Homily for the Sunday of Saint Thomas

by St. John of Kronstadt

Christ is Risen!

Beloved brothers, so Bright Week has passed and taken with it our deeds to the throne of the Heavenly Master and Judge: there, brothers, there are our deeds now. I say this in order to frighten with the fear of the heavenly judgment those who unworthily, not Christian-like, spent the feast of the bright Resurrection of Christ and to comfort those who spent it with temperance and spiritual joy.

How did very many spend the feast of the bright Resurrection? I would not like to call to remembrance foul human deeds but they, together with those that performed them, need to be remembered and judged on behalf of God. The all-bright feast was met, after the bright Paschal service, with dark deeds: intemperance and drunkenness, fights, cursing, and all types of sin. Consider that we fasted before the feast only in order to, with even more eagerness, rush into all fleshly, sinful deeds so that we can unashamedly and with insolence indulge in every iniquity. Alas! Woe unto us!

All those who met the feast with intemperance and drunkenness, adultery, cursing, and other similar deeds of the flesh lost all the benefit which they had received (if they even received any) from the fast, lost the benefit from repentance and communion of the Holy Mysteries, trampled them as an unreasonable animal under their feet, lost the acceptable time for salvation, given them by the mercy of the Lord, time which will not be returned. It was proper to say to you during the fast, behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation (2 Cor. 6:2) for it was just then that you had come to the saving font of repentance and to the all-cleansing, true Mysteries of the body and blood of the Lord. Now your confession and communion is put off until the next fast but who knows if the Lord will vouchsafe you to again confess and commune? Who knows if you will repose in those very iniquities with which again, after the font of repentance, you have defiled yourself? How painful, how piteous, beloved brothers, that so soon you have turned out to be betrayers of Christ and have given yourself over to the devil to serve him, the original murderer, the author of, and instructor in of every type of sin! You are, using the words of the Savior, and I, a great sinner, am as well are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do (John 8:44).

What, then, remains for us to do, beloved brothers? To pray and weep for our sins. To weep that not Christian-like and not even human-like did many of us meet the feast but like vile idol worshipers and like wild animals, which have not been fed for a long time with their favorite food. To weep that we have trampled upon the great, soul-saving Mysteries of Christ, that is, repentance and communion, and counted them as nought. To weep that the time, given for salvation, we have thoughtlessly lost. May we weep and pray to the Lord that He “not become angry with us neither destroy us with our iniquities” (first morning prayer) but would return us to the way of repentance and make us skilled performers of His commandments. Let us firmly decide from now on not to give ourselves over to intemperance and drunkenness and all the sins which follow, and with tears ask the Lord that He, with the Grace of the Holy Spirit, would strengthen us in our intentions and good deeds.

Brothers! May we all shed tears for we all unworthily met the great feast of the Lord and angered our Lord; not in this way, not in this way indeed, should we meet the feasts of the Lord. We need to meet them with spiritual joy in the Lord, for our deliverance from sins and for our eternal salvation through Christ, the Son of God, with deeds of mercy, temperance from passions, visiting the church of God in spirit and truth and with simplicity in food and clothing.

O, you, decorated with gold and a multitude of precious fabrics, women and maids! In the name of the Lord, I direct my speech to you! What a multitude of poor would you have been able to cause to rejoice on the all-bright day of the Resurrection of Christ and, in that way, worthily meet that great feast, if you would have, in generosity and Christian love, changed even a few of these decorations into money and given that money to the poor who are so many in our city? Would it not have been reasonable, in a Christian way, if you had fewer precious clothing and the money remaining you had given to the poor? What rich mercy would you have received on that day from Christ the Lord? Yes, truly Christian-like would you have then met the feast of Christ’s Resurrection. But now what? You are decorated like idols but the members of Christ are without clothes; you are satiated but the members of Christ are in want; you roll in every possible pleasure but those are in tears; we are in rich and decorated dwellings but those are in cramped conditions and uncleanness, in dwellings which are often not any better than a pigsty. We do not have Christian love and, therefore, there is no true feast of the Resurrection of Christ, for those truly celebrate the Resurrection who himself is raised from dead deeds to deeds of virtue and Christian faith and love, trampling on intemperance, luxury, and all of the passions. Brothers! May we celebrate the feasts of the Lord as Christians and not as pagans! Amen.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Orthodox Bulgaria Marks Sunday of St. Thomas

April 10, 2010
Novinite

Bulgaria marks on April 10, the Sunday after Easter or Sunday of St. Thomas, also known as Second Sunday or Antipascha.

Historically, this day in the early Church was the day that the newly-baptized Christians removed their robes and entered once again into the life of this world.

This day is also known as Antipascha. This does not mean "opposed to Pascha," but "in place of Pasch," i.e., at the other end of Bright Week.

Liturgically, the Church remembers the Apostle Thomas' vision of Christ after eight days.

Thomas the Apostle, also called Doubting Thomas was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus. He is best known for disbelieving Jesus' resurrection when first told of it, then proclaiming "My Lord and my God" on seeing Jesus in John 20:28.

On the eight day Christ said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing." Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe" (John 20:26-29).

In Bulgaria, on Sunday of St. Thomas women dye eggs one more time and give them away for the souls of their dead relatives and friends. The belief is that this giving away of colored eggs will prevent the latter from reincarnation.

The Second Sunday in Bulgaria is also the name day of Toma, Tomislav, Tomislava.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Feast of the Synaxis of the Holy Kollyvades Fathers

Icon of the Synaxis of the Holy Kollyvades Fathers

On the Saturday of Bright Week, a service has been written to commemorate all of the Saintly Holy Fathers of the so-called "Kollyvades" movement. These were monastics primarily from Mount Athos who taught adherence to Holy Orthodox dogma and tradition amid waves of westernization and secularism during the years of the Turkish occupation of Greece. The ranks of such Holy Fathers include some of the Church's most beloved Saints: St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, St. Makarios (Notaras) of Corinth, St. Nektarios of Pentapolis, St. Kosmas Aitolos, St. Savvas of Kalymnos, St. Athanasios of Paros, St. Paisius Velichovsky, St. Nicholas Planas, and so many more. The following quote (from mountathos.gr) discusses the Holy Mountain and the Kollyvades by Monk Moses:

"In the mid 18th century a grave theological debate developed all over the Holy Mountain in connection with the issues of the holding of memorial services for the departed, frequency of Holy Communion, and other matters relating to the exact observance of Orthodox tradition. The starting-point for this prolonged controversy was the building of the kyriakon at the Skete of St Anne (1754). The question arose as to whether the commemoration of the founders and benefactors should be held on Saturday or Sunday, and with what frequency the monks should receive Holy Communion. The debate divided the monks, and those who insisted that the memorial services should be held on Saturdays were mockingly dubbed 'kollyvades'. It seems, however, that, behind their apparent obstinacy, they had a profound knowledge of church tradition and fought hard for its authenticity and for its purification from adulteration. Thus the name of 'kollyvas' became a title of honour and the movement was responsible for a profitable and beneficial regeneration and renewal. Indeed, this devout movement was led by three saints: Makarios Notaras, Nicodemus the Athonite, and Athanasios of Paros, and they numbered among their supporters and sympathisers distinguished scholars such as Neophytos Kafsokalyvitis, Christophoros Artinos, Agapios of Cyprus, Iakovos the Peloponnesian, Pavlos the hermit, Theodoritos of Esphigmenou, and a number of others. Some of them chose voluntary exile and took refuge in mainland Greece or the islands, where they founded scores of monasteries, of which a fair number survive today. Thus we see Makarios Notaras on Chios, Niphon on Skiathos, Dionysios of Skiathos on Skyros, Ierotheos on Hydra, with numerous disciples and friends of that Athonite tradition which has nourished monks and saints. The monasteries which they founded were noted for their vigour and service. The Ecumenical Patriarchate by decisions of the Holy Synod finally put an end to the 'kollyvades' issue, by ruling that memorial services could be held as circumstances demanded and that Holy Communion, with the proper preparation, could be received frequently, and that the life of the substance, and not the aridity of the form, was to be adhered to."
(taken from: http://www.mountathos.gr/active.aspx?mode=en%7B00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000004%7DView)

Apolytikion (in Greek) of the Holy Kollyvades Fathers

Apolytikion of the Holy Kollyvades Fathers - 1st Tone
Let us honor the choir of Kollyvades Fathers, ministers of the Holy Spirit, stewards of grace, they taught to us the Gospel of Christ in evil times, and as very bright stars, they delivered souls from the darkness of error. Rejoice o Godly band, rejoice boast of the nation, rejoice torches of truth and expounders of the faith.

For the full service text (in Greek) of the Synaxis of the Holy Kollyvades Fathers:
http://www.pigizois.net/latreia/paraklitikoi_kanones/pdf/esperinos_kolivadon_pateron.pdf http://www.pigizois.net/latreia/paraklitikoi_kanones/pdf/orthros_kolivadon_pateron.pdf

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

"The Byzantine Empire Sucks": A Cynical View

In 60 seconds Olivia Munn offers an "epic" rant as to why she thinks the Byzantine Empire sucks. Though I of course strongly disagree with her (except for her first point), I am only hoping that this segment will prove not only how under appreciated the Byzantine Empire is, but how misunderstood as well.

Game Reviews - E3 2010 - Comedy

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Experiences of the Risen Jesus

Experiences of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection

by Gary R. Habermas

Introduction

Having specialized for several decades in critical studies of the resurrection of Jesus, I recently decided to update my Bibliography. What began rather modestly evolved into a five year study of well over 2000 sources on this topic, published from 1975 to the present in German, French, and English. I was most interested in scholarly trends, resulting in a survey of well over 100 sub-issues.

One area of concentration was the common historical content recognized by virtually all researchers. For a variety of reasons, contemporary scholars widely conclude that after his death, Jesus' followers at least thought that they had seen appearances of the risen Jesus. Do the disciples' beliefs that they had witnessed resurrection appearances provide any clues as to what may really have occurred? The answer depends on how one accounts for these experiences. Here, where scholarship differs widely, three chief options prevail. In spite of these differences, it is my contention that this is the single most crucial aspect of the historical question.

During the examination of this subject, I will attempt to clarify some of the relevant issues in order to narrow the major options. While I will not choose between these answers regarding the underlying cause, my chief task is to tighten the focus of the discussion. In the process, I will use chiefly those data to which the vast majority of recent researchers agree, at least in principle, regardless of their theological positions. Due to the volume of relevant material, I will often resort to summarized conclusions of recent scholarly trends. The endnotes provide additional background information, perspectives, argumentation, and other details.

The Disciples' Experiences of the Risen Jesus

The substantially unanimous verdict of contemporary critical scholars is that Jesus' disciples at least believed that Jesus was alive, resurrected from the dead. Reginald Fuller refers to the disciples’ belief in Jesus' resurrection as "one of the indisputable facts of history." Upon what was their claim based? Fuller continues that it is clear that the disciples had real experiences, characterized as appearances or visions of the risen Jesus. Whether these are explained naturally or supernaturally, this experience "is a fact upon which both believer and unbeliever may agree."[1]

In recent studies of the historical Jesus, this aspect has enjoyed the support of a broad scholarly consensus. E.P Sanders declares that the "equally secure facts" indicate that Jesus' disciples "saw him (in what sense is not certain) after his death . . . . Thereafter his followers saw him."[2]

That the vast majority of scholars, in spite of extensive disagreements in other areas, recognizes that the disciples had some sort of experience is a significant starting point. How these experiences are explained is another matter. But there are some rather impressive reasons that explain such a widespread, initial conclusion. We will begin by listing eight pointers, four from Paul and four more from various other sources.

(1) Contemporary critical scholars agree that the apostle Paul is the primary witness to the early resurrection experiences. A former opponent (1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13-14; Phil. 3:4-7), Paul states that the risen Jesus appeared personally to him (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8; Gal. 1:16). The scholarly consensus here is attested by atheist Michael Martin, who avers: "However, we have only one contemporary eyewitness account of a postresurrection appearance of Jesus, namely Paul’s."[3]

(2) In addition to Paul's own experience, few conclusions are more widely recognized than that, in 1 Corinthians 15:3ff., Paul records an ancient oral tradition(s). This pre-Pauline report summarizes the early Gospel content, that Christ died for human sin, was buried, rose from the dead, and then appeared to many witnesses, both individuals and groups.

Paul is clear that this material was not his own but that he had passed on to others what he had received earlier, as the center of his message (15:3). There are many textual indications that the material pre-dates Paul. Most directly, the apostle employs paredoka and parelabon, the equivalent Greek terms for delivering and receiving rabbinic tradition (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23). Indirect indications of a traditional text(s) include the sentence structure and verbal parallelism, diction, and the triple sequence of kai hoti Further, several non-Pauline words, the proper names of Cephas (cf. Lk. 24:34) and James, and the possibility of an Aramaic original are all significant. Fuller attests to the unanimity of scholarship here: "It is almost universally agreed today that Paul is here citing tradition."[4] Critical scholars agree that Paul received the material well before this book was written.[5]

The most popular view is that Paul received this material during his trip to Jerusalem just three years after his conversion, to visit Peter and James, the brother of Jesus (Gal. 1:18-19), both of whose names appear in the appearance list (1 Cor. 15:5; 7). An important hint here is Paul's use of the verb historesai (1:18), a term that indicates the investigation of a topic.[6] The immediate context both before and after reveals this subject matter: Paul was inquiring concerning the nature of the Gospel proclamation (Gal. 1:11-2:10), of which Jesus' resurrection was the center (1 Cor. 15:3-4, 14, 17; Gal. 1:11, 16).

Critical scholars generally agree that this pre-Pauline creed(s) may be the earliest in the New Testament. Ulrich Wilckens asserts that it "indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of primitive Christianity."[7] Joachim Jeremias agrees that it is, "the earliest tradition of all."[8] Perhaps a bit too optimistically, Walter Kasper even thinks that it was possibly even "in use by the end of 30 AD . . . ."[9]

Indicating the wide approval on this subject, even more skeptical scholars frequently agree. Gerd Ludemann maintains that "the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus. . . . not later than three years. . . . the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE. . . ."[10] Similarly, Michael Goulder thinks that it "goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion."[11] Thomas Sheehan agrees that this tradition "probably goes back to at least 32-34 C.E., that is, to within two to four years of the crucifixion."[12] Others clearly consent.[13]

Overall, my recent overview of critical sources mentioned above indicates that those who provide a date generally opt for Paul's reception of this report relatively soon after Jesus’ death, by the early to mid-30s A.D.[14] This provides an additional source that appears just a half step removed from eyewitness testimony.

(3) Paul was so careful to assure the content of his Gospel message, that he made a second trip to Jerusalem (Gal. 2:1-10) specifically to be absolutely sure that he had not been mistaken (2:2). The first time he met with Peter and James (Gal. 1:18-20). On this occasion, the same two men were there, plus the apostle John (2:9). Paul was clearly doing his research by seeking out the chief apostles. As Martin Hengel notes, "Evidently the tradition of I Cor. 15.3 had been subjected to many tests" by Paul.[15]

These four apostles were the chief authorities in the early church, and each is represented in the list of those who had seen the resurrected Jesus (1 Cor. 15:5-7). So their confirmation of Paul's Gospel preaching (Gal. 2:9), especially given the apostolic concern to insure doctrinal truth in the early church, is certainly significant. On Paul's word, we are again just a short distance from a firsthand report.

(4) Not only do we have Paul's account that the other major apostles confirmed his Gospel message, but he provides the reverse testimony, too. After listing Jesus' resurrection appearances, Paul tells us he also knew what the other apostles were preaching regarding Jesus' appearances, and it was the same as his own teaching on this subject (1 Cor. 15:11). As one, they proclaimed that Jesus was raised from the dead (15:12, 15). So Paul narrates both the more indirect confirmation of his Gospel message by the apostolic leaders, plus his firsthand, direct approval of their resurrection message.

(5) Critical scholars usually recognize that James, the brother of Jesus, was a rather skeptical unbeliever prior to Jesus' crucifixion (Mk. 3:21-35; Jn. 7:5). Not long afterwards, James is a leader of the Jerusalem church, where Paul finds him during his two visits (Gal. 1:18-19; 2:1-10; cf. Acts 15:13-21). In-between, the pre-Pauline statement in 1 Corinthians 15:7 states that the risen Jesus appeared to James.

Scholars find several reasons for believing that James was an unbeliever before this event. John Meier points out that James' unbelief is multiply attested. Further, the criterion of embarrassment is probably the strongest consideration, since it would be highly unlikely that the early church would otherwise sponsor what would potentially be some "deeply offensive" statements regarding Jesus' brother, as well as a major leader. To a lesser extent, the criterion of coherence indicates a similarity between Jesus' frequent call to place God before one's family, and Jesus' own example, in that he did the same although some of his own family members were unbelievers.[16]

Surprisingly, Fuller concludes that even if the New Testament had not referenced the resurrection appearance to James, "we should have to invent" one in order to account for his conversion and his promotion to his lofty position in the Jerusalem church![17] The majority of recent scholars, including many rather skeptical ones, agree that James was converted from unbelief by Jesus' personal appearance.[18]

(6) Many other early creedal texts are found throughout the New Testament. Many scholars think that the Book of Acts incorporates some of these early traditions, located in the sermons contained there.[19] They are generally identified by factors such as their compactness, theological simplicity, and because the structure, style, and/or diction reflect word patterns other than the author's. Not as widely accepted as the pre-Pauline tradition(s) in 1 Corinthians 15:3ff., it still appears that a majority of critical scholars conclude that some of these snippets reflect the early preaching of the Gospel message.[20] The risen Jesus is the center of each tradition, and Jesus' appearances are mentioned frequently.[21]

These Acts traditions are often dated very early. Gerald O’Collins thinks that this book "incorporates resurrection formulae which stem from the thirties."[22] John Drane concludes that this material "almost certainly goes back to the time immediately after the resurrection event is alleged to have taken place."[23]

(7) Virtually no critical scholar questions that the disciples’ convictions regarding the risen Jesus caused their radical transformation, even being willing to die for their beliefs. Their change does not evidence the resurrection appearances per se, but it is a clear indication that the disciples at least thought that they had experienced the risen Jesus.[24] Alternatives must account for this belief.

(8) In the study mentioned at the outset of this essay, I found that approximately 75% of the surveyed scholars accept one or more arguments for the historicity of the empty tomb. The remaining 25% accept one or more arguments against the early church's knowledge of an empty tomb. If the majority is correct that Jesus' burial tomb was later found empty, this perhaps adds some credibility to the disciples' claim that they saw the risen Jesus. If the minority view is correct, this reason would of course not support Jesus' appearances.[25]

The survey revealed almost two dozen reasons supporting Jesus’ empty tomb. These include the potentially embarrassing but unanimous agreement in all four Gospels that women were the earliest witnesses, Jerusalem being the least-likely place for a resurrection proclamation, the attestation by multiple sources, the early pre-Pauline creed (1 Cor. 15:3-4) implying an empty tomb (cf. the possible early tradition in Acts 13:29-31, 36-37), along with the later report that the Jewish leaders conceded it (Matt. 28:11-15).[26]

The minority position that accepted one or more reasons against the empty tomb cited a total of about a dozen opposing considerations. These tend to center on the lateness of the Gospel reports, Paul's lack of discussion (and perhaps knowledge) of the empty tomb, and that the report served apologetic purposes in Christian preaching.

The empty tomb is not as widely held as are the other historical reasons for the disciples' experiences, which are seldom disputed. Still, most critical scholars agree that Jesus' tomb was found empty. James D.G. Dunn concludes: "I have to say quite forcefully: the probability is that the tomb was empty. As a matter of historical reconstruction, the weight of evidence points firmly to the conclusion. . . ." Potential alternative explanations are not feasible.[27] Historian Michael Grant surprisingly states that "the historian . . . cannot justifiably deny the empty tomb" because normally applied historical criteria indicate that, "the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty."[28]

These eight reasons indicate why virtually all recent scholars conclude that the disciples thought that they had seen the risen Jesus. Paul's eyewitness testimony, the early date of the pre-Pauline creed(s) in 1 Corinthians 15:3ff., scrutinizing his Gospel message at least twice before the chief apostles who were also witnesses, and Paul's knowledge of their eyewitness teaching on the resurrection appearances produces a simply astounding, interconnected line of evidence nearly unheard of in ancient documents. Howard Clark Kee surprisingly remarks that Paul's research "can be critically examined and compared with other testimony from eyewitnesses of Jesus, just as one would evaluate evidence in a modern court or academic setting."[29]

Further, four additional reasons include the conversion of James from unbelief after witnessing an appearance from his brother Jesus, other early creedal texts in Acts and elsewhere, the disciples' transformation, and the possibility of the empty tomb. It is clear that the disciples were thoroughly convinced that Jesus was raised from the dead and that they had seen him. Still other factors could be mentioned, but these are sufficient for our purposes.[30]

No other thesis viably opposes the conclusion that the disciples at least thought that Jesus was raised from the dead. This was what Fuller termed "one of the indisputable facts of history." The disciples thought that they had witnessed Jesus' appearances, which, however they are explained, "is a fact upon which both believer and unbeliever may agree."[31] Fuller adds that "[e]ven the most skeptical historian" must do one more thing: "postulate some other event" that is not the disciples' faith, but the reason for their faith, in order to account for their experiences. Of course, both natural and supernatural options have been proposed.[32]

For the remainder of this article, we will survey the major categorical options that propose explanations to account for the disciples' belief that they had actually seen the risen Jesus. Although we will not decide here on a specific cause, it is my contention that even narrowing the options can be of great assistance in addressing the single most crucial aspect of these historical issues.

Accounting for the Disciples' Experiences

Each of the eight reasons above argues clearly for the belief that Jesus was seen alive after his crucifixion. The widespread view of contemporary scholars is that a visual claim was being made, either as a perceived revelation or as some type of presence. The disciples proclaimed that they had seen appearances of Jesus. This is what Paul clearly attested. The pre-Pauline creed lists Peter, James, and the other apostles as recipients. Peter, James, and John were all present when Paul's Gospel was affirmed. Paul knew of their preaching on Jesus' appearances. Most scholars agree that Jesus' tomb was empty. As a result, these disciples were transformed.

Recent scholars agree. Helmut Koester points out that, "We are on much firmer ground with respect to the appearances of the risen Jesus and their effect." Jesus' appearances "cannot very well be questioned."[33] Bart Ehrman declares: "we can say with complete certainty that some of his disciples at some later time insisted that . . . he soon appeared to them, convincing them that he had been raised from the dead."[34] Ehrman adds: "Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus' resurrection, since this is a matter of public record."[35] Holtz thinks that the disciples' "experience of resurrection . . . is in fact an undeniable historical event."[36] Ludemann reminds us that the appearance language employed by Paul is that of sight: "active sensual perception. . . . Paul is claiming a visual side to the appearance . . . ."[37] More specifically, Paul thinks that Jesus appeared in his "transformed spiritual resurrection corporeality."[38]

It seems clear that the disciples were utterly persuaded that the risen Jesus had appeared to them. The data are strong enough that this is granted by virtually all critical scholars. Can we get any closer to the nature of the experience that convinced the disciples? We will mention three avenues, each of which presents its own problems.

Those who deny (or question) whether the disciples actually saw Jesus in some sense would seemingly sever the connection between what the disciples thought, and what really happened. They generally move in either of two directions, by directly or indirectly positing their solution.

(1) The more popular of the two skeptical approaches, reaching its heyday in nineteenth century thought, posed a naturalistic theory to account for the data. Such a move basically accepted the strongest historical facts, while veering off in a natural direction instead of affirming the resurrection.[39]

However, in spite of a minority resurgence at present,[40] this approach has proven to be the most difficult. In fact, the vast majority of critical scholars reject this option. They are often well aware that the weight of the known historical facts opposes each of the proposals, and comparatively few attempt it. Scholars generally concede that there are multiple historical problems with each of the options.

For instance, Raymond Brown refers to these theses as "gratuitous charges."[41] James D.G. Dunn charges that these "alternative interpretations of the data fail to provide a more satisfactory explanation."[42] Stephen Davis agrees: "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. . . ."[43] John A.T. Robinson admits that, "It is indeed very difficult to dismiss [Jesus' appearances] and still find a credible explanation."[44]

(2) Another option[45] is the agnostic plea that we do not (or cannot) really know what happened. The disciples indeed were sincere in their belief that they saw Jesus, but we cannot determine the cause.

This position sometimes seems to reject even the possibility of actual appearances, rather than following the data to its conclusion. The approach is difficult to maintain, since its question mark could be answered by the many factual considerations. Perhaps we have plenty of evidence already to decide the case, especially since we used only those minimal data that virtually all critical scholars accept, including agnostics. So critics must not reject, or pull up short of, the results that are indicated by their own research, which may clearly indicate that more than an undefined "something" occurred to Jesus' disciples.

Recognized historical particulars must be accounted for in a viable manner. For example, perhaps the eight areas mentioned above could settle the matter of the cause of the disciples' experiences. But simply to label these data as insufficient does not explain them--they may be precisely what is capable of solving the historical issue. With Fuller, many scholars counter that we are capable of positing a cause for the disciples' faith beyond the faith itself.[46]

(3) In my study mentioned at the outset of this essay, by far the most popular option at present is that Jesus was actually raised in some form, either as an objective vision or in a transformed body.[47] The former view was more popular a few decades ago, while the latter appears clearly to be the majority view at present . Reasons such as those listed here are most frequently mentioned for establishing this position, each of which points to a visual event that changed the disciples' lives, completely convincing them that they had seen the risen Jesus.

Besides the rejoinders posed by the naturalistic hypotheses, various a priori objections have been proposed. While seldom addressed specifically to the resurrection, these philosophical misgivings are aimed at miracles in general. For example, naturalists or more deistic thinkers object that miraculous events do not occur. Or, these reservations might concern background information (as with Bayes Theorem), or issues regarding the nature of the evidence. While favored by some philosophers, these responses are also opposed by many.[48]

Conclusion

I have argued that at the center of the historical issue regarding the resurrection appearances is that Jesus' disciples were totally convinced that they had seen the risen Jesus. Many strong reasons support the historicity of these beliefs. Virtually all critical scholars agree that these the disciples' convictions are thoroughly historical.

Do the disciples' beliefs that they had experienced resurrection appearances provide any clues as to what caused these convictions? We have outlined three chief options. It is not our purpose here to choose between these general paths that purport to account for the cause of the disciples' experiences.

One option might potentially show itself to be superior. For example, since many researchers accept the maxim that a viable natural hypothesis is to be accepted before a supernatural one, postulating and checking alternative scenarios by the known data will probably continue. This process makes sense. On the other hand, if alternative theses continually fail amid dissatisfaction with agnostic reluctance, the reasons favoring the disciples' experiences might indicate that the most likely scenario is that the disciples actually did see the risen Jesus.

In general, the more thoroughly one option fails, the more likely the others become. And the more strongly an option is established, the more the others diminish. Even without a final solution here, however, there is still value in honing our instruments and narrowing our options.

Endnotes

[1] Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology (New York: Scribner's, 1965), 142.

[2] E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Penguin, 1993), 11, 13.

[3] Michael Martin, The Case Against Christianity (Philadelphia: Temple University, 1991), 81.

[4] Reginald Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (New York: Macmillan, 1980), 10.

[5] Of the vast number of scholars who agree, some examples include John Kloppenborg, "An Analysis of the Pre-Pauline Formula in 1 Cor 15:3b-5 in Light of Some Recent Literature," Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 40 (1978), especially 351, 360; Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, "Tradition and Redaction in 1 Cor 15:3-7," Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 43 (1981), 582-589; John Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 2001), Vol. 2:139; Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, 277; Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective (Minneapolis: Augsberg, 1983), 97-99.

[6] Several studies on the meaning of historesai in Gal. 1:18 have reached similar conclusions. See William Farmer, "Peter and Paul, and the Tradition Concerning `The Lord's Supper' in I Cor. 11:23-25," Criswell Theological Review, Vol. 2 (1987), 122-130, in particular, and 135-138 for an apostolic, Petrine source for the pre-Pauline tradition. Also helpful is an older but still authoritative study by G.D. Kilpatrick, "Galatians 1:18 historesai Kephan" in New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of Thomas Walter Manson, A.J.B. Higgins, editor (Manchester: Manchester University, 1959), 144-149. Paul Barnett reports that this same term appears in Herodotus, Polybius, and Plutarch, for whom it meant to inquire (41). Similar ideas are contained in J. Dore, "La Resurrection de Jesus: A L'Epreuve du Discours Theologique," Recherches de Science Religieuse, Vol. 65 (1977), 291, endnote 11.

[7] Ulrich Wilckens, Resurrection: Biblical Testimony to the Resurrection: An Historical Examination and Explanation (Edinburgh: St. Andrew, 1977), 2.
[8] Joachim Jeremias, "Easter: The Earliest Tradition and the Earliest Interpretation," New Testament Theology, trans. John Bowden (N.Y.: Scribner's, 1971), 306.

[9] Walter Kaspar, Jesus the Christ, new ed., trans. V. Green (Mahweh: Paulist, 1976), 125.

[10] Gerd Ludemann, The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 38 (Ludemann’s emphasis).

[11] Michael Goulder, "The Baseless Fabric of a Vision," in Gavin D’Costa, editor, Resurrection Reconsidered (Oxford: Oneworld, 1996), 48.
[12] Thomas Sheehan, The First Coming: How the Kingdom of God became Christianity (New York: Random House, 1986), 118; cf. 110-111.

[13] For instances, see A.J.M. Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999), 274, note 265; Robert Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels (New York: Macmillan, 1993), 24; Jack Kent, The Psychological Origins of the Resurrection Myth (London: Open Gate, 1999), 16-17; G.A. Wells, Did Jesus Exist? (London: Pemberton, 1986), 30.

[14] Besides those listed above, a few of the many others include: Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:139; Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 10, 14, 48; Raymond Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (N.Y.: Paulist, 1973), 81; Francis X. Durrwell, La Resurrection de Jesus: Mystere de Salut, (Paris: Les edtions du Cerf, 1976), 22; Peter Stuhlmacher, Jesus of Nazareth--Christ of Faith, trans. Siegfried S. Shatzmann (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993), 8; C.E.B. Cranfield, "The Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Expository Times, Vol. 101 (1990), 169; James D.G. Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus (Louisville: Westminster, 1985), 70; Leander E. Keck, Who is Jesus? History in Perfect Tense (Columbia: University of South Carolina, 2000), 139; Helmut Merklein, "Die Auferweckung Jesu und die Anfange der Christologie (Messias bzw. Sohn Gottes und Menschensohn)," Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der alteren Kirche, Vol. 72 (1981), reprint, 2.

[15] Martin Hengel, The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament, trans. John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 38.

[16] Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:68-71.

[17] Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 37.

[18] Of the many examples, see Ludemann, The Resurrection of Jesus, 109; Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), Vol. 2:84; Robert Funk, Honest to Jesus (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1996), 33; Wedderburn, 116; John Shelby Spong, The Easter Moment (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1987), 68; Peter Stuhlmacher, "The Resurrection of Jesus and the Resurrection of the Dead," trans. Jonathan M. Whitlock, Ex Auditu, Vol. 9 (1993), 49; E.P. Sanders, "But Did it Happen?" The Spectator, Vol. 276 (1996), 17.

[19] The most popular candidates for these condensed confessional segments are located within the sermon material in Acts 1:21-22; 2:22-36; 3:13-16; 4:8-10; 5:29-32; 10:39-43; 13:28-31; 17:1-3; 17:30-31.

[20] For some examples, see Gerd Ludemann, Early Christianity According to the Traditions in Acts: A Commentary, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), especially 47-49, 112-115; Hengel, 34; Kloppenborg, 361; John Alsup, The Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories of the Gospel Tradition: A History-of-Tradiitons Analysis with Text-Synopsis, Calwer Theologische Monographien 5 (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1975), 64-65, 81-85; Merklein, 2; Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to New Testament Christology (Mahweh: Paulist, 1994), 112-113, 164; Durrwell, 22; Ben F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (London: SCM, 1979), 61, 64, 66; Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 44-45; Pheme Perkins, Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection (Garden City: Doubleday, 1984), 90, 228-231; Max Wilcox, The Semitisms of Acts (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965), esp. 79-80, 164-165; Luke Timothy Johnson, Living Jesus: Learning the Heart of the Gospel (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1999), 34; C.H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments (Grand Rapids: Baker, reprint, 1980), 17-31.
[21] For examples, mentions of Jesus' appearances are found in Acts 2:31-32, 3:15, 10:39-41; 13:29-37.

[22] Gerald O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1983), 109-110.

[23] John Drane, Introducing the New Testament (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1986), 99.

[24] For critical agreement in various elements here, see Willi Marxsen, Jesus and Easter (Nashville: Abingdon, 1990), 66; J. Dore, "Croire en la Resurrection de Jesus-Christ," etudes, Vol. 356 (1982), 536-537; Funk, Honest to Jesus, especially 270; Wedderburn, 46-47; Hengel, 65; J.K. Elliott, "The First Easter," History Today, Vol. 29 (1979), 210, 215, 218; Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus--God and Man, second ed., trans. Lewis L. Wilkins and Duane A. Priebe (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 96; Michael Grant, Saint Peter: A Biography (N.Y.: Scribner, 1994), pp. 89, 96; Sanders, 11, 276-280; Hugh Jackson, "The Resurrection Belief of the Earliest Church: A Response to the Failure of Prophecy," The Journal of Religion, Vol. 55 (1975), 419-422; Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (NY: Random House, 1979), 8.

[25] This data is summarized in my forthcoming article, "The Empty Tomb of Jesus: Recent Critical Arguments."

[26] Similar reports are also found in Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 108 and Tertullian, On Spectacles 30.

[27] Dunn, 68.

[28] Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels (N.Y.: Collier, 1992), 176.

[29] Howard Clark Kee, What Can We Know about Jesus? (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1990), 1-2.

[30] For details on all of these reasons, as well as other pertinent information, see Gary R. Habermas, The Risen Jesus and Future Hope (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003), Chapter 1.

[31] Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology, 142.

[32] Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 2, 169, respectively; cf. 181.

[33] Koester, 2:84.

[34] Bart Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (New York: Oxford University, 1999), 230.

[35] Ehrman, 231.

[36] My translation of the German text in Traugott Holtz, "Kenntnis von Jesus und Kenntnis Jesu: Eine Skizze zum Verhaltnis zwischen historisch-philologischer Erkenntnis und historisch-theologischem Verstandnis," Theologische Literaturzeitung, Vol. 104 (1979), 10.

[37] Ludemann, The Resurrection of Jesus, 50; cf. 37.

[38] Gerd Ludemann, What Really Happened to Jesus: A Historical Approach to the Resurrection, with Alf Özen, trans. John Bowden (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 103.

[39] For details, see Gary R. Habermas, "The Late Twentieth-Century Resurgence of Naturalistic Responses to Jesus' Resurrection," Trinity Journal, new series, Vol. 22 (2001), 179-196.

[40] Represented by the works of Ludemann, Goulder, and Kent above.

[41] Brown, An Introduction to New Testament Christology, 163; cf. 163-167.

[42] Dunn, 76. Cf. N.T. Wright, "Christian Origins and the Resurrection of Jesus: The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical Problem," Sewanee Theological Review, Vol. 41 (1998), 118-122.

[43] Stephen T. Davis, "Is Belief in the Resurrection Rational?" Philo, Vol. 2 (1999), 57-58.

[44] John A.T. Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 124.

[45] Represented by the works of Marxsen and Wedderburn above.

[46] Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 2, 169, 181.

[47] The first is favored by Jeremias and the second by Wright above.

[48] For examples of each, see Rodney D. Holder, "Hume on Miracles: Bayesian Interpretation, Multiple Testimony, and the Existence of God," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Volume 49 (1998), especially 60-62; George N. Schlesinger, "Miracles and Probabilities," Nous, Volume 21 (1987), especially 219, 230-232; John Earman, "Bayes, Hume, and Miracles," Faith and Philosophy, Volume 10 (1993), especially 293, 305-306; Richard Otte, "Schlesinger and Miracles," Faith and Philosophy, Volume 10 (1993), especially 93, 97; David Owen, "Hume Versus Price on Miracles and Prior Probabilities," Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 37 (1987), 187-202.

Originally published in Dialog: A Journal of Theology, Vol. 45; No. 3 (Fall, 2006), pp. 288-297; published by Blackwell Publishing, UK.

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Jesus Trilemma: Liar, Lunatic or Lord

For those who accept the account of Jesus written in the New Testament, an honest conclusion must eventually be made from a trilemma of choices as to who Jesus is and how He is represented - He is either a liar, lunatic or Lord. C.S. Lewis popularized this apologetic argument in order to fend off a casual approach to Christianity. The argument is as follows from Lewis' Mere Christianity:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

We are faced, then, with a frightening alternative. This man we are talking about either was (and is) just what He said, or else a lunatic, or something worse. Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God. God has landed on this enemy-occupied world in human form.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The "Miracle" of the Universe

Miracles

Gil Dodgen

When asked if I believe in miracles I reply yes, and that I know of one for sure — on the grandest scale imaginable. What is a miracle? It is an event with no naturalistic explanation or cause. The event of the origin of the universe is, by definition, a miracle, since matter, energy, space and time (nature) did not exist to cause it. By definition, the universe had a super(beyond or outside of nature)natural cause.

Concerning the origin of the universe, I get frustrated that almost no one ever makes an obvious point when debating atheists who challenge, “Who designed the designer?” Matter, energy, space, and time came into existence at the birth of the universe. (Matter and energy are two manifestations of the same phenomenon, as are space and time. These are just two of Einstein’s great insights that are no longer disputed even amongst the most secular physicists.)

Language becomes difficult at this point, because one cannot reference a time before time began. “Before the origin of the universe” has no meaning, because “before” implies a point on the time line of the physical universe.

This simple logic leads to the following conclusion: The cause of the universe does not have, and cannot have, a cause. It has no past (or present, or future, all points on the time line of the physical universe), and therefore no history or point of origin. With this in mind, asking “Who designed the designed the designer?” is as pointless as asking, “Where is an airplane on the ground when it is in the air?”

After much reflection I finally realized that the best way to describe the cause of the universe is: the great I AM.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Zoodochos Pege (Life-Giving Spring) at Baloukli

The Theotokos of Zoodochos Pege (Feast Day - Bright Friday)

One of the most famous shrines of Constantinople, the Zoodochos Pege, is located outside the land walls to the west of the city, at the site now known as Balikli. Two versions of a very old tradition provide information on the origins of this ancient shrine.

According to the first, related by the historian Procopius, Justinian (527-565), while hunting in a beautiful verdant part of the land with many trees and much water, had the vision of a small chapel with a large crowd of people and a priest in front of a spring. "It is the spring of miracles", he was told, whereupon the Emperor built a monastery at the site using surplus materials from the church of Hagia Sophia. Cedrenus records that the monastery was built in 560.

The second version, narrated by the chronicler Nicephoros Callistos, says that the Emperor Leo I (457-474), when still a simple soldier, met at the Golden Gate a blind man who asked him for a drink of water. As he looked around for water, a voice directed him to the spring and enjoined him to build a church on the site when he would become emperor. Callistos describes this great church in detail ("Description of the Holy Church of the Pege Erected by Leo", P.G. Migne, vol. 147, 73-77), but the description agrees more with the church built by Justinian. It is historically confirmed that Zenon, Hegumen "of the house of the most holy and glorious Virgin Mary and Mother of God at Pege", participated in the Council of Constantinople, convened by the Patriarch Menas (536-552) in 536.

A chronological list of the most important events associated with the Zoodochos Pege is not without interest:

626 Invasion of the Avars. The Byzantines save the shrine of the hagiasma (spring of holy water).

790 Pseudo-Codinus mentions that the Empress Irene repaired the church after serious damages caused by an earthquake.

869 Nicephoros Callistos records that after another earthquake the church was repaired a new by Basil I the Macedonian (867-886).

924 During a Bulgar campaign, Tsar Simeon burned the church. It was, however, restored immediately, for it is in this church that the marriage of Peter, son and successor of Simeon, to Maria Lecapena, granddaughter of Emperor Romanus I Lecapenus, was celebrated in 927.

966 The description of an official ceremony on Ascension Day, in the presence of the Emperor Nicephoros II Phocas (963-969) and of the whole court, has come down to us. The procession sailed to the Golden Gate and from there rode to the shrine, while the crowd cheered and offered flowers and crosses. The Patriarch met and embraced the Emperor, and they entered the church together. The Emperor attended the Liturgy from a platform set up in the sanctuary, and the feast ended with the Emperor inviting the Patriarch to an official banquet.

1078 The monastery of the Pege is considered a place of banishment and it is here that George Monomachus is isolated.

1084 Alexius I Comnenus (1081-1118) confined to the monastery the philosopher John Italus (a supporter of Neo-Platonism) to put an end to the unrest caused by his teachings.

1204-1261 The shrine of the Pege is in the possession of the Latins.

1328 Young Andronicus III Palaeologus (1328-1341) uses the monastery as a base of operations to forge his way into Constantinople.

1330 At the town of Didymotichus, the moribund Emperor Andronicus III is given to drink water from the shrine of the Pege and recovers.

1341 A priest of the Pege, by the name of George, is witness to a notarial deed.

1347 The daughter of John Cantacuzenus, Helena, is presented wearing full imperial regalia to her future husband, John V Palaeologus (1341-1391), in the precinct of the shrine. According to an old custom, when a future empress reached the Capital by land, her meeting with the emperor took place at the Monastery of the Zoodochos Pege.

1422 During the siege of Constantinople by Murad II, the Sultan used the church as his living-quarters.

1547 Petrus Gyllius notes in 1547 that the church no longer exists, but ailing people continued to visit the spring of holy water.

1727 Nicodemus Metropolitan of Derkon built a small church and revived worship. The Armenians claimed participation in the shrine but long tradition and firmans issued by the Sultans recognized it as property of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

1833 With the Sultan's permission the Patriarch Constantius I (1830-1834) built the present-day church, consecrated in 1835 on Bright Friday.

The feastday of the Zoodochos Pege is celebrated on Friday of Bright Week. Today, in addition to the large church, the compound includes the underground shrine of the Zoodochos Pege with the holy spring and the fish.

Nicephoros Callistos writing in the 14th century about the hagiasma quotes from various sources a total of 63 miracles, of which 15 in his own time. According to Callistos's description, the church was of rectangular plan, with entrances at each of the four sides. Part of the church was built underground and two marble stairways, with 25 steps each, led down to the holy spring. The richly decorated church had a gilded ceiling, fine wall paintings and icons. Of the wall paintings, Callistos mentions the Presentation of Christ in the Temple, the Transfiguration, the Crucifixion, and the Appearance of Christ to the Holy Women, the Ascension and Pentecost. He also refers to two icons depicting miracles, probably with scenes from the main subject of the Zoodochos Pege.

The chronicler gives even the names of the painters: Ignatius and the hieromonk Gabriel. Near the church three parecclesia were erected honouring St. Eustratius, St. Anne and the Theotokos.

A number of epigrams express awe, veneration and enthusiasm for the hagiasma and the miracles associated with it. Preserved to our day are six by Manuel Philes, another six by the Magister Ignatius, one by John Mauropous and others.

The icon of Zoodochos Pege: Zoodochos Pege (i.e. Life-giving Fount) is an epithet of the Holy Virgin and Her representation as Zoodochos Pege is related to the sacred spring. It soon became very popular and this type of icon spread throughout the Orthodox world, particularly in places where a spring was believed to be hagiasma.

In the 9th century, Joseph the Hymnographer gave for the first time the title "Zoodochos Pege" to a hymn for the Mother of God.

A marble fountain, from which water flows, occupies the centre of the icon. Above, the Theotokos is holding Christ who makes the sign of blessing. Two angels hovering over Her head carry a scroll inscribed with the verse: «Hail! That you bear. Hail! That you are». Around the fountain the emperor and many ailing people are shown, in a variety of postures, being sprinkled with Holy Water. According to the tradition, a small pond with fish is painted to the side. Actually, it is the fish that have given its present name to the locality, for Balikli in Turkish means "a place with fish".

The Zoodochos Pege type of icon is found in many variations in all the Orthodox regions. Miniatures, mosaics, icons, woodcuts, copperplates have been in great demand these last centuries.

The north arch of the esonarthex of St. Saviour in Chora, one of the monasteries nearest to the shrine of the Pege, has preserved the upper part of a composition snowing the Virgin-Zoodochos Pege and Christ.

Apolytikion in the Third Tone
As a life-giving fount, thou didst conceive the Dew that is transcendent in essence, O Virgin Maid, and thou hast welled forth for our sakes the nectar of joy eternal, which doth pour forth from thy fount with the water that springeth up unto everlasting life in unending and mighty streams; wherein, taking delight, we all cry out: Rejoice, O thou Spring of life for all men.

Kontakion in the Plagal of the Fourth Tone
O Lady graced by God, you reward me by letting gush forth, beyond reason, the ever-flowing waters of your grace from your perpetual Spring. I entreat you, who bore the Logos, in a manner beyond comprehension, to refresh me in your grace that I may cry out, "Hail redemptive waters."

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

St. Anthony's Orthodox Monastery in Arizona

In the summer of 1995 six monks arrived in the southern Arizona desert to establish St. Anthony's Monastery, carrying with them the sacred, millenial heritage of the Holy Mountain, Athos.

Elder Ephraim, a disciple of Elder Joseph the Hesychast, having restored and repopulated four Mt. Athos monasteries and having established several mens and womens monastic communities throughout Greece and North America, transferred six Athonite monks to the Sonoran Desert to start a new monastery.

The monastery, which covers over 100 acres, is dedicated to St. Anthony the Great, the father of monasticism, the renowned 3rd century anchorite. There are chapels dedicated to Saints Seraphim of Sarov, Demetrios of Thessalonica, John the Baptist, George the Great Martyr, Nicholas the Wonderworker, and Panteleimon the Healer. The main church is dedicated to Saints Anthony and Nectarios the Wonderworker.

The monastery follows the coenobitic rule of monastic life: a brotherhood of monks and novices holding all things in common follow a daily schedule of prayer and work under obedience to the abbot, their spiritual father. There are over 40 monks there today.

Visit the Monastery website here: www.stanthonysmonastery.org

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Were We Born To Believe?

Rationalists such as Philip Pullman underestimate mankind's built-in hunger for the sacred, argues Matthew Taylor.

By Matthew Taylor
08 Apr 2010
Telegraph.co.uk

Philip Pullman's new novel The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ is opening another chapter in the often acrimonious debate between religious believers and atheists. This is not, of course, a new argument, but it is one that was given new life by the religious justifications offered by the September 11 terrorists, and there is little sign of it abating.

Although Pullman's attack is more on organised Christianity than faith, the aim of other strident atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens or Daniel Dennett, is to use the hammer of science and rationality to break the chains of religious superstition. Indeed, since the Ancient World, intellectuals have predicted that faith would wither away in the face of expanding human knowledge. But the prediction was wrong. Demographic trends suggest that the proportion of the world's population who follow a major religion will rise to about 80 per cent over the coming decades. Even in countries with low religious observance – such as Britain – there has been no decline in the number who say they believe in God.

The resilience of religion has been a spur to scientists interested in understanding the evolutionary, developmental and neurological basis of faith. Among evolutionists, the big debate is between those who argue that religious belief has helped human beings prosper as a species, and those who see faith merely as a by-product of other aspects of our development.

The evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson is perhaps the most prominent advocate of the adaptationist view, arguing that religious belief helped make groups of early humans comparatively more cohesive, more co-operative and more fraternal, and thus better able to fight off less organised foes. And as human needs changed, so did the content of religious belief. In close-knit tribal cultures, there are many gods residing in nature, but in modern mass societies, where it is harder to enforce social norms, a single all-seeing God helps keep us on the straight and narrow.

Adaptationist accounts are far from universally accepted. Richard Dawkins describes the group selection theory that underlies Sloan Wilson's account as "sheer, wanton, head-in-bag perversity". But whatever is happening at the group level, there is something about the way individual human beings develop that makes us susceptible to religious belief.

Clues to this lie in the study of child development. It appears, for example, that at a particular age – usually around 10 – children become fascinated by big questions about life, death and the origins of the universe. At earlier ages, as children begin to apply language to the world around them, they seem to ask questions for which religion has answers.

We appear, for example, to be natural creationists. A child's account of nature relies on what developmental psychologists call "immature teleology". This is the idea that something exists because of the function it provides for the child: the river is there so I can swim in it, the tree so I can climb it. If something has a purpose, it must have been created for that reason.

The attraction of religious explanations to young minds doesn't explain their persistence into adulthood. Grown-ups don't believe in fairies. But while we may rid ourselves of childhood myths, our susceptibility to belief in the supernatural persists. This goes beyond not walking under ladders. In one experiment, married couples were offered a hundred dollars if – after having an exact replica made of their wedding ring – they would keep one, not knowing if it was the original. Most declined.

Similarly, we would rather wear a dirty item of clothing with no past than a laundered item we are told belonged to a mass murderer. Yet this requires us to believe not only that evil infects clothing, but that it is contagious. On a more everyday scale, nine out of 10 of us say we know when someone is looking at us from behind, but such a faculty would require supernatural powers.

As well as supernatural tendencies, a sense of the sacred is also alive and well among those of no religion. The anthropologist Scott Atran has studied the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The sacred beliefs he finds – about land, nationhood or political principle – are characterised by what might be termed anti-instrumentalism; if we are offered money or other material gain to give up these beliefs, we tend to adhere to them even more strongly. Thus, our beliefs are qualitatively different from the kinds of rational, tradeable preferences that would be accounted for in economics or game theory.

For many reasons, and in many ways, human beings are made to believe. Even if Pullman's powerful novel encourages some to abandon organised Christianity, it is likely that their hunger for the sacred will soon find some other expression.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Do Angels and Demons Exist: Contemporary Perspectives

Robert Lawrence Kuhn
April 8, 2010
Science and Religion Today

Two-thirds of all Americans believe not only that angels and demons exist, but also that they are “active in the world.” Skeptics are dumbfounded by such “archaic nonsense.”

To believe in nonphysical beings—souls or spirits without bodies or brains—in today’s world may seem, well, delusional. But there are serious scholars who take angels and demons seriously. Why?

Certainly, nonphysical beings would challenge the scientific worldview that only the physical is real. Certainly, angels and demons, in one form or another, populate most of the world’s religions. But do angels and demons really exist?

J.P. Moreland, a Christian philosopher, defends angels and demons without hesitation or embarrassment. “I don’t believe they exist,” he tells me. “I know they exist—and there are two reasons. First, I’m convinced Christianity is true, so angels and demons being real is a system-dependent belief. Second, there are just too many credible, intelligent people who’ve had encounters with angels and demons to dismiss it. … I myself had an encounter with three angels.”

I put my skepticism to Moreland: “I’m not disputing your first-person account—I certainly believe you believe it—but I have to tell you, I am not moved one nanometer in my belief. If these angels are real, sent by God, why don’t such encounters happen more often?”

“They do,” Moreland responds.

After we agree to disagree—arguing with Moreland is, for me, revelatory and great fun—I ask about the purpose of angels.

“They are persons, they have lives, they’re involved in this world, they interact with God,” he says. “It is actually the case that children have guardian angels. This isn’t make-believe. This is real, and angels do protect children. Now, there is evil in this world, and so it’s not 100 percent.”

Not 100 percent? “It seems they’re doing an awful job,” I shoot back.

“But that’s based on your assumption of what [children suffering] would be like if angels weren’t on the job,” Moreland answers. “You don’t know that.”

“Look at Africa,” I say. “What are those guardian angels doing? Why don’t they feed those people instead of just watching them?”

“You don’t know what Africa would be like if [angels] weren’t involved,” he responds.
“I can’t imagine it worse in some cases,” I say.

“Then you need to go to Africa and talk to Africans,” says Moreland, “because they will tell you that they have seen angels and that they have helped them tremendously.”

“If Africans had more food, they wouldn’t see so many angels.”

A good sport as well as a sophisticated apologist, Moreland laughs and says, “Now that’s ad hominem argument and you know it.”

He was right: I did know it. So I move on: “Is there a finite number of angels?” I ask.

“Yes,” says Moreland.

“About how many?” I inquire attentively.

“I have absolutely no idea,” he answers.

“More than 100?” I persist.

“Yes,” he says.

“Less than a trillion?” I press.

Another “yes” from Moreland.

Surprised by the specificity, I’m momentarily speechless. In this business, setting boundaries between 100 and 1 trillion I’d call progress.

Moreland is both fun and smart (neither makes him right, of course). If he harbors doubts, I couldn’t find them.

Normally, I’d now go to a skeptic. But I already know what one would say. I prefer to explore the thinking behind such beliefs: how believers explain angels and demons.
Religious convictions are so strong. Does it help to get the biblical basis for belief in angels and demons?

Early Christian scholar James Tabor, author of The Jesus Dynasty, says that in his translation of the entire Hebrew Bible (called “The Original Bible” project), he will not use the word “angel” once. “It’s the Hebrew word ‘malach,’” he says, “which means messenger. And even though in some cases they are spiritual entities from God, the word ‘angel’ is misleading. The same word is also used for human messengers of King David. It’s the same word! So in the Hebrew Bible, ‘malach’ doesn’t have that ‘angel’ connotation of winged creatures benevolently watching over us.”

He goes on: “‘Demon’ doesn’t occur at all in the Hebrew Bible. Never. There’s one story about beings in the heavenly court with God, and one of them says, ‘Let me be a lying spirit in the mouth of this prophet.’ Almost like, let me go play this trick. But he’s not a demon in any traditional sense. So although the ancient Hebrews believed in entities beyond this world, it wasn’t thickly populated so that evil would be explained by these ‘demons.’”

What happened, he explains, was that “in later periods, in the Hellenistic world, you get this sense of pessimism, which may correlate with the rise of angels and demons. Why is there war, disease, injustice, suffering? There has to be more of an explanation than just fate, they reasoned. And I think it was very convenient for people to imagine that if there’s sickness, it’s because there are demons. It’s this attempt to explain the world with all of its troubles in some transcendent way, to explain why there’s such evil. There’s a bit of that in the Hebrew Bible, but when you open the New Testament, you’re suddenly in that world where much of Jesus’ activities involve casting out demons and healing the sick.”

Tabor concludes that “the demon-populated world, thick as flies, causing every evil, with Satan at the helm, with myriads of demons, is a comparatively late development and probably tells us very little about the cosmos as it really is.”

To get a Catholic perspective, I ask University of Notre Dame philosopher Thomas Flint. “It seems to me to be perfectly plausible to believe that angels and demons exist,” Flint begins, “though perhaps not with all of the cultural trappings—the wings and long robes.”

Flint defines an angel as “simply a finite nonphysical person who has, so to speak, decided for God to obey God. And a demon is simply a nonphysical finite person who has decided against God to rebel against God.” To Flint, angels and demons are “free spiritual beings who have something akin to a human soul, but not a physical body connected with it.” And, he adds, “it seems entirely reasonable to believe that God would create such beings.” One reason, he says, is that “there seems to be a large distance between us and God,” with “lots of possibilities for different kinds of beings for God to create [to fill the gap]. If anything, it would be very surprising if God had not created anything lower than himself but higher than us.”

Flint’s rational account of angels and demons feels so at odds with both objective science and tabloid foolishness. To me, in a way, that commends it. But it’s a mistake to assume that the existence of nonphysical beings depends on religious interpretations.

Dean Radin, a leading researcher in extrasensory perception, has special ideas about angels and demons. “I view them as a projection of the unconscious,” he says. “You don’t need to go too far into the ESP world to appreciate why people persist in believing in such things. There is some kind of intersubjective reality, a reality that we create between ourselves and others by sharing thoughts and feelings.”

This is more than personal psychology. “It’s a natural extension of the idea that you’re not locked inside your head,” Radin says. “The moment that you make the leap of faith that our intentions, to some degree, can affect the world around us and what other people think, then you might create a shared mental space which can appear as if it were an angel or demon. It will seem just as real as a hard table would seem real, but it’s different in type.”

Radin uses the example of ghosts and haunting (where, he stresses, psychological explanations can be ruled out). “People go to places and they experience weird things,” he says. “Sometimes, they actually see characters of some types. Assuming these reports are real, where did those ‘characters’ come from? Perhaps many years of people all paying close attention to a given space will change it in some way so that when somebody new comes along, in that vicinity, maybe that person can resonate in some way with all of these intentions going back into the past.”

Radin calls it “place memory,” a literal physical change of some new kind in a specific location caused by multiple interactions with multiple minds. “At an informational level, the physical substrate, like the granite wall of a castle, for example, physically changes in some way,” he speculates. “And it stores information. So when somebody comes into the vicinity of that information, they pick it up.”
As a scientist, Radin prefers this kind of explanation to that of spiritual beings and nonphysical realms. “I’m thinking more or less from a physicalist, scientific perspective,” he says.

“What’s the alternative?” I ask.

“That there really is something there,” he says. “From a spiritual perspective, there may be some kind of actual entity which has gotten stuck there.”

Instead, Radin favors “something like a collective unconscious, which would have aspects of telepathy [mind-to-mind communication] and psychokinesis [mind over matter].” He calls this “large ESP,” and his conjecture is that what we traditionally call “angels and demons” may not be the creations of some God, but rather the manifestations of ESP.

Could our collective consciousness really bring such strange stuff into existence? This is more bizarre—and more entertaining—than I’d realized.

But I’ve had about enough mysticism: I relent; I need a skeptic. I ask law professor Walter Sinnott-Armstrong how we deal with various kinds of spirits.

“We deal with them the same way we deal with fairies and gnomes in the garden,” he says. “There’s just no reason to believe in any kind of nonphysical creature. Stories about angels and demons are inconsistent: They’re nonphysical but they have wings!”

He continues: “Can you prove that they don’t exist? Of course not.” (It’s impossible to “prove” this kind of negative.)

So what’s left for the rational skeptic?

“Just make the argument that there is simply no good reason whatsoever to believe in angels or demons,” he says. “You might as well believe in Linus’ Great Pumpkin in the famous Peanuts cartoon.”

Among his physical, psychological, and cultural explanations of why a false belief in angels and demons would arise in many disparate human cultures, Sinnott-Armstrong blames people’s proclivity to use demons as scapegoats. The psychological analysis is that because people do not want to believe that evil is perpetrated by themselves, their family, and their friends, they conjure up (fictitious) demons that (supposedly) lead humans astray. With demons as causative agents in the world, people can feel better about themselves.

As I see it, a starting fact is that, yes indeed, most human beings believe in angels and demons. Across diverse cultures, nonphysical beings, in great numbers and variety, fly freely in collective myth and individual imaginations. How to explain such robust, broad-based belief?

It depends on your worldview.

Naturalists reject the reality of all such claims, citing personal illusion, mass delusion, and “cultural viruses”—called “memes”—as underlying causes.

Though not prevalent in the Hebrew Bible, angels and demons feature prominently in Christian doctrine—real beings, created by God as part of God’s grand master plan.

The radical alternative, advocated by some ESP researchers, is that angels and demons are manifestations of the paranormal.

Surely, angels and demons help us understand the human psyche, whether or not they are more.

Who’d have thought that angels and demons could “wing” us closer to truth.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Quackery of Deepak Chopra

Chopra Blames Own Meditation for Baja Quake

April 5, 2010
AOL News
Katie Drummond

The U.S. Geological Survey is blaming day-to-day seismological changes for Sunday's 7.2 earthquake along the U.S.-Mexico border. But Deepak Chopra, the famed alternative-medicine practitioner and transcendental meditation guru, is pretty sure he knows what really happened.

"Had a powerful meditation just now -- caused an earthquake in Southern California," Chopra wrote to his nearly 179,000 Twitter followers shortly after the quake.

And then, to clarify: "Was meditating on Shiva mantra & earth began to shake," he tweeted. "Sorry about that."

Chopra might want to apologize directly to those in California, who haven't suffered significant infrastructure damage but are still bracing for more temblors, and to those in Mexico, where two are dead, hundreds are injured and thousands are still without power.

Transcendental meditation (TM) was largely popularized by Chopra, who's been dubbed "McMeditation" for the multimillion-dollar profits he's earned off books, DVDs and his Chopra Center for Wellbeing in Carlsbad, Calif. -- where a six-day mind-body wellness program runs around $2,500.

According to Chopra, at the crux of the meditation practice is "the field of possibilities, creativity, correlation ... where intention actualizes its own fulfillment."

Let's hope he's wrong about that, or the guru might have some explaining to do about what exactly his meditation session Sunday was hoping to actualize.

An hour after Chopra's Twitter confession, he vowed to one Twitter user, @WhiteMoon7, "Won't do it again -- promise."

But even the guru himself must not know his own strength. Since the promise, dozens of aftershocks have rattled the U.S.-Mexico border.

All the while, Chopra's staying safely above the reach of the ongoing quakes. According to his Twitter feed, the guru boarded a plane from California to Denver earlier this morning.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Pascha at Vatopaidi Monastery

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

179 Newly-Revealed Martyrs of Ntaou Penteli

The 179 Holy Martyrs of Ntaou Penteli Monastery (Feast Day - Bright Tuesday)

The horrifying account of the martyrdom of the 179 holy martyrs of Pantokratoros Monastery in Ntaou Penteli was recorded soon after the event of 1680 by Cyril Degleri, abbot of Penteli Monastery. He and others record how Algerian pirates (some say they were Turkish or Albanian-Turkish pirates) docked their ship at the nearby port of Rafina during Holy Week of 1680. After failing in its raid of the fortified Ntaou Penteli Monastery in search of its treasures, under mysterious circumstances a servant of the monastery decided to betray the fathers and told the pirates of an access point otherwise unknown to outsiders (and recently discovered by archaeologists).

On Pascha, during the midnight service, after the final "Christ is Risen!" was joyfully chanted by the fathers following the Divine Liturgy, the pirates stormed into the katholikon and began the gruesome slaughter. 179 monks and hieromonks, including the abbot, were massacred by the pirates. The pirates took their treasure and escaped back to Rafina, after having set fire to the monastery.

Two escaped martyrdom however. One was a hieromonk and the other was a novice. They were not at the monastery that tragic evening, as they travelled to neighboring Nea Makri to serve the Paschal Divine Liturgy at a metochion of Pantokratoros Monastery where there were monks that kept the animals and farms of the monastery in Herotsakouli. They returned to Ntaou Penteli on Pascha Sunday evening only to find two dead monks at the entrance and their monastery burned down, save for the katholikon (which survives till today). When they entered the katholikon, they saw dozens of the fathers in a pool of blood. Some had been severely beaten, while others were cut in pieces.

On Bright Monday morning the heiromonk and the novice set out to seek help in burying the martyred monks from the neighboring fathers of Penteli Monastery, otherwise known as Dormition of the Theotokos Monastery. On the way they had a view of the port of Rafina and saw the pirates leaving. When the fathers of Penteli Monastery heard of the massacre, they went to Pantokratoros Monastery in Ntaou Penteli and helped bury all the bodies after a Bright Week funeral service was performed.

The names of the holy martyrs and the location of their burial were lost to history...until 1963.

About the Monastery

Pantokratoros Monastery was built before the tenth century over the ruins of older churches and before that an ancient Greek temple. It is of the same architecture as Armenian and Georgian monasteries. It was named Ntaou after the ancient Greek epigram "Tao" found at the monastery. The founder was Nikos the Kamatiros and before the Ottoman occupation probably had over 600 monks. In its history it endured fires, as well as capture by the Franks and the Turks. It is in the district of Ntaou to the east of Mount Penteli. Mount Penteli, or Mount Amomon, was surrounded by many monasteries. This is why it was called the Mountain of the Pure because it was filled with monastics (Amomon means "pure"). Pantokratoros Monastery became a metochion of Penteli Monastery which was further up the mountain after its destruction in 1680. In 1692 Penteli Monastery was recognized by Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril as stavropegial along with the Holy Monastery of Ntaou Penteli and the Holy Monastery of Saint Nicholas Kalision, which means that the monasteries were now directly under the Ecumenical Patriarch and not the local bishop (today they are once again independent).

From 1680 until 1963 Pantokratoros Monastery in Ntaou Penteli was deserted, except for one monk to take care of the grounds. In 1963, 283 years after the massacre, eleven nuns from Saint Patapios Monastery in Loutraki came with the blessing of Archbishop Chrysostomos of Athens to Ntaou Penteli to revive it. It was still a metochion of Penteli at the time. The abbot of Penteli, Theoklitos, had cells built for the nuns and gave them land to farm by which to live. On March 18, 1971 under imperial edict (there was a King in Greece at the time) the metochion became autonomous from Penteli and became a coenobium once again. The monastery today looks very different from what it did in 1963, as it expanded for the needs of the nuns and has been beautified.

One of the most interesting features of the katholikon of Ntaou Penteli Monastery is that this one church has a total of eight altars. This indicates that Pantokratoros Monastery was one of the rare akoimiton monasteries of the Roman Empire, that is, it was a monastery in which there was continuous prayer twenty-four hours a day and seven days a week. Akoimiton means "unsleeping". The only reason a church would need eight altars is because canonically the sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist cannot be performed more than once on the same day by the same priest on the same altar. With eight altars eight Divine Liturgies can take place in one day with eight different priests.

The Discovery of the 179 Martyrs

The location of the bodies of the 179 martyrs remained unknown and lost to time when the nuns arrived in 1963. All the records indicated that the martyrs were buried by the monks of Penteli Monastery, but not where they buried them nor do they give the names of the monks. The nuns tried looking for the burial spot, but came out empty handed. What was completely unknown to them however was that the murdered monks were buried inside the monastery and not outside as they had assumed. In September of 1963 work on the monastery began. The nuns prayed for forty days that a discovery of the relics would be made. In the afternoon of the fortieth day the discovery was made.

The first 65 bodies were discovered by the abbess (Styliani) and nuns inside the katholikon when workers were working on the floor tiles replacing them with new ones. It was then that they noticed a beautiful fragrance not only in the katholikon but throughout the monastery. The abbess, understanding this to be a miracle of the martyrs, then requested that an excavation be done first of all in front of the Royal Doors of the katholikon in the solea. Doing so, they discovered an entire body incorrupt. They determined that this must have been the abbot at the time of the slaughter. Excavating the rest of the floor, they discovered the other 64 bodies. Upon completion, the Archbishop of Athens, Chrysostmos, was notified. He arrived at the monastery and confirmed everything. Till this day the relics of the martyred fathers continue to give off a beautiful fragrance and they flow with myrrh. When one venerates their relics, one can confirm this in person.

All 179 bodies of the martyrs were not found however. 114 remained missing. Certain pilgrims, such as Elder Iakovos Tsalikes and Metropolitan Antonios of Sisani, would see lights as if from oil lamps where the graves of the martyrs are today. But Elder Porphyrios told the current abbess, also named Styliani, that the nuns "walk on top of the graves of other saints". With this advice an excavation was done in 1990 around the perimeters of the katholikon, and in truth many more relics were found. These relics were placed in a larnax within the katholikon, as well as within another chapel built next to it.

The 179 martyrs were not officially proclaimed saints right away. However, because of the many miracles performed by these newly-revealed martyrs after the translation of their relics, Archbishop Seraphim of Athens requested of the Ecumenical Patriarchate an official canonization. The Ecumenical Patriarchate accepted the canonization in 1992 and established Bright Tuesday as their feast day, the day they were buried by the fathers of Penteli Monastery.

We still do not know the names of these 179 martyrs. This is because the pirates burned the monastery to the ground as well as all the old records of the monastery. However, because of certain dreams of the faithful, a number of names are acknowledged. They receive these revelations accompanied with the healing done on them, whether it be cancer, disease, sickness, or whatever else. For example, one father who appears and works miracles is named Mark.

The Monastery Today

Today the monastery is populated with over 30 nuns. They survive mainly through their work in ecclesiastical embroidery and garment making, as well as Byzantine iconography. Other nuns do the farm work to sustain themselves with. Inside the monastery is also a reputable school of Byzantine music. All but a few nuns are highly educated beyond merely a high school education. They have taken in orphans and supported their education, poor girls they have helped marry, children with psychiatric issues they have helped, and whoever visits the monastery is generously given hospitality.

Recently a new church was built at the monastery exclusively dedicated to the 179 newly-revealed martyrs. It was built with the offerings of the faithful and took a little over six years to build.

Miracles

A certain priest named Fr. Seraphim had great reverence for the holy martyrs of Ntaou Penteli. A few years ago he began to suffer from severe headaches and travelled to Thessaloniki in order to have it checked. X-Rays revealed he had a tumor on his brain. The doctor advised him of the seriousness of the situation and the necessity for an immediate surgery. Sorrowfully he telephoned the abbess of Ntaou Penteli, and she advised him to first come to the monastery and venerate the holy relics before the surgery. Indeed he went, venerated the holy relics, and prayed for their help. The abbess then gave him a very small particle from the holy relics, which he was very moved by, and he had it put in a silver box and placed on the Holy Altar of his parish. The next day when he entered the church to conduct the Divine Liturgy, he noticed that surrounding the silver box containing the relic was a circle of something like oil. With great faith he took a piece of cotton, soaked it in the oil-like substance, and made the sign of the cross with it to his head. Following the Divine Liturgy Fr. Seraphim telephoned the monastery and informed the abbess of the miracle, and eventually sent a photograph showing the oil-like substance which came from the reliquary. Because of his great faith Fr. Seraphim put off going back to the doctor for six months, all the while praying for healing. He finally went back and received an X-Ray. To the astonishment of all, the tumor was completely gone.

Απολυτίκιον: Ήχος δ΄. Ο καθαρώτατος ναός του Σωτήρος.
Ως του Κυρίου αγιόλεκτοι άρνες, εξορμημένοι εκ χωρών διαφόρων, τη ποίμνη συνεδράμετε του Παντοκράτορος, όθεν θανατούμενοι απηνεία βαρβάρων, χαίροντες εξήλθετε εις ουράνιον μάνδραν, καθάπερ όσιοι και μάρτυρες Χριστού εκδυσωπούντες υπέρ των ψυχών υμών.

Apolytikion in Tone 4
As spotless lambs of the Savior, dashing out of various nations, the flock gathers together at Pantokratoros. Having been put to death by the rage of the barbarians, rejoicing you enter into heavenly pastures. Therefore holy martyrs of Christ, interceed on behalf of our souls.

For an excellent 45 minute documentary on the 179 holy newly-revealed martyrs as well as life at Ntaou Penteli Monastery, see here.

Ntaou Penteli in 1960

Ntaou Penteli in 1963

Ntaou Penteli Monastery today

Entrance to Monastery

Groundplan of Katholikon

Holy Water

Entrance to Katholikon

Katholikon of the Monastery

Archbishop Hieronymos in 2009

Old Trapeza of the Monastery

Foundation Stone of the Monastery
"Tao" epigram

Tweet

Share on Tumblr