miracle of the faith. God is true first because He transcends all of creation. God’s nature lies beyond all earthly categories, and this is why we call God "Holy." For that which is holy is totally "other-and-beyond" anything created. But this is not the end of the story, because the God Who is holy is also the same God Who has come near to us on account of His great love. In the language of the New Testament, the Son of God has descended from His throne and entered into the human realm by taking upon Himself the “semblance” of a servant. The great abyss that existed between God and man, between heaven and earth, and between the eternal and the temporal has been overcome in Christ. As a result, it is now possible for us as human beings, through repentance, to be glorified with Him in heaven. In the Son of God, as St. Basil prays in his liturgical anaphora, “we have been brought to the knowledge of one, true God.” And it is this knowledge that is our salvation.

Source
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 9:36 AM 1 comment: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Catholicism and Papacy, Medieval History and Theology, Protestantism, Theology
Reactions: 

Richard Dawkins And His Faithful Followers


Richard Dawkins Receives Rabid Response From His Faithful Followers

25 February 2010
Clive Hayden
UncommonDescent

Richard Dawkins, so he says, wants to improve the forums on his website by implementing some new changes. He wants to keep it “scientific” and “rational”. The forums had, apparently, become a safe haven for Darwinians and atheists to post whatever uninteresting and vile subject matter their atheistic and Darwinian philosophy saw fit. So Dawkins posted a letter announcing the changes to the forums:

"Starting a new discussion will require approval, so we ask that you only submit new discussions that are truly relevant to reason and science. Subsequent responses on the thread will not need approval—however anything off topic or violating the new terms of service will be removed…We know some of you will be against this change. We ask that you respect our decision and help make this transition as smooth as possible."

The reaction he received from some of his own Darwinian and atheistic followers was heinous, so he responded:

"Surely there has to be something wrong with people who can resort to such over-the-top language, over-reacting so spectacularly to something so trivial. Even some of those with more temperate language are responding to the proposed changes in a way that is little short of hysterical. Was there ever such conservatism, such reactionary aversion to change, such vicious language in defence of a comfortable status quo? What is the underlying agenda of these people? How can anybody feel that strongly about something so small? Have we stumbled on some dark, territorial atavism? Have private fiefdoms been unwittingly trampled?

"Be that as it may, what this remarkable bile suggests to me is that there is something rotten in the Internet culture that can vent it. If I ever had any doubts that RD.net needs to change, and rid itself of this particular aspect of Internet culture, they are dispelled by this episode."

But, Dr. Dawkins, you knew they were snakes when you picked them up, why are you surprised when you get bitten? You invited them, gave them a home, encouragement, free reign, why the surprise?

See also: Death of the Dawkins forum – The world’s busiest atheist forum closes
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 9:01 AM No comments: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Atheism-Agnosticism-Skepticism
Reactions: 

Atheists Challenge Darwinism


"What Darwin Got Wrong": Taking Down the Father of Evolution

A new book dares to attack the theory of natural selection by using -- surprise! -- science.

By Thomas Rogers
Feb 22, 2010
Salon

At this point, the idea of somebody publishing an attack on Charles Darwin isn’t exactly surprising. The 19th-century naturalist, and the man behind the theory of evolution, has never been a particularly popular figure among conservative Christians, and, these days, the anti-Darwin movement is a cottage industry. In the last year, which marked the bicentennial of Darwin’s birth and 150 years since the publication of "The Origin of the Species," the man was even subjected to the peculiar indignity of an assault by former "Growing Pains" star Kirk Cameron.

But unlike most of these attacks, "What Darwin Got Wrong," a new book by Jerry Fodor, a professor of philosophy and cognitive sciences at Rutgers University, and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, a professor of cognitive science at the University of Arizona, comes not from the religious right, but from two atheist academics with -- surprise -- a nuanced argument about the shortcomings of Darwin’s theories. Their book details (in very technical language) how recent discoveries in genetics have thrown into question many of our perceived truths about natural selection, and why these have the potential to undermine much of what we know about evolution and biology.

Salon spoke to Fodor over the phone from his home, about the problems with Darwin’s ideas, bloggers’ "obscene" comments on his work, and why Darwinism might be as unreliable as creationism.

In 2007, you wrote an article attacking Darwinism in the London Review of Books, and experienced a lot of backlash from both inside and outside of the scientific community. Why do you think people get so worked up about Darwinism?

It’s a theory that’s played all sort of roles in the foundations of biology. There’s a lot of people who think wrongly that if you didn’t have Darwinism the whole foundations of modern biology would collapse. I doubt that’s true. I’m sure it’s not. But if you tell people, "There’s this fundamental theoretical commitment you’ve made and there’s holes in it," they’ll want very much to defend that theory.

Most of the backlash to the book so far has been on blogs, which have been pretty obscene and debased. What’s upsetting is that they tell you that they think you’re an idiot, but they don’t tell you why -- people who aren’t part of the field or who may not, in many cases, know much about Darwin. I’m not sure that all people who have been blogging about it are very sophisticated. It’s frustrating because you don’t know who you’re talking to.

At some point you just have to stop worrying about the reaction and worry if the argument is any good. I don’t take the arguments that say, "This that can’t be true because of what I learned in Biology 101" very seriously.

What is your beef with natural selection?

The main thing Darwin had in mind with natural selection was to come up with a theory that answers the question, "Why are certain traits there?" Why do people have hair on their heads? Why do both eyes have the same color? Why does dark hair go with dark eyes? You can make up a story that explains why it was good to have those properties in the original environment of selection. Do we have any reason to think that story is true? No.

According to Darwin, traits of creatures are selected for their contribution to fitness [likelihood to survive]. But how do you distinguish a trait that is selected for from one that comes along with it? There are a lot of interesting structures in creatures that have nothing to do with fitness.

Some variants in selection are clearly environmental. If you can’t store water you’ll do worse in a dry environment than if you can. But suppose that having a high ability to carry a lot of water is correlated for genetic reasons with skin color. How do you decide which trait is selected for by environmental factors and which one is just attached to it? There isn’t anything in the Darwinist picture that allows you to answer that question.

So we have no way of knowing whether a trait serves an evolutionary purpose?

Some traits are presumably selected for by the environment, and some of them are not. If somebody says Trait A affects fitness and Trait B does not, but Trait B comes with Trait A so you’ve got both traits in the organism, it’s very natural for somebody in the Darwinian tradition to think that Trait B has been selected for by the environment. But the answer is, it’s not there for anything.

Look, everybody has toenails, so you might ask yourself, why is it such a good thing we have toenails? It may be a case that in the environment there was some factor that favored toenails but there also may not.

As you explain in the book, it turns out many genes are far more tied together -- and gene expression is much more complicated -- than many people originally thought.

What the genetics has come to show is that traits are not independent, but complexly interconnected, and a lot of the effect that the environment has on an organism’s evolution depends on what organism it is.

There’s a famous fox-into-dog experiment, in which many generations of foxes were selected for being domestically trainable. As you would expect, when you select for domesticability, you get animals that behave less and less like their feral counterparts -- but you also get curly ears and kinked tails and changes in their reproductive system. Nobody had that in mind, but the structure of the organism groups all of these traits together. Why do these animals have kinky tails? They just happen to be structural correlates. Now the question is, how much of the evolutionary variance is determined by factors of the environment and how much is controlled by the organization of the organism, and the answer is nobody knows.

Most children learn about natural selection by learning the example of the giraffe’s long neck, which supposedly evolved because it allowed animals to graze higher branches. Does this mean that we’re giving schoolchildren the wrong information?

The inference runs that there’s this creature that has a long neck, so this creature was selected for having a long neck. That inference is clearly invalid. A creature that has a long neck may have that neck because a different trait was selected, and the long neck came along with it.

And in a sense, there are no such things as traits. The environment selects creatures. Animals can have long necks and toenails, but if you try to break such creatures apart into traits and you say, OK, "What selected this trait?" and, "What selected that trait?" you've made a mistake right from the beginning. The disintegration of the organism into traits is itself a spurious undertaking. Biologists have said for a long time that organisms aren’t like Swiss apples, you can’t tap them on a table and have them fall apart into distinct wedges. Selection is operating on whole organisms.

There's been increasing evidence in recent years that homosexuality has a genetic cause, which doesn’t exactly mesh with natural selection, given that gay people aren’t likely to have lots of children. Does your theory help explain the gay gene?

It’s not obvious what, when the environment was selecting for fecundity, would have selected for people who are gay. You could have gotten them innately as a result of something that has nothing to do with sexual performance.

Do you think people are defending Darwinism because they think any attack on Darwinism gives power to creationists, and they don't want creationists to get the upper hand?

I think there’s the sense that if you think that there’s something wrong with the theory you’re giving aid and comfort to intelligent design people. And people do feel very strongly about whether you want to do that.

When you do science, you try to find the truth. The problem with creationism, even if you’re not a hardcore atheist, as I am, is that anything is compatible with creationism. If God created the world, he could have created it any way he liked. So creationists, when faced with evidence of evolution, are happy to say that that’s the way God created the world. If it turns out that there is no process of evolution, they’d say OK, that’s fine too. Whatever turns out to be the case it’s compatible with God having created the world, so you can’t argue with their position or you throw your shoulders out.

As you explain in the book, one of the problems with Darwinism is that Darwin is inventing explanations for something that happened long ago, over a long period of time. Isn’t that similar to creationism?

Creationism isn't the only doctrine that’s heavily into post-hoc explanation. Darwinism is too. If a creature develops the capacity to spin a web, you could tell a story of why spinning a web was good in the context of evolution. That is why you should be as suspicious of Darwinism as of creationism. They have spurious consequence in common. And that should be enough to make you worry about either account.

If you're right, what do you think your argument means for the study of evolution?

If this is true, then we need to rethink the implications of Darwinism. Maybe the right question to ask is not what environmental variables are doing selection, but what kinds of complexes are they selecting on. One sees, even without God, how this Darwinian story could turn out to be radically wrong. You could see a massive failure of the evolutionary project, because wrong assumptions were made.

Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 8:10 AM 2 comments: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Atheism-Agnosticism-Skepticism, Science-Intelligent Design-Darwinism
Reactions: 

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

The West Initiated the Dissolution of Greece


"Personally I See That the West Initiated the Dissolution of Greece."

by Archimandrite Nektarios Moulatsiotis
January 12, 2010
Romfea.org

The West achieved the dissolution of Serbia with war. At that time we all said our turn was coming. God protected us and thus war did not come. The West however did not change its plans for Greece.

The agreements signed with the Burgas-Alexandroupolis-Igoumenitsa pipeline discouraged the dissolution of Greece, because the agreement provides strong Russian intervention in any part of our country at risk of the pipeline.

The West, however, succeeded and the pipeline stopped ... So almost all fields are open again. The dissolution of Greece with war is not so feasible ... So the West has found another way.

They create 13 regions (Kallikrates draft) with similar governments, limited capacity now at the beginning ... so our people won't react. But all governments, laws and rights they have will change with the passing of time.

At one time, for example, the Kings had enormous power, but over time they became only decorative elements.

What will happen in 5, 10, 20 years with today's new regions? What will happen when the West gives the command to the Rulers in our country, to grant other rights in the regions? Will they refuse? Will they go home, as the previous government did. Anyone who reacts exits from the middle ... and the West knows the ways and methods.

This is how they put the 'bases', in our Greece they create 13 regions, and in a few years ... we will talk about autonomy in the Region of Macedonia, Thrace (where there are many Muslims), Crete, etc. etc.

The most serious is that today, on the basis of the draft (I'm sure this is a proposal of the West and they agreed before the election), the two big pro-Western parties agree.

Is it all by chance? We are also obedient children. Personally I see that the West began the dissolution of Greece in a smart and painless way. But we are not all naive.

See also this update from February 16, 2010: Papandreou, Putin discuss economy, trade and energy
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 11:15 PM 4 comments: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: America, Balkans and Russia, Conspiracies, Europe, Greece and Greeks, Politics
Reactions: 

The Use of Candles in the Orthodox Church



By John Sanidopoulos

Question: Why do we light candles in the Orthodox Church?

Answer: There are typically two types of candles that Orthodox are familiar with. First there are the genuine pure beeswax candles made from the combs of hives. Secondly, there are the paraffin wax candles made from petroleum. When the Fathers of the Church speak of the Orthodox use of candles, they are referring to the pure beeswax candles and not the latter. Paraffin wax produces carcinogens and soot when burned. In fact, one air quality researcher stated that the soot from a paraffin candle contains many of the same toxins produced by burning diesel fuel.

With this information in mind, we can better understand the six symbolic representations of lit candles handed down to us by Saint Symeon of Thessaloniki:

1. As the candle is pure (pure beeswax), so also should our hearts be pure.

2. As the pure candle is supple (as opposed to the paraffin), so also should our souls be supple until we make it straight and firm in the gospel.

3. As the pure candle is derived from the pollen of a flower and has a sweet scent, so also should our souls have the sweet aroma of Divine Grace.

4. As the candle, when it burns, mixes with and feeds the flame, so also we can struggle to achieve theosis.

5. As the burning candle illuminates the darkness, so must the light of Christ within us shine before men that God's name be glorified.

6. As the candle gives its own light to illuminate a man in the darkness, so also must the light of the virtues, the light of love and peace, characterize a Christian. The wax that melts symbolizes the flame of our love for our fellow men.

Besides the six symbolic representations above, Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite gives us six different reasons why Orthodox light candles:

1. To glorify God, who is Light, as we chant in the Doxology: "Glory to God who has shown forth the light..."

2. To dissolve the darkness of the night and to banish away the fear which is brought on by the darkness.

3. To manifest the inner joy of our soul.

4. To bestow honor to the saints of our Faith, imitating the early Christians of the first centuries who lit candles at the tombs of the martyrs.

5. To symbolize our good works, as the Lord said: "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in the heavens." The priest also gave us this charge following our baptism.

6. To have our own sins forgiven and burned away, as well as the sins of those for whom we pray.

For all these reasons cited by our Holy Fathers, let us often light our candles and make sure as much as possible that they be pure candles. We should abstain from all corruption and uncleanness, so that all of the above symbolism is made real in our Christian lives.

At one point during the Presanctified Divine Liturgy the liturgist holds a lit candle, and facing the people he proclaims: "The light of Christ shines on all". Christ is "the true light who enlightens and sanctifies all men". Are we worthy recipients of this light? The saints themselves constantly sought after this light. Let us then also imitate the saints and like Saint Gregory Palamas continuously supplicate the Lord in the following words: "Enlighten my darkness".



Question: Is there any other reason why we light our candle in church?

Answer: Besides the higher spiritual reasons mentioned above for why we light candles, there is another simpler and practical reason: to make a financial offering to the church. When we go to light our candle, we should also give an offering for the various services and expenses of the church. The church gives us the candle as a blessing for our offering and allows us to ignite the flame of the symbolism mentioned above.

Question: Should we light candles outside the church as well?

Answer: It is good and laudable to light candles at home when we pray, when the priest visits for a house blessing with Holy Water or Holy Unction, and even light a candle when we visit the grave of a loved one.

Question: Is there any other purpose to the candle?

Answer: When we light a candle in the church, we are making an offering to the church or to a particular icon to beautify it and show through physical light the symbolization of the uncreated light of God's house or the saint depicted in the icon. It is also customary for the faithful to offer pure beeswax candles at the Consecration of a new church.
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 10:42 PM 1 comment: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Family and Parish, Holy Mysteries (Sacraments), Liturgics
Reactions: 

Cross Appears in the Skies of Russia



This video footage was recently shot in the Kostroma region of Russia.
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 10:19 PM 1 comment: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Cross, Orthodoxy in Russia
Reactions: 

Why Do Orthodox Constantly Seek God's Mercy?



By Metropolitan Anthony Bloom of Sourozh

Our modern translation 'have mercy' is a limited and insufficient one. The Greek word which we find in the gospel and in the early liturgies is eleison. Eleison is of the same root as elaion, which means olive tree and the oil from it. If we look up the Old and New Testament in search of the passages connected with this basic idea, we will find it described in a variety of parables and events which allow us to form a complete idea of the meaning of the word. We find the image of the olive tree in Genesis. After the flood Noah sends birds, one after the other, to find out whether there is any dry land or not, and one of them, a dove - and it is significant that it is a dove - brings back a small twig of olive. This twig conveys to Noah and to all with him in the ark the news that the wrath of God has ceased, that God is now offering man a fresh opportunity. All those who are in the ark will be able to settle again on firm ground and make an attempt to live, and never more perhaps, if they can help it, undergo the wrath of God.

In the New Testament, in the Parable of the Good Samaritan, olive oil is poured to soothe and to heal. In the anointing of kings and priests in the OT, it is again oil that is poured on the head as an image of the grace of God that comes down and flows on them (Ps 133:2) giving them new power to fulfill what is beyond human capabilities. The king is to stand on the threshold, between the will of men and the will of God, and he is called to lead his people to the fulfillment of God's will; the priest also stands on that threshold, to proclaim the will of God and to do even more: to act for God, to pronounce God's decrees and to apply God's decision.

The oil speaks first of all of the end of the wrath of God, of the peace which God offers to the people who have offended Him; further it speaks of God healing us in order that we should be able to live and become what we are called to be; and as He knows that we are not capable with our own strength of fulfilling either His will or the laws of our own created nature, He pours His grace abundantly on us (Rom 5:20). He gives us power to do what we could not otherwise do.

The words milost and pomiluy in Slavonic have the same root as those which express tenderness, endearing, and when we use the words elieson, 'have mercy on us', pomiluy, we are not just asking God to save us from His wrath - we are asking for love.

From Living Prayer.
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 4:34 PM 1 comment: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Liturgics, Prayer / Fasting / Alms, Soteriology
Reactions: 

Explaining Away Jesus’ Resurrection: Hallucination


Explaining Away Jesus’ Resurrection: Hallucination

The Recent Revival of Theories


Gary R. Habermas

SYNOPSIS

A survey of over 1000 recent publications on Jesus’ resurrection reveals some intriguing trends. For example, after almost a century of virtual dormancy, some critical scholars have proposed a number of naturalistic alternative hypotheses to explain away Jesus’ resurrection. Similar to the situation at the end of the Nineteenth Century, the most popular response by critics today is that the disciples experienced some sort of subjective perceptions of Jesus, although He had not been raised from the dead. Hallucination (more properly termed subjective vision) hypotheses come in different varieties. Sometimes it is suggested that the resurrection appearances of Jesus were similar to the recent claims that the Virgin Mary has appeared. Other times, it is said that these subjective visions were normal responses to grief by Jesus’ disciples, or perhaps even due to a psychological disorder. All of these recent strategies have something else in common, too: each one fails by a large margin to explain the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection appearances. These inadequacies are due to an entire host of problems. This is the result even when these views are judged by critically accepted standards. In fact, perhaps the main reason why most scholars still hesitate to propose alternative scenarios to explain away the resurrection is that numerous historical critiques stand in the way of these naturalistic approaches. Even critical scholars usually agree.

Naturalistic explanations of Jesus’ resurrection have existed as long as this event has been proclaimed. Several of these alternative approaches even appear in the Gospels themselves. It seems that both past and present skeptics, knowing that Christ’s resurrection lies at the heart of Christianity, have singled it out for special attack. In this article I will first provide historical perspective to this issue and make brief comments regarding the heyday of naturalistic theories in nineteenth-century theology. About 100 years ago, the hallucination hypothesis was the most popular critical position until it passed out of scholarly favor. Based on my recent survey of more than 1,000 publications on the subject of Jesus’ resurrection published between 1975 and the present, I will proceed to document the increased popularity of this hypothesis, focusing chiefly on the views of scholars during the past decade or two. Lastly, I will present a multifaceted critique of these positions, using only data that can be ascertained by critical means, which the vast majority of scholars will accept.1

Naturalistic Approaches since the Nineteenth Century

Publications from the end of the eighteenth through the nineteenth century provide the most examples of naturalistic theories regarding Jesus’ resurrection. In his classic volume documenting studies of the historical Jesus during this period, Albert Schweitzer chronicled many of these approaches. For example, an early attempt by Hermann Reimarus charged that Jesus’ disciples stole His dead body.2 Friedrich Schleiermacher favored the swoon theory, arguing that Jesus never died on the cross.3 David Strauss popularized the hallucination theory,4 and others such as Ernest Renan followed him.5 Otto Pfleiderer and others thought that legends explained much of the data.6

A fascinating subplot is that many liberal scholars refuted competing hypotheses. Schleiermacher and Heinrich Paulus attacked various vision theories.7 Strauss is usually thought to have crushed the swoon thesis with his insightful analysis8 so that few scholars supported it after his critique.9 Even though he preferred the legend thesis, Pfleiderer even admitted that it could not fully explain the data for Jesus’ resurrection.10

During most of the twentieth century, there was comparatively little interest in naturalistic theories against Jesus’ resurrection. Those who rejected the historicity of this event seldom made reference to alternative formulations. After mentioning a lengthy list of critical theories, Raymond Brown indicated in 1967 that the “criticism of today does not follow the paths taken by the criticism of the past. No longer respectable are the crude theories...popular in the past century....Serious scholars pay little attention to these fictional reconstructions.”11

This lull on the part of critical scholars occurred for more than one reason. Interest in many issues regarding the historical Jesus sagged during this period. Near the top of the list of reasons was the failure of naturalistic hypotheses to explain the known data. In other words, the chief reason for rejecting these alternative theories is that the facts refute each one. James D. G. Dunn concluded: “Alternative interpretations of the data fail to provide a more satisfactory explanation.”12 Philosopher Stephen Davis agrees that critics “are unable to come up with a coherent and plausible story that accounts for the evidence at hand. All of the alternative hypotheses with which I am familiar are historically weak; some are so weak that they collapse of their own weight once spelled out....the alternative theories that have been proposed are not only weaker but far weaker at explaining the available historical evidence.”13

Despite these developments, at present there appears to be a limited trend toward rejuvenating some of the older attempts to explain the resurrection on naturalistic grounds. Of these, the most popular recent choice is a thesis that involves the earliest Christians having hallucinatory or other subjective experiences.

The Recent Return of the Hallucination Hypotheses

In my survey of over 1,000 critical publications on the resurrection, more scholars apparently support various naturalistic hypotheses than has been the case in many decades. This phenomenon is not due to any change in the historical landscape. Rather, it is like the old saying — what goes around comes around — as if some scholars simply think it is time for a change.

Of those who now prefer hallucination explanations, however, only a few scholars have pursued this approach in detail, while several other scholars simply mention the possibility of, or preference for, the hallucination thesis.14 We will look at a few of these attempts.

Gerd Lüdemann has recently outlined a case reminiscent of nineteenth-century attempts. He holds that this explanation can be applied to all of the chief participants in the earliest church: the disciples, Paul, the 500, and James, the brother of Jesus.15 Lüdemann asserts that Paul’s use of the term ophthe in 1 Corinthians 15:3ff clearly means that he was speaking of actual sight, of “his own active sensual perception...,” as well as that of the other apostles. So Paul “must have expected the Corinthians to understand the term historically.”16 Lüdemann concludes that hallucinatory visions are required, along with “auditory features” that produced a “stimulus,” “enthusiasm,” “religious intoxication,” and “ecstasy” for Peter. This spread to the other disciples by “an incomparable chain reaction.” Paul, the other apostles, 500 persons, and James all similarly experienced these subjective visions. The appearances were collective, amounting to a “mass ecstasy.”17

Although his approach is quite different at points, Jack Kent also thinks hallucinations explain the claims of the disciples, Paul, and James.18 Kent combines two naturalistic theories to explain the resurrection appearances of Jesus. Jesus’ male and female followers experienced “normal, grief-related hallucinations.” Paul, on the other hand, experienced inward conflict and turbulence because he participated in the death of Stephen and because of his persecution of Christians. As a result, he underwent a “conversion disorder,” a recognized psychiatric malady that accounts for his conversion on the road to Damascus, which included his stumbling and blindness in particular.19 Unlike Lüdemann, however, Kent wishes to avoid collective hallucinations.20

Closer to Kent, Michael Goulder applies a related explanation to the experiences of Peter, Paul, and some of the others.21 Goulder thinks that Peter and Paul experienced what he calls “conversion visions” — hallucinations of various sorts produced during times of great stress, guilt, and self-doubt. The result for these apostles, one of whom had denied his Lord and another who had persecuted Christians, was a new orientation to life — a transformation leading to “subsequent heroism and martyrdom.”22

One other approach I have dubbed “the illumination theory” should perhaps be mentioned briefly. Several recent scholars prefer a strategy that, while seemingly close to the hallucination thesis, is not quite the same. In general, the idea is that Peter was the first to have some sort of subjective experience or conviction that Jesus was alive. This was later communicated in some sense to Jesus’ other followers, who concluded that Jesus had risen. Critics contend that we cannot now speak about the historical nature of this incident. It is the faith of the early believers that is really of chief importance here, not the nature of the experiences.23 It is often remarked that these experiences were not hallucinations,24 but many of our criticisms below will still apply to this thesis.

Critiques of the Hallucination Hypotheses

While recent hallucination theories reveal some differences among them, there are more similarities. We will begin our critiques by evaluating the possibility of group hallucinations. Next, we will look at the conversion disorder thesis proposed by Kent and Goulder. Then we will examine additional problems with these subjective explanations of Jesus’ resurrection.

Collective Hallucinations

One of the central issues in this entire discussion concerns whether a group of people can witness the same hallucination. Most psychologists dispute that possibility. A rare attempt suggesting that collective hallucinations are possible, without any application to Jesus’ resurrection, is made by Leonard Zusne and Warren Jones. They point to phenomena such as claimed sightings of the Virgin Mary and other accompanying reports from groups of people. In cases such as these, “expectation” and “emotional excitement” are “a prerequisite for collective hallucinations.” In such groups, we see the “emotional contagion that so often takes place in crowds moved by strong emotions.…”25

The idea of collective hallucinations, however, is highly problematic on several grounds:

1. The chief examples of “collective hallucinations” provided by Zusne and Jones were religious group experiences such as with Marian apparitions. These examples simply beg the question whether such experiences could possibly be objective, or even supernatural, at least in some sense. In other words, why must a naturalistic, subjective explanation be assumed?26 This approach seems to rule out the apparitions in an a priori manner, before the data are considered.

2. Furthermore, the collective hallucination thesis is unfalsifiable. It could be applied to purely natural, group sightings, simply calling them group hallucinations, too. Concerning this thesis, crucial epistemic criteria seem to be missing. It can be used to explain (away) almost any unusual occurrence. How do we determine normal occurrences from group hallucinations?

3. Even if it could be established that groups of people experienced hallucinations, it does not mean that these experiences were therefore collective. If, as most psychologists assert, hallucinations are private, individual events, then how could groups share exactly the same subjective visual perception? Rather, it is much more likely that the phenomena in question are either illusions — perceptual misinterpretations of actual realities27 — or individual hallucinations.

Moreover, the most serious problems result from comparing this thesis to the New Testament accounts of Jesus’ resurrection appearances. Here, the explanatory power of this hypothesis is severely challenged, since much of the data not only differs from, but actually contradicts, the necessary conditions for “collective hallucinations.”

4. For instance (more examples will follow below), Zusne and Jones argue that “expectation” and “emotional excitement” are “prerequisites” before such group experiences can occur. In fact, expectation “plays the coordinating role”;28 but these necessary elements contradict the emotional state of the early witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection appearances. The early believers were confronted with the utter reality of the recent and unexpected death of their best friend, whom they had hoped would rescue Israel. As those events unfolded in a whirlwind of incidents that included Jesus’ physical beatings, crucifixion, and seeming abandonment, the normal response would have been fear, disillusionment, and depression. To suppose that these believers exhibited “expectation” and “emotional excitement” in the face of these stark circumstances would require responses on their part that would scarcely be exhibited at a funeral! All indications are that Jesus’ disciples exhibited the very opposite emotions from what Zusne and Jones assert as being necessary for such hallucinations.

By comparison, the disciples’ experience was totally unlike those cases where pilgrims expressly traveled long distances, exuberantly gathering with the explicit desire to see something special, as in the Marian cases. There would seem to be extremely meager grounds for comparison here with Jesus’ disciples.29

Many other crucial problems plague the thesis of group hallucinations, and we will pursue several more below. For now, we repeat that Zusne and Jones never even attempt to apply their approach to Jesus’ resurrection. Rather, they incredibly close their examination with the admission that group hallucinations have a “dubious status” because it is not possible to ascertain whether these individuals were actually hallucinating!30

Conversion Disorder

Kent has suggested that Paul experienced a “conversion disorder,” a psychological condition characterized by such physical symptoms as blindness or paralysis in the absence of specific neurological or medical causes. This was brought about by his inner turbulence, conflict, doubt, and guilt. Goulder agrees about Paul, but adds that Peter and others, including perhaps James, were also suffering from the same problem.

Again, when we align their hypotheses with the known facts, multiple problems with their interpretation emerge:

1. Initially, only Paul is known to have manifested any such symptoms. Goulder’s inclusion of the others is not factually grounded.

2. The psychological profile provided for conversion disorder also strongly opposes an application to Paul, James, or Peter. It most frequently occurs in women (up to five times more often), adolescents and young adults, less-educated persons, people with low I.Q.s or low socioeconomic status, and combat personnel.31 Not a single characteristic applies to Paul and it would be difficult to prove them for the other two apostles.

3. A major problem is that no evidence exists to posit the preconditions for such a disorder from what we know about Paul, and about James in particular. Critics agree that James was an unbeliever during Jesus’ earthly ministry (John 7:5; cf. Mark 3:21). We have no indication that James experienced the slightest inner conflict, doubt, or guilt concerning his previous rejection of Jesus’ teachings. Paul’s skepticism is even better known, since he persecuted early Christians (1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13, 23). We do not know of any guilt on Paul’s part either, for he considered his actions to have been both zealous and faultless (Phil. 3:4-6). In short, there is no indication of any prior desire for conversion by either of these men. To suppose otherwise is groundless. Paul and James are thus exceptionally poor candidates for this disorder.

4 and 5. Here, we have two separate critiques, due to very different sets of circumstances. While the same cannot be said of Peter, there is no indication that either James or Paul longed to see Jesus. Their unbelief is a poor basis for producing hallucinations! James the skeptic and Paul the persecutor are exceptionally tough obstacles for the hallucination thesis. To say otherwise is mere conjecture apart from historical data. Not only are these two individuals poor candidates for hallucination, but we need both visual and auditory hallucinations, which stretches the case even further. These two phenomena are relatively uncommon occurrences.32 These two apostles, therefore, fail to qualify for the disorder in the first place, and even apart from this malady, they were additionally not predisposed to experience hallucinations.

6. Neither does this hypothesis normally account for what would otherwise be considered delusions of grandeur — in this case, the apostles’ belief that God had imparted to them a global message that others must accept. It is unlikely that other delusions were involved here, occurring at precisely the same time. So the case is further weakened in that the thesis fails to explain all of the known data.

Charging that these apostles were victims of conversion disorder simply does not fit the facts. It is clearly an over-reliance on a hypothesis apart from the data, a theory not anchored to reality. It would be highly improbable for all of the necessary factors to converge simultaneously. Like the charge of mass hallucinations, it spawns more difficulties than it tries to solve.

Additional Problems

Many other issues remain regarding the hallucination hypothesis:

1. Even individual hallucinations are questionable for believers who felt despair at the unexpected death of Jesus just hours before. Their hopes and dreams had suddenly been dashed. Extreme grief, not exuberance, would have been their normal response.

2. The wide variety of times and places that Jesus appeared, along with the differing mindsets of the witnesses, is another formidable obstacle. The accounts of men and women, hard-headed and soft-hearted alike, all believing that they saw Jesus, both indoors and outdoors, provide an insurmountable barrier for hallucinations. The odds that each person would be in precisely the proper and same frame of mind to experience a hallucination, even individually, decrease exponentially.33

3. Generally, hallucinations do not transform lives. Studies indicate that even those who do hallucinate often disavow the experiences when others present have not seen the same thing.34 Critics acknowledge that Jesus’ disciples were transformed even to the point of being willing to die for their faith. No early text reports that any of them ever recanted. It is highly unlikely that this quality of conviction came about through false sensory perceptions without anyone rejecting it later.

4. If the appearances were hallucinations, then opponents should have located Jesus’ body safely and securely in His grave just outside the city of Jerusalem. That body would undoubtedly be a rather large disclaimer to the disciples’ efforts to preach that Jesus was raised! Because the hallucination hypotheses do not even address the historical arguments for the empty tomb, another naturalistic thesis is required in order to do so.

Still more issues weaken the hallucination hypothesis. While they are perhaps not as weighty, they nevertheless count:

5. Why did the hallucinations stop after 40 days? Why didn’t they continue to spread to other believers, just as the other hallucinations had?

6. The resurrection was the disciples’ central teaching, and we usually take extra care with what is closest to our hearts. This is what drove Paul to check out the nature of the gospel data with other key disciples on at least two occasions to make sure he was preaching the truth (Gal. 1:18–19; 2:1–10). He found that they were also speaking of Jesus’ appearances to them (1 Cor. 15:11).

7. What about the natural human tendency to touch? Would not one of them ever discover, even in a single instance, that his or her best friend, seemingly standing perhaps just a few feet away, was not really there?

8. The resurrection of a contemporary individual contradicted general Jewish theology, which held to a corporate resurrection at the end of time. So Jesus’ resurrection did not fit normal Jewish expectations, and most of the witnesses to Jesus’ bodily resurrection were Jewish.

9. Finally, hallucinations of the extended sort required by this naturalistic theory are rare phenomena, chiefly occurring in circumstances that militate against Jesus’ disciples being the recipients.35

“HE IS RISEN, INDEED”

To sum up, after a century-long hiatus, a limited trend toward the reformulation of naturalistic approaches to Jesus’ resurrection has recently emerged. The hallucination and related subjective hypotheses are again the most popular among these approaches, as they were at the close of the nineteenth century. We have seen that these strategies have failed to explain the known, critically ascertained data on several fronts. Giving a total of 19 reasons, we have concluded that they fall far short in their attempt to provide an alternative to the New Testament proclamation. Clinical psychologist Gary Collins summarizes a few of the issues: “Hallucinations are individual occurrences. By their very nature only one person can see a given hallucination at a time. They certainly are not something which can be seen by a group of people....Since an hallucination exists only in this subjective, personal sense, it is obvious that others cannot witness it.”36

In fact, the problems with this thesis are so serious that these recent critics “would have to go against much of the current psychiatric and psychological data about the nature of hallucinations.”37 These approaches are therefore at odds with current scientific knowledge on this subject. To apply the hallucination and similar subjective theses to Jesus’ resurrection appearances is erroneous across several disciplines and at many points. These subjective theories fail just as thoroughly as did those of 100 years ago to undermine the proclamation on which Christian faith has stood firm for 2,000 years: Christ is risen. He is risen, indeed!

Gary R. Habermas (Ph.D., Michigan State University) is Distinguished Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy at Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA. Of his 21 books, nine are on the subject of Jesus’ resurrection.

Notes

1 This is what I have termed “the minimal facts method,” which argues primarily from data that are multiply attested on strongly evidential grounds. Almost all scholars who research this subject accept these data. For an outline of this method, see Gary R. Habermas, “Evidential Apologetics,” Five Views on Apologetics, ed. Steven Cowan (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 99–120, 186–90.

2 Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede, trans. W. Montgomery (New York: Macmillan, 1906, 1968), 21–22; other examples are found on pp. 21–22, 43, 47, 53–55, 60, 83, 162–67, 170, 187, 210–14.

3 Schweitzer, 64; Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, trans. H. R. Mackintosh and J. S. Stewart, 2 vols. (New York: Harper and Row, 1963), 417–21.

4 David Strauss, A New Life of Jesus, 2d ed., 2 vols. (Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1879), vol. 1, 412–40.

5 Ernest Renan, Vie de Jesus (Paris: Calmann-Levy, 1861), 355–56.

6 Otto Pfleiderer, Early Christian Conception of Christ: Its Significance and Value in the History of Religion (London: Williams and Norgate, 1905), chap. 4.

7 Schleiermacher, 420; Schweitzer, 53–55.

8 Strauss, 408–12.

9 Schweitzer lists no convinced proponents of the swoon theory after 1838, three years after the initial publication of Strauss’s critique.

10 Pfleiderer, 157–58.

11 Raymond Brown, “The Resurrection and Biblical Criticism,” Commonwealth, 24 November 1967, 233.

12 James Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus (Louisville: Westminster, 1985), 76.

13 Stephen Davis, “Is Belief in the Resurrection Rational? A Response to Michael Martin,” Philo 2 (Spring–Summer 1999): 57–58.

14 Some of these are Dan Cohn-Sherbok, “The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish View,” Resurrection Reconsidered, ed. Gavin D’Costa (Oxford: Oneworld, 1996), 197; John Barclay, “The Resurrection in Contemporary New Testament Scholarship,” in D’Costa, 25–26; Michael Grant, Saint Paul: The Man (Glasgow: William Collins Sons, 1976), 108; M. Lloyd Davies and T. A. Lloyd Davies, “Resurrection or Resuscitation?” Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London 25 (April 1991): 168; Antony Flew in Gary R.

15 Gerd Lüdemann’s best known works are: The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994); a more popular rendition was written in collaboration with Alf Ozen, What Really Happened to Jesus: A Historical Approach to the Resurrection, trans. John Bowden (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995).

16 Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Jesus, 50, 37; cf. What Really Happened to Jesus, 103.

17 Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Jesus, 106–7, 174–75.

18 Jack Kent, The Psychological Origins of the Resurrection Myth (London: Open Gate, 1999).

19 Ibid., 6–11, 49–61, 85–90.

20 Ibid., 89–90.

21 Michael Goulder, “The Baseless Fabric of a Vision,” in D’Costa, 48–61; a briefer version was published as part of a debate with James Dunn in Resurrection, ed. G. N. Stanton and S. Barton (London: SPCK, 1994), 58–68.

22 Goulder, 48–52. Incidentally, Goulder argues that the disciples, especially regarding Jesus’ appearances to groups, experienced “collective delusions.” These are significantly different from subjective hallucinations in that they pertain to the misapprehension of actual, physical objects (52–55).

23 Similar views are held by: Willi Marxsen, Jesus and Easter: Did God Raise the Historical Jesus from the Dead? (Nashville: Abingdon, 1990), 65–74; Willi Marxsen, The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, trans. Margaret Kohl (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968), especially chaps. 3–4; Don Cupitt, Christ and the Hiddenness of God (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 143, 165–67; Thomas Sheehan, The First Coming: How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity (New York: Random House, 1986), 95–118; John Shelby Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality? (San Francisco: HarperSan Francisco, 1994), 255–60; John Shelby Spong, The Easter Moment (San Francisco: HarperSan Francisco, 1987), especially 39–68.

24 Spong, The Easter Moment, 196; Sheehan, 262-63, n. 38; cf. Marxsen, Jesus and Easter, 71–74.

25 Leonard Zusne and Warren Jones, Anomalistic Psychology: A Study of Extraordinary Phenomena of Behavior and Experience (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1982), 135–36.

26 For a number of critical observations and responses to such phenomena, see Elliot Miller and Kenneth R. Samples, The Cult of the Virgin: Catholic Mariology and the Apparitions of Mary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), esp. chaps. 11–14 and appendix A.

27 Here, Zusne and Jones repeatedly refer to collective hallucinations, even though they conclude, conversely, that these groups may be seeing actual phenomena. So the “final answer to these questions has not been obtained yet” (135–36)!

28 Ibid., 135.

29 The rejoinder could be made that perhaps a few individuals hallucinated individually, thereby inducing excitement in the others, preparing them for hallucinations. From our critique below, a multifaceted response could be fashioned. I would suggest especially critiques 4–5 in the next section regarding the cases of Paul and James, which would be highly problematic for this view both because of the initial skepticism and the later conversions of these apostles, plus critiques 2–8 in the “Additional Problems” section below.

30 Ibid., 136; cf. 134–35. For the more common assessment against group hallucinations, see Phillip Wiebe, Visions of Jesus: Direct Encounters from the New Testament to Today (New York: Oxford, 1997), 210; J. P. Brady, “The Veridicality of Hypnotic, Visual Hallucinations,” Origins and Mechanisms of Hallucinations, ed. Wolfram Keup (New York: Plenum, 1970), 181; Weston La Barre, “Anthropological Perspectives on Hallucinations and Hallucinogens,” Hallucinations: Behavior, Experience and Theory, ed. R. K. Siegel and L. J. West (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1975), 9–10.

31 Harold Kaplan, Benjamin Sadock, and Jack Grebb, Synopsis of Psychiatry, 7th ed. (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1994), 621.

32 Ibid., 621–22. I am also indebted to clinical psychologist Gary Sibcy, Ph.D., for these last two responses.

33 S. J. Segal, “Imagery and Reality: Can They Be Distinguished?” in Keup, 103–13. Zusne and Jones also note that even if people hallucinated in groups, not everyone would have these same experiences (135).

34 Segal, 103. This observation is also corroborated in an unpublished study of hallucinations by Shea Lambert, “Hallucinations and the Post Death Appearances of Jesus,” 20 September 2000, 2–5, 8–9.

35 For many details, see Wiebe, 199–200, 207–11; Kaplan, Sadock, and Grebb, 621. To repeat an earlier point, many of the objections throughout this essay also apply to what I have termed “the illumination theory.”

36 Gary Collins, Ph.D., personal communication, 21 February 1977.

37 Ibid.

This article first appeared in the Volume 23 / Number 4 / 2001 issue of the Christian Research Journal.
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 2:43 PM No comments: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Apologetics, Christology, Pascha and the Pentecostarion
Reactions: 

1st and 2nd Finding of the Head of John the Baptist

First and Second Finding of the Venerable Head of the Prophet and Forerunner John the Baptist (Feast Day - February 24)

After the Beheading of the Holy Prophet, Forerunner and Baptist John (August 29), his body was buried by disciples in the Samarian city of Sebaste, and his venerable head was hidden by Herodias in an unclean place. St Joanna (June 27), the wife of King Herod's steward Chuza (Luke 8:3), secretly took the holy head and placed it into a vessel and buried it on the Mount of Olives in one of Herod's properties.

After many years, this property passed into the possession of a government official who became a monk with the name of Innocent. He built a church and a cell there. When they started to dig the foundation, the vessel with the venerable head of John the Baptist was uncovered. Innocent recognized its great holiness from the signs of grace emanating from it. Thus occurred the First Finding of the Head. Innocent preserved it with great piety, but fearful that the holy relic might be abused by unbelievers, before his own death he again hid it in that same place, where it was found. Upon his death the church fell into ruin and was destroyed.

During the days of St Constantine the Great (May 21), when Christianity began to flourish, the holy Forerunner appeared twice to two monks journeying to Jerusalem on pilgrimage to the holy places, and he revealed the location of his venerable head.

The monks uncovered the holy relic and, placing it into a sack of camel-hair, they proceeded homewards. Along the way they encountered an unnamed potter and gave him the precious burden to carry. Not knowing what he was carrying, the potter continued on his way. But the holy Forerunner appeared to him and ordered him to flee from the careless and lazy monks, with what he held in his hands. The potter concealed himself from the monks and at home he preserved the venerable head with reverence. Before his death he placed it in a water jug and gave it to his sister.

From that time the venerable head was successively preserved by devout Christians, until the priest Eustathius (infected with the Arian heresy) came into possession of it. He beguiled a multitude of the infirm who had been healed by the holy head, ascribing their cures to the fact that it was in the possession of an Arian. When his blasphemy was uncovered, he was compelled to flee. After he buried the holy relic in a cave, near Emesa, the heretic intended to return later and use it for disseminating falsehood. God, however, did not permit this. Pious monks settled in the cave, and then a monastery arose at this place. In the year 452 St John the Baptist appeared to Archimandrite Marcellus of this monastery, and indicated where his head was hidden. This was February 24 and became celebrated as the Second Finding. The holy relic was transferred to Emesa, and later to Constantinople.

Source

Apolytikion in the Fourth Tone
The Forerunner's sacred head, having dawned forth from the earth, doth send incorruption's rays unto the faithful, whereby they find healings of their ills. From on high he gathereth the choirs of the Angels and on earth he summoneth the whole race of mankind, that they with one voice might send up glory to Christ our God.

Kontakion in the Second Tone
Since we have obtained thy head as a most sacred rose from out of the earth, O Forerunner of grace divine, we receive sure healing in every hour, O Prophet of God the Lord; for again, now as formerly, thou preachest repentance unto all the world.

For pictures of the skull of St. John the Baptist, see here.
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 11:24 AM No comments: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Feasts of the Church, Great Lent and Holy Week, Shrines and Relics
Reactions: 

Patriarch Kirill Meets With Greek Prime Minister


Patriarch Kirill meets with Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou

02/16/2010
Russian Orthodox Church Official Site

His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia met with the Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou on February 16, 2010, at his working residence in Chisty Pereulok.

Participating in the meeting were also Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate department for external church relations; Archpriest Nikolay Balashov, DECR vice-chairman; Rev. Igor Yakimchuk, DECR acting secretary for inter-Orthodox relations – from the Russian Orthodox Church; as well as Russian ambassador in Greece V. Chkhikvishvili, ambassador at large A. Vdovin, and foreign ministry fourth European department director A. Alexeyev – from the Russian Foreign Ministry.

The head of the Greek government was accompanied by Greek’s state minister Charalampos Pampoukis, first deputy foreign minister Dimitris Drutsas, governmental representative Georgios Petalotis, minister for environment, energy and climate change Ioannis Maniatis, general secretary of the ministry of culture and tourism Stiliani Mendoni, Greek ambassador in Russia Michael Spinellis and others.

Welcoming the guests, the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church stressed that the fact that the people of Russia and Greece were mostly Orthodox was one of the most important binding factors in relations between the two countries. This factor was also significant in the Soviet times when the state power was very far from the Church. ‘The Orthodox Church has formed the system of values and determined to a considerable extent the cultural profile of our nations’, His Holiness said.

‘Dialogue between our two nations should be carried out not only on a pragmatic basis but necessarily on the level of human hearts. Then this dialogue will be solid and will be able to bring significant results’, His Holiness stressed, adding, ‘The system of values, which has been formed to a considerable extent under the influence of Orthodoxy both in Russia and Greece, determines the outline of the Eastern European Orthodox civilization. It is my conviction that in the globalization era we all should be concerned for the preservation of this civilization’s special features and characteristics’. The Patriarch stressed the importance of broadening cooperation between Orthodox countries, citing as an example the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of Orthodoxy. ‘It is very important that this cooperation should develop also in other areas so that we together could move forward while preserving our identity’, he said.

Patriarch Kirill pointed to the problem of preserving spiritual, cultural and moral values in the life of the human civilization, saying, ‘It is quite clear that the system of values formed in Christian tradition is a very important factor for Europe. Therefore we are concerned over the developments in various European countries, pointing to something like ousting of Christian values from the life of today’s society’. His Holiness cited as an example the profoundly disturbing decision made last November by the European Court of Human Rights to ban Christian symbols from Italian schools. His Holiness was pleased to note that an attempt to remove the icon of the Saviour from the court or to renounce the oath on the Gospel in Greece had failed.

Addressing the history of the 20th century, Patriarch Kirill recalled the severe trials experienced by the Russian people and the Russian Orthodox Church. ‘Our historical experience shows that a high quality of human life can be attained only if spiritual and material values are combined. An emphasis on pragmatism and exclusion of moral and spiritual values from people’s life turn out to be a degradation of the human civilization’, he said, adding, ‘Therefore we all, especially people of Orthodox cultural tradition, should be concerned today for preventing these values from disappearing from the life of modern man. In this connection I believe the cooperation on the level of international European organizations to be very important’.

‘We hold very dear our fraternal relations with the Greek Orthodox Church. We often exchange delegations, but more often ordinary people visit each other. There is a great number of pilgrims coming from Greece to Russia and from Russia to Greece’, His Holiness remarked and expressed conviction that the flows of pilgrims from the two countries would grow.

Among the places which attract Orthodox Russians is Holy Mount Athos. Addressing Mr. Papandreou, His Holiness said, ‘We are grateful to Greece for the preservation of the unique status of Athos and rejoice in the fact that Russia is also making her contribution today to the support of Athonite monasteries including financial one’.

Patriarch Kirill rated high the project for an exhibition of Athonite treasures in Moscow. The work to carry it out has been undertaken by the Russian embassy in Athens. This project was also discussed during Patriarch Kirill’s visit to the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the talk with His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew last summer. ‘I think if this idea is realized it will be a vivid testimony to Russia’s interest in Greece and the Holy Mount’, the patriarch said.

His Holiness approved of the opening of a Russian center in Thessaloniki in which the Russian World Foundation took part, noting that there were many Russian-speaking people living in Greece, especially in its northern part. He also supported the plan to observe a Year of Greek Culture in 2013 in Russia and a Year of Russian Culture in 2014 in Greece.

His Holiness wished God’s help to Prime Minister George Papandreou in his service of the Greek people.

The head of the Greek government thanked His Holiness Patriarch Kirill for the meeting. ‘For me and for all those who accompany me, to meet you is a joy and honour’, he said. He also affirmed that the age-old cultural and spiritual ties contributed to the rapprochement of the two nations.

The prime minister expressed support for Patriarch Kirill’s position on the preservation of Christian values in social life. He underlined that the technical power of humanity achieved through scientific development required especially urgently that the spiritual principles should be strengthened in people’s life. According to the Greek prime minister, spiritual wisdom is needed also to prevent humanity from using its technical power to the detriment of itself and nature.

During the meeting Mr. Papandreou also spoke about problems concerning the life of Russian-speaking people in Greece and supported the idea of organizing the Treasures of Athos exhibition.

The head of the Russian Orthodox Church in his talk with the Greek prime minister also spoke about the development of pastoral and missionary work of the Russian Church in the present situation. ‘Every parish should be a center of not only devotional life but also social service’, he stressed and expressed interest in the experience of the Greek Church in social and youth work. Mr. Papandreou manifested readiness to promote the exchange of experience between the Greek and Russian Churches.
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 9:34 AM No comments: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Balkans and Russia, Greece and Greeks, Orthodoxy in Greece, Orthodoxy in Russia
Reactions: 

Prayer & Song for China: St. Nikolai Velimirovich


CHINA, CHINA
(a children's song)

Great is our land, truly,
From Tibet all the way to the sea,
Gardens and fields spreadeth abundantly,
Mountains green, and rivers mighty.
China, China, our Cathay,
Land as paradise, 'tis fair and gay!

Great are our emperors,
All the way from Huang Di the glorious,
Of yore, our sages and builders,
Like Qin Shihuang and Confucius.
China, China, our Cathay,
Land as paradise, 'tis fair and gay!

But behold, Christ cometh,
Bringing the keys of Heaven;
With Him, let China shineth,
Of the Bread of Life shalt be as leaven.
Then shall China, our Cathay,
A true Paradise of God becometh this day.

Son of the East, King of the Universe,
Is crucified anew in the Occident,
Across the Great Wall doth He traverse,
Looking for shelter in the Orient.
China, China, our Cathay,
With Christ a true Paradise doth array.

Christ Everlasting, the King of Heaven,
To the East now offereth His Dominion,
And first inviteth the Chinese brethren.
Come unto Him, even if yellow in complexion!
China, China, our Cathay,
With Christ a true Paradise doth array!

Prayer for the Chinese People

O, Omniscient God, Sun above the suns, Light above the lights, Who encompassest in Thy sight all the creatures in heaven and on earth; Thou art the Only One Who knowest the number of Angelic hosts, and also of ants upon the sand, birds in the air and fishes in the water — pour down Thy mercy on the Chinese people, the most plentiful among Thy peoples inhabiting the earth, we pray Thee now.

Lord, Thou hast given unto the Chinese people great life wisdom, hence to know how to till the earth, to do commerce in honesty, to obey the government, to show filial piety, to keep the house neat, and to love order and harmony in everything.

But this wisdom can serve man only unto the grave, 'tis only a step away from the cradle of each mortal. The Chinese people so desireth of Thine everlasting Wisdom, O Lord, Who incarnate on earth in Thine Only-begotten Son, which doth carry the soul beyond the grave and lead her into the Kingdom of Heaven.

O Good Creator, O Boundless Love, can it be that Thy love could ever have a limit before the millions in Thy great Chinese nation? No, that cannot be! But Thou, in Thy marvelous providence hast established the time in which the Chinese people will come forth and venerate the Cross of Christ, receiving within themselves the most pure Blood of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit.

Make that time come sooner, O Abundant in Mercy! Provide help to the missionaries of the Cross and Resurrection in the land of China! Open thou the doors of Thy grace to China, overlooking our iniquities. So the land of the yellow people would also reverberate with songs and exclamations: "Thy Nativity, O Christ, our God" and "Christ is risen from the dead!". O Most Holy Trinity, let it be so through the intercession of all the Apostles and Evangelists.

Let it be so, indeed!
Amen.

Originally published in Serbian in the Little Missionary, 1934 — 1938. English translation by Igor Radev here.
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 9:17 AM 2 comments: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Orthodoxy in Asia
Reactions: 

Temple In Turkey Predates Egyptian Pyramids


History in the Remaking

A temple complex in Turkey that predates even the pyramids is rewriting the story of human evolution.

By Patrick Symmes
NEWSWEEK
Published Feb 19, 2010
From the magazine issue dated Mar 1, 2010

They call it potbelly hill, after the soft, round contour of this final lookout in southeastern Turkey. To the north are forested mountains. East of the hill lies the biblical plain of Harran, and to the south is the Syrian border, visible 20 miles away, pointing toward the ancient lands of Mesopotamia and the Fertile Crescent, the region that gave rise to human civilization. And under our feet, according to archeologist Klaus Schmidt, are the stones that mark the spot—the exact spot—where humans began that ascent.

Standing on the hill at dawn, overseeing a team of 40 Kurdish diggers, the German-born archeologist waves a hand over his discovery here, a revolution in the story of human origins. Schmidt has uncovered a vast and beautiful temple complex, a structure so ancient that it may be the very first thing human beings ever built. The site isn't just old, it redefines old: the temple was built 11,500 years ago—a staggering 7,000 years before the Great Pyramid, and more than 6,000 years before Stonehenge first took shape. The ruins are so early that they predate villages, pottery, domesticated animals, and even agriculture—the first embers of civilization. In fact, Schmidt thinks the temple itself, built after the end of the last Ice Age by hunter-gatherers, became that ember—the spark that launched mankind toward farming, urban life, and all that followed.

Göbekli Tepe—the name in Turkish for "potbelly hill"—lays art and religion squarely at the start of that journey. After a dozen years of patient work, Schmidt has uncovered what he thinks is definitive proof that a huge ceremonial site flourished here, a "Rome of the Ice Age," as he puts it, where hunter-gatherers met to build a complex religious community. Across the hill, he has found carved and polished circles of stone, with terrazzo flooring and double benches. All the circles feature massive T-shaped pillars that evoke the monoliths of Easter Island.

Though not as large as Stonehenge—the biggest circle is 30 yards across, the tallest pillars 17 feet high—the ruins are astonishing in number. Last year Schmidt found his third and fourth examples of the temples. Ground-penetrating radar indicates that another 15 to 20 such monumental ruins lie under the surface. Schmidt's German-Turkish team has also uncovered some 50 of the huge pillars, including two found in his most recent dig season that are not just the biggest yet, but, according to carbon dating, are the oldest monumental artworks in the world.

The new discoveries are finally beginning to reshape the slow-moving consensus of archeology. Göbekli Tepe is "unbelievably big and amazing, at a ridiculously early date," according to Ian Hodder, director of Stanford's archeology program. Enthusing over the "huge great stones and fantastic, highly refined art" at Göbekli, Hodder—who has spent decades on rival Neolithic sites—says: "Many people think that it changes everything…It overturns the whole apple cart. All our theories were wrong."

Schmidt's thesis is simple and bold: it was the urge to worship that brought mankind together in the very first urban conglomerations. The need to build and maintain this temple, he says, drove the builders to seek stable food sources, like grains and animals that could be domesticated, and then to settle down to guard their new way of life. The temple begat the city.

This theory reverses a standard chronology of human origins, in which primitive man went through a "Neolithic revolution" 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. In the old model, shepherds and farmers appeared first, and then created pottery, villages, cities, specialized labor, kings, writing, art, and—somewhere on the way to the airplane—organized religion. As far back as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, thinkers have argued that the social compact of cities came first, and only then the "high" religions with their great temples, a paradigm still taught in American high schools.

Religion now appears so early in civilized life—earlier than civilized life, if Schmidt is correct—that some think it may be less a product of culture than a cause of it, less a revelation than a genetic inheritance. The archeologist Jacques Cauvin once posited that "the beginning of the gods was the beginning of agriculture," and Göbekli may prove his case.

The builders of Göbekli Tepe could not write or leave other explanations of their work. Schmidt speculates that nomadic bands from hundreds of miles in every direction were already gathering here for rituals, feasting, and initiation rites before the first stones were cut. The religious purpose of the site is implicit in its size and location. "You don't move 10-ton stones for no reason," Schmidt observes. "Temples like to be on high sites," he adds, waving an arm over the stony, round hilltop. "Sanctuaries like to be away from the mundane world."

Unlike most discoveries from the ancient world, Göbekli Tepe was found intact, the stones upright, the order and artistry of the work plain even to the un-trained eye. Most startling is the elaborate carving found on about half of the 50 pillars Schmidt has unearthed. There are a few abstract symbols, but the site is almost covered in graceful, naturalistic sculptures and bas-reliefs of the animals that were central to the imagination of hunter-gatherers. Wild boar and cattle are depicted, along with totems of power and intelligence, like lions, foxes, and leopards. Many of the biggest pillars are carved with arms, including shoulders, elbows, and jointed fingers. The T shapes appear to be towering humanoids but have no faces, hinting at the worship of ancestors or humanlike deities. "In the Bible it talks about how God created man in his image," says Johns Hopkins archeologist Glenn Schwartz. Göbekli Tepe "is the first time you can see humans with that idea, that they resemble gods."

The temples thus offer unexpected proof that mankind emerged from the 140,000-year reign of hunter-gatherers with a ready vocabulary of spiritual imagery, and capable of huge logistical, economic, and political efforts. A Catholic born in Franconia, Germany, Schmidt wanders the site in a white turban, pointing out the evidence of that transition. "The people here invented agriculture. They were the inventors of cultivated plants, of domestic architecture," he says.

Göbekli sits at the Fertile Crescent's northernmost tip, a productive borderland on the shoulder of forests and within sight of plains. The hill was ideally situated for ancient hunters. Wild gazelles still migrate past twice a year as they did 11 millennia ago, and birds fly overhead in long skeins. Genetic mapping shows that the first domestication of wheat was in this immediate area—perhaps at a mountain visible in the distance—a few centuries after Göbekli's founding. Animal husbandry also began near here—the first domesticated pigs came from the surrounding area in about 8000 B.C., and cattle were domesticated in Turkey before 6500 B.C. Pottery followed. Those discoveries then flowed out to places like Çatalhöyük, the oldest-known Neolithic village, which is 300 miles to the west.

The artists of Göbekli Tepe depicted swarms of what Schmidt calls "scary, nasty" creatures: spiders, scorpions, snakes, triple-fanged monsters, and, most common of all, carrion birds. The single largest carving shows a vulture poised over a headless human. Schmidt theorizes that human corpses were ex-posed here on the hilltop for consumption by birds—what a Tibetan would call a sky burial. Sifting the tons of dirt removed from the site has produced very few human bones, however, perhaps because they were removed to distant homes for ancestor worship. Absence is the source of Schmidt's great theoretical claim. "There are no traces of daily life," he explains. "No fire pits. No trash heaps. There is no water here." Everything from food to flint had to be imported, so the site "was not a village," Schmidt says. Since the temples predate any known settlement anywhere, Schmidt concludes that man's first house was a house of worship: "First the temple, then the city," he insists.

Some archeologists, like Hodder, the Neolithic specialist, wonder if Schmidt has simply missed evidence of a village or if his dating of the site is too precise. But the real reason the ruins at Göbekli remain almost unknown, not yet incorporated in textbooks, is that the evidence is too strong, not too weak. "The problem with this discovery," as Schwartz of Johns Hopkins puts it, "is that it is unique." No other monumental sites from the era have been found. Before Göbekli, humans drew stick figures on cave walls, shaped clay into tiny dolls, and perhaps piled up small stones for shelter or worship. Even after Göbekli, there is little evidence of sophisticated building. Dating of ancient sites is highly contested, but Çatalhöyük is probably about 1,500 years younger than Göbekli, and features no carvings or grand constructions. The walls of Jericho, thought until now to be the oldest monumental construction by man, were probably started more than a thousand years after Göbekli. Huge temples did emerge again—but the next unambiguous example dates from 5,000 years later, in southern Iraq.

The site is such an outlier that an American archeologist who stumbled on it in the 1960s simply walked away, unable to interpret what he saw. On a hunch, Schmidt followed the American's notes to the hilltop 15 years ago, a day he still recalls with a huge grin. He saw carved flint everywhere, and recognized a Neolithic quarry on an adjacent hill, with unfinished slabs of limestone hinting at some monument buried nearby. "In one minute—in one second—it was clear," the bearded, sun-browned archeologist recalls. He too considered walking away, he says, knowing that if he stayed, he would have to spend the rest of his life digging on the hill.

Now 55 and a staff member at the German Archaeological Institute, Schmidt has joined a long line of his countrymen here, reaching back to Heinrich Schliemann, the discoverer of Troy. He has settled in, marrying a Turkish woman and making a home in a modest "dig house" in the narrow streets of old Urfa. Decades of work lie ahead.

Disputes are normal at the site—the workers, Schmidt laments, are divided into three separate clans who feud constantly. ("Three groups," the archeologist says, exasperated. "Not two. Three!") So far Schmidt has uncovered less than 5 percent of the site, and he plans to leave some temples untouched so that future researchers can examine them with more sophisticated tools.

Whatever mysterious rituals were conducted in the temples, they ended abruptly before 8000 B.C., when the entire site was buried, deliberately and all at once, Schmidt believes. The temples had been in decline for a thousand years—later circles are less than half the size of the early ones, indicating a lack of resources or motivation among the worshipers. This "clear digression" followed by a sudden burial marks "the end of a very strange culture," Schmidt says. But it was also the birth of a new, settled civilization, humanity having now exchanged the hilltops of hunters for the valleys of farmers and shepherds. New ways of life demand new religious practices, Schmidt suggests, and "when you have new gods, you have to get rid of the old ones."

Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 8:57 AM No comments: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Middle East, Religion
Reactions: 
Newer Posts Older Posts Home
View mobile version
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Related Posts with Thumbnails