10th February 2001, 08:14
|
|||
|
|||
|
The following is posted as a prelude to exposing some gross flaws in the theological doctrines of Christianity. The facts to be found in the forth-coming expose should cause every believer to question what this religion is really teaching.
T h e ANTICHRIST The word, 'antichrist' only appears in the New Testament portion of the bible . It appears three times . First letter of John, 2:18 . " Children, it is in the last hour ; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming , so now many antichrists have come ; therefore we know that it is the last hour ." 2 Notice, 'many' antichrist s have come . Second letter, verse 7. " For many deceivers have gone on into the world , men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh ; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist . " +1 --------- 3 So.... that's it . Three times . Not in the book of Revelations . Now who are the most vehement and ORGANIZED deniars of the Christ i ask you anyway The bad guy in Revelations is never called 'antichrist ' . He is referred to as -- get this -- the ' dragon '. A mythological creature that has never existed . Or, the 'beast' With seven heads . Obviously, symbology . Not an actual creature . Otherwise, he would be easily recognized . " Look !! He got seven heads !! Must be him ! " No mystery , there . But . Let 's go back and set em up . DRAGON FIRST BEAST SECOND BEAST Rev 12 (3) And another portent appeared in heaven ; behold , a great r e d d r a g o n with seven heads and ten horns ........ Rev 13 (1) And I saw a beast rising out of the sea , with ten horns and seven heads ........ Both the red dragon and the beast have seven heads and ten horns . (2)And the beast that I saw was like a leopard ..... (main trunk; camoflouge ; deceptive ; cunning ) ..... it's feet were like a bear's ..... ( firmly founded ; strong position ; ) ..... and it's mouth was like a lion's mouth . ......( Loud ; authoritative ; KING of the jungle ; right ?? ) (4) Men worshipped the dragon , for he had given his authority to the beast , and they worshipped the beast , saying , "Who is like the beast , and who can fight against it ?" ........ The beast , like the 'devil' , is simply d'evil the evil forces in the world . The dragon represents that evil . People worship -- give over to -- the dragon in this life . They dont vote their conscience they bet on a horse they try to pick the winner i like that line from the film , ' Moscow on the Hudson' Robbin Wms says " You dont deserve freedom !! You **** on Freedom !! " (5) And the beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words ............... The dragon gives the beast a mouth . The media . The evil dragon is manifest in the beast with a voice of a lion --- loud ; heard worldwide . And people worship the beast -- the media . worship the beast , literally . (6) it opened its mouth to utter blasphemies against God , blaspheming His name and His dwelling, that is , those who dwell in Heaven . (7) ..........And authority was given it over every tribe and people and nation, (8) and all who dwell on earth will worship it, every one done (11) Then I saw another beast which rose out of the earth Second beast out of the earth , created by the first beast which came out of the sea . The creature (beast) of the media are its 'stars' . Beast of the earth . Clay . Dust to dust and ashes to ashes . Man . We see it all around us MAN worships man period specially sodomites lost in the flesh there is no GOD there is only the flesh and that is all there is In the Old Testament didn't God promise Abraham ownership of the world ?? So ; that promise is fulfilled . Good news is we all gettin out leave this place behind (12) It (beast) exercises all the authority of the first beast in it's presence , and makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast , who's mortal wound was healed . (13) It works great signs, even making fire come down from heaven to earth in the sight of men; Nonson 2.09.01 
|
|
11th February 2001, 18:40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Anti-Christ Cont'd
Revelation Chapter Seventeen:
An Enduring Foundation for Millennial Expectations Charles T. Davis, III Appalachian State University Boone, North Carolina 28608 The Psychic Nature of the End of the World The repeated empirical failures of predictions for the end of the world do nothing to discourage further speculation and eschatological faith. The End as a psychic event introduces a cycle into linear time. Although we may repudiate the cyclic view of history philosophically, we cannot escape the psychic need to periodically abolish past time and revitalize the cosmos. Eliade notes that the New Year's scenarios based on destruction and re-creation were created and perpetuated by the historical cultures of Babylon, Israel, and Iran (Cosmos and History, 74). In Christianity, the historicized myth of the Hero versus the Dragon provides a mechanism for the abolition and renewal of time. Successive time periods are experienced as dominated by historical figures who can be assimilated to the archetypes of the Christ Hero or the Anti-Christ Villain. A lively expectation of the immanent End of the World alerts us to a deeply felt cultural need to abolish the old time with its worn out institutions and to embrace the hope of a New Creation. With this in mind, I turn to a consideration of the influence of Revelation Seventeen upon Christian millennial expectations. The Assimilation of Historical Persons to an Archetype Nero and Jesus, extreme poles of the social continuum, share this: upon their deaths, each was assimilated into an archetype. Historical personages persist in the collective memory only if they are transformed into archetypes. Mircea Eliade reports on this phenomenon of the collective memory in his study Cosmos and History: The Myth of the Eternal Return (1954). An historical figure endures in the popular memory for no more than two or three centuries without being assimilated to the heroic archetype (43). Only by becoming an archetype is the figure capable of imitation by later generations. As they lose their historical particularity, these persons become universal, timeless, images that are available for story telling. Roger Schank, the Artificial Intelligence expert, shows in Tell Me A Story: Narrative and Intelligence how important this universalizing of the particular is to intelligence. Experience must be distilled into a story that can be recalled and applied to new situations as they arise in the future. Historical leaders tend to be assimilated to the myth of the struggle of the Hero and the Dragon (serpent, monster). This is especially true of royalty. As the king is assimilated to the struggle of the primordial hero and the chaos dragon, history is transfigured into myth. (37). Eliade notes that even the Hebrews "interpreted contemporary events by means of the very ancient cosmogonico-heroic myth, which, though it of course admitted the provisional victory of the dragon, above all implied the dragon's final extinction through a King-Messiah." (38). In The Hero With A Thousand Faces, Joseph Campbell writes of this phenomenon: Just as the traditional rites of passage used to teach the individual to die to the past and be reborn to the future, so the great ceremonials of investiture divested him of his private character and clothed him in the mantle of his vocation. Such was the ideal, whether the man was a craftsman or a king. By the sacrilege of the refusal of the rite, however, the individual cut himself as a unit off from the larger unit of the whole community: and so the One was broken into the many, and these then battled each other--each out for himself--and could be governed only by force (15). The leader as a unit is always vulnerable to the ego inflation of the tyrant who is then portrayed as the monster who as "the giant of self-achieved independence is the world's messenger of disaster, even though, in his mind, he may entertain himself with humane intentions." The hero, by contrast, is one who has achieved the submission of his role to the higher powers of the inner world. Hero and Dragon are the two possibilities for the psychic orientation of our leaders. Richard Emmerson and Ronald Herzman in their study The Apocalypse and Joachim of Fiore discover the importance of the Hero/Dragon myth for apocalyptic independently of Eliade in their study of Joachim's image of the Seven-Headed Dragon which through its body "represents the generalized body of evil that exists through all time and is universal….By so linking the heads, Joachim's figura draws on a tradition that can be traced back to Tyconius in the fourth century and that characterizes patristic and monastic exegesis which interprets even the details of apocalyptic symbolism in universal, timeless, allegorical terms" (24). It is clear that the Christian tradition of allegorical interpretation is built upon an older, general human tradition extending back to the earliest Babylonian civilization. (See also Eliade, 60.) The Hero versus the Dragon is an ancient, archetypal plot. Carl Jung's work on the soul confirms Eliade. Jung observes that Jesus was assimilated to the Christ, the hero and the god-man, as he was transformed by the collective projection of the Self. In Symbols of Transformation, Jung writes: In the Christ-figure the opposites which are united in the archetypes are polarized into the "light" son of God on the one hand and the devil on the other...Christ and the dragon of the Anti-Christ lie very close together as far as their historical development and cosmic significance are concerned. The dragon legend concealed under the myth of the Anti-Christ is an essential part of the hero's life and is therefore immortal. (368) Historically, Nero and Jesus have no significant relationship. Their association in the Apocalypse is the result of their being appropriated by the collective memory as the opposing images of the tyrant and the true king. Throughout Christian literature, they now stand like Siamese twins: Nero, the Anti-Christ, the very embodiment of ego, Satan and cosmic evil; Christ, the embodiment of the Logos and Light, Self, and the god-man. The process by which Jesus was assimilated to the Hero myth as the Jewish Meshiach/Christ is well known, but how did Nero find his way into this projection as the Dragon, the Anti-Christ? Nero Redivivus and the Risen Jesus Nero's biography was written by poets, Tacitus and Suetonius predominantly, who demonized him while the popular imagination linked him with the invincible hero. The result is that both poles of the Self (Hero) archetype are present: the demonic Nero of the poets and Christian story-telling is juxtaposed against Nero, the savior of popular legend. J.P. Sullivan writes in Literature and Politics in the Age of Nero: The dramatist Ernst Toller wrote that "history is the propaganda of the victors" and as Nero was a loser, it is small wonder that the senatorially biased histories that have survived make Nero out to be a monster. Yet Josephus and Martial suggest that there were also histories that put Nero in a far more favorable light; indeed for many years after his death parts of the Empire awaited his miraculous return with hope and credulity. (25) The demonizing of Nero was rooted in his relationship to the higher social orders of the Empire. Sullivan notes: Suetonius even records censoriously (Otho 7) that the masses hailed Otho as Nero when he was making his bid for power and Otho did nothing to reject the association. The emperor's artistic and personal extravagances, however, agreeable to the people, played an obvious part in alienating the senatorial and equestrian orders…. Nero's murder of family, including his mother, further encouraged the assimilation of Nero to the Dragon by the higher social orders. The popular legend of the resurrected Nero held that the mortally wounded Nero was alive in Parthia waiting to return to liberate the Roman Empire. (Barclay, The Revelation of John, Vol. 2) Historically, there were at least three pretenders who appeared claiming power as the resurrected Nero. Between the literary presentations of Tacitus and Suetonius and the legend from the masses of the Empire, Nero is eventually constellated in the collective imagination as both poles of the archetype. The Black Nero, the monster, is complemented by the Light Nero, the hero risen from the dead to return and destroy the enemies of society. For Christians, this image of Nero, the Savior, was an abomination. Jung observes that the age of Nero was an effective foil for the vision of a divinity--such as Jesus or Mithra-- coming down for the purpose of uniting man with the gods once more. "The men of that age were ripe for identification with the word made flesh, for the founding of a community united by an idea, in the name of which they could love one another and call each other brothers….This was not the result of any speculative, sophisticated philosophy, but of an elementary need in the great masses of humanity vegetating in spiritual darkness. They were evidently driven to it by the profoundest inner necessities, for humanity does not thrive in a state of licentiousness.…We can hardly realize the whirlwinds of brutality and unchained libido that roared through the streets of Imperial Rome." (70) What can be said of these "inner necessities"? It is a Jungian working hypothesis that "there are no 'purposeless' psychic processes (58). Psychic activity is always teleological, purposive. When Jesus and Nero are propelled into the images of positive and negative divinity, it is likely that the complexes weighing on the soul during the age of Nero and Imperial Rome are more or less consciously transferred to the God-image, the Self, through the artistic creations of Tacitus, Suetonius, and St. John. (See 60). By transforming Nero and Jesus into archetypes, new patterns for action were created. The Darkness of Nero became the foil for the Light of Jesus and Mithra. In Apocalypse 13 and 17, the Nero of popular culture is assimilated to the image of the Anti-Christ, the enemy of the Jewish Messiah, the dragon to be slain. Nero, the Anti-Christ is the Lamb that speaks with the dragon's voice and founds a pseudo-Christian community favored by Rome (See Rev 13). Jesus is the Lamb that was slain and ascended to become the King of the Universe. He holds the book of the seven seals (Rev 5) and is the founder of the community of Christian martyrs (Rev 5,6,7,14). John paints the image of two Christian communities in bold colors. One dominated by Rome; the other by the Christ. In short, the existence of the Christian community itself, like Jesus, has been assimilated to the Hero Archetype. Life is understood mythically, a-historically, as a battle between a false, Roman-sanctioned Christianity and a true community of martyrs. Regardless of whether we locate the composition of the Apocalypse in the reigns of Otho, Domitian, or Trajan, this image of the Christian community as the embodiment of the Hero slaying the Dragon is an abiding legacy of St. John's Apocalypse. It has provided a firm foundation for Christian eschatological activity from St. John to David Koresh at Waco. Nero is associated during the Middle Ages with Simon Magus. In the Bible MoraliseÏ e, one roundel portrays the fire from Heaven at Pentecost (Acts 2) while a second shows the Beast calling down fire from Heaven as a parody of Pentecost (Emmerson, 17). Simon Magus is allied with Nero in opposition to the true apostles, Peter and Paul. Emmerson observes: "It is thus not surprising that even in the earliest Christian literature and throughout the Middle Ages, Simon Magus is compared to the Antichrist" (20). Emmerson continues, "To Joachim, the Beast that arises from the sea is a great king like Nero, …["like the emperor of the whole world"], whereas the false-prophet Beast is a great prelate like Simon Magus,…["like the universal priest of the whole world"], and therefore like Antichrist" (22). The importance of this association will become even clearer as we consider the effect of Constantine upon the Hero/Dragon story. The Transformation of the Archetype In The Middle Ages The conversion of Constantine resolved the division between a "Roman" church and a "martyr" church through the person of the Emperor. The archetypal story now continues in altered form as the myth of the godly Last Emperor. In The Influence of Prophecy in the Later Middle Ages, Marjorie Reeves observes the operation of this transformed Hero myth in the Sibylline prophecy as early as the mid-fourth century in Europe (299). The story runs as follows. A mighty Greek Emperor, Constans, would appear to reign for a century or more over an age of prosperity in which the triumph of Christianity would be consummated. The heathen would be converted or destroyed. Jews would convert to Christianity, and Gog and Magog would be defeated. At the end of this century, the Emperor would go to Golgotha and lay down his crown and robe, surrendering them to God. Then, the Anti-Christ would appear in "the final fury of evil to reign in the Temple at Jerusalem. Here human agencies would be of no avail: the Archangel Michael would appear to destroy him and, immediately after, history would be wound up at the Second Coming." (300) According to Reeves, the seventh century tract Pseudo-Methodius was composed in the East; during the eighth century, it was circulated in Charlemagne's court popularizing the Last World Emperor legend in both East and West (300). In the tenth century, the Burgundian Abbot Adso again popularized the legend. Most importantly, "the promise of a last emperor gave scope for racial aspirations and there quickly developed, first, a French tradition of a Second Charlemagne, and then a German tradition of a Last Emperor." (301) The First Crusade brought renewed interest in the legend. By the end of the eleventh century, there is the hope of a resurrected Charlemagne who would lead Christians to a victory over the Muslim infidels. The Nero/Christ antithesis is transfigured into the image of the Infidel/Resurrected Charlemagne leading Christians to victory. Christianity unified in the person of the godly Emperor constitutes the positive pole of the archetype while the religion of the infidel constitutes the negative pole. But this state did not long continue. Constantinople fell to the Muslim Turks in 1453. The Emperor Constantine Palaiologos was killed and, in the popular imagination, assimilated to the Hero archetype (See Donald M. Nicol, The Immortal Emperor.) The legend arose that "the last Emperor…would come back to rescue them. He was not really dead. He was merely asleep and waiting a call from heaven." (98). The archetypal plot that created the legend of the resurrected Nero is applied to the last Emperor of Constantinople. The difference is that the legend is now much richer as a result of the Last Emperor legend that is associated with Constantine Palaiologos. Further development of the Last Emperor legend was made possible by the historical vision of Joachim of Fiore who interpreted the Apocalypse in light of three states of Christianity: the Time of the Father, the Time of the Son, and the Time of the Holy Spirit. Latter day Joachimists understood themselves to be poised on the transition between the Age of the Son and the Age of the Spirit. The new Age of the Spirit would be ushered in by a good pastor of the church, the Angelic Pope who would champion monastic spirituality. Indeed, Celestine V was assimilated to this archetypal story. As this eighty-year-old, hermit Pope rode "from the wilderness meekly riding upon an ass to take up " the Papal Office, he was hailed along the way by the crowds in Messianic terms. (401) Celestine V was to enter popular mythology as the prototype of the angel-pontiff yet to come. Celestine's resignation after five months, under the guidance of the man who would succeed him as Boniface VIII, made it easy to assimilate this event to the myth that the Anti-Christ would seize the papacy. The subsequent persecution of the spiritual Franciscans suggested the presence of the power of evil. On the one hand, we have the true Pope backed by the true Franciscans; on the other "the carnal church and the pseudo-pope. Reeves writes that they reasoned as follows: Just as the Jewish synagogue was rejected when the 'new man' Christ established His new Law, so the sixth age of the carnal church would be rejected when the 'new man' Francis has established his Rule." (408) The final step in this new myth was the identification of the Church under Boniface VIII as the Church of Babylon. We have come full circle. As in the Revelation, the church is split into archetypal poles. Indeed, by the fourteenth century, there was the expectation of two Anti-Christs. An "oriential Anti-Christ would preach in Jerusalem and seduce the Jews; an occidental Anti-Christ would be a heretical Emperor, a new Nero...The King of France...would be elected as Roman Emperor and the entire world would submit to him. The Emperor and the Pope together would carry out the final programme of reform..."(323).The light/dark poles of the Self archetype are evident in the portrayal of both the Emperor and the Pope. The Last Emperor could take the form of the Anti-Christ destroying the Church or as its Savior. The Pope could be portrayed as the dark force of Babylon or as the spiritual Angelic Pope sent to restore the church by the establishment of the holy practice of monastic poverty. The basic program was that both Church and State must be cleansed, the Saracens converted, and all mankind led into a true evangelical life. Together the Last Emperor and the Angelic Pope would accomplish this task of healing the Church and the world. The apocalyptic imagination looks for historical persons who are a contemporary embodiment of the images of the Hero/Dragon myth; hence, the assimilation of particular Medieval popes and emperors to the images of the Christ and the Anti-Christ. This leads in turn to associations between contemporary and biblical figures. (See Emmerson, 27.) Joaichim of Fiore writes that "the martyrs of the last days will suffer the same persecutions that characterized the establishment of the Church" (Emmerson, 27). The succession of Herod, Nero, Anti-Christ is paralleled by a succession of martyrs through the ages. The Modern American Apocalypse From Augustine to Joachim of Fiore, the Apocalypse was interpreted symbolically, psychically. Joachim of Fiore's disciples contributed to the growing trend to literalize the Apocalypse. Literal interpretation was further strengthened by the Enlightenment with its emphasis upon "objectivity" and the external world of "facts." Consequently, the Church and Academe are not the most interesting places to look for modern interpretations of the Apocalypse. In the spirit of Schuyler Brown's "biblical empirics" developed in Text and Psyche, I will look for the contemporary exposition of the Apocalypse among those who create the fantasies of our time, the movie makers. It is in their work that I find the prophetic message of the End of Time for our time. Nero/ the Anti-Christ/ Evil Last Emperor/ Simonistic Pope still does battle with Christ/Good Last Emperor/ Angelic Pope on the silver screen. The apocalypse lives on as a psychic drama in American popular culture. Douglas Robinson writes in American Apocalypses: Images of the end of the world abound in American Literature, and with good reason: the very idea of America in history is apocalyptic, arising as it did out of the historicizing of apocalyptic hopes in the Protestant Reformation….America was conceived as mankind's last great hope, the Western site of the millennium…its future destiny was firmly and prophetically linked with God's plan for the world, and the national dream of an American Age, a great paradisial future to be ushered in by American remains strong even in our time (xi). In short, we Americans are living the story of the millennium as our story. Jung warned of this type of perception on the part of Modern Man: Now there is the danger that consciousness of the present may lead to an elation based upon illusion: the illusion, namely, that we are the culmination of the history of mankind, the fulfillment and end-product of countless centuries. If we grant this, we should understand that it is no more than a proud acknowledgement of our destitution: we are also the disappointment of the hopes and expectations of the ages. (Modern Man In Search of a Soul, 199). I have chosen to consider two movies which illustrate both sides of the American illusion. The movie Pale Rider explicitly evokes Revelations 6. The movie divides into two segments. In the first, Clint Eastwood, as Preacher, plays the role of the Pastor/Angelic Priest sent by God from the dead to protect the people of God from exploitation by a ruthless entrepreneur, Le Hood. The second half reveals that this figure is the Last Emperor/ the Avenging Angel. The Pale Rider's clerical collar is exchanged for the six shooter. In the end, thanks to the Last Emperor figure, America is a good place where hard working, decent people can put down their roots and found an enduring community that works in harmony with the land. In Batman Returns, Tim Burton creates a comprehensive American apocalypse--an American work that adopts an interpretive stance towards the end of the world -- without evoking the text of Revelation. In this movie, we see American popular culture speaking prophetically to American Christianity about the Anti-Christ (Penguin) and Armageddon, the destruction of the forces of Gog and Magog at the Gotham City Zoo by Batman, an outworn Messiah who says to Catwoman, "We are the same; split right down the center." The destruction of Gotham by the forces released from the sewer is only narrowly averted, and one feels that Batman will be a poor defense in the future. The American Messiah must soon give way to the forces from the abyss. Biblical allusions abound. The movie opens at Christmas with Penguin cast upon the waters of the storm sewer as Moses was cast upon the Nile. Thirty years later, like Jesus, Penguin makes his epiphany at Christmas. His present to the world is a package delivered in the name of the business man Schreck (Horror). Hordes of clowns and harlequins stream forth to riddle Gotham with death and destruction. This is Penguin's answer to the wish for love and world peace. Penguin's program is made clear in his explanation to entrepreneur Schreck, "What you hide, I discover." All that has been forced into the Underworld will now invade consciousness and demand recognition. The Shadow will take its toll. There is a heavy price to be paid of irresponsible economic development and pseudo-religion. Penguin becomes the Anti-Christ by imitating Herod's massacre of the Innocents. Schreck, like an evil Last Emperor, conceives and manages Penguin's campaign to become the mayor of Gotham through a re-call election. The key to this event in put in these terms, "They (the people of Gotham) have lost faith in all symbols." In short Christmas, Christianity and the commercialized Christmas culture it spawned in America is dead. It was killed by the simonsitic entrepreneur manipulating a populace that responds according the whims of sentimentality rather than through true virtue. Burton is not the first to dramatize the invasion of Gotham, New York City, by reptilian figures from the sewer. The Four Ninja Turtles preceded Penguin. Couple these images from American popular culture with the death of Superman and you have an ominous prophetic message. From a Jungian perspective, one would have to say that the multiplication of cold-blooded figures coupled with the death of a super-human hero portends ill for American culture. The message would seem to be that the American apocalypse will not end in paradise but as a hell. Heraclitus' Law of Enantiodromia is at work. The time of Herod/Nero/Anti-Christ/Dragon is at hand. America, like Jung's Europe of 1933, is indeed a disappointment to the ages! The Last Days The End of the World is a psychic event which introduces the healing effects of cyclical time into linear time. A people's need for a New Creation experience can be measured by the intensity of its conviction that the End is near. We may expect radical transformations in America in the very near future if the principle of enantiodromia holds true. Nero will succeed Christ. Nonson 2.11.01
|
|
14th February 2001, 05:56
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Anti-Christ
This article is employed to assist in the proof that there was no Christ Jesus, and therefore no anti-Christ of that particular spirit. However, don't mistake this as meaning that there is no Christ and anti-Christ. I believe there is such a reality, and feel that it can be proven. But such proof is not possible if one relies solely on the teachings of Christianity and Judaism. More about this at a later date.
No Cross: No Christ by Geoffrey Bingham A study prepared for the New Creation teaching class at Christie’s Beach, Adelaide on 26 June, 2000 Paul’s Centrality of the Cross Paul’s view of the Cross can be found as we go through his writings. In I Corinthians 2:1–2, ‘When I came to you, brethren, I did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God in lofty words or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified’. In I Corinthians 1:18 he spoke of the power of the Cross, ‘For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.’ Indeed he added, ‘For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.’ (I Cor. 1:22–25). The matter of the Cross was always central to Paul, for in Galatians 6:14 he says, ‘But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.’ As if all this emphasis were not enough he adds in the midst of a powerful passage (II Cor. 4:1–18) that he, with his readers, is ‘always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies’. What does all this add up to? Does it mean Paul was overly obsessed with the fact of Christ’s crucifixion death, or that he made an exaggerated doctrine of that death so that it appeared to be the main matter which he preached? The answer must be, ‘No! His thinking and his preaching were not unbalanced. To him the preaching of the Cross was central, and because it was central, it was indispensable to the true nature of the gospel he called "the gospel of God"; "the gospel of Christ"; and "my gospel"’. We know that many who heard his preaching opposed him, either bitterly, or scornfully, or cruelly, to the point of seeking his death. He wrote to the church at Philippi: For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things (Phil. 3:18–19). Without pausing here to explain his meaning, we see that many refused to accept his preaching of the Cross, and for reasons which are still alive today. We have already seen some of these reasons in I Corinthians 1:22–25, where the preaching of the Cross is a scandal to the Jew and foolishness to the Greek. For the moment we need not go into them, except to say that a crucified person in Israel was a curse as long as his body hung on the cross, and the idea of calling him ‘Saviour’ was abhorrent. For the Greek philosopher the idea of a man—crucified for crime—being the Son of God and the Saviour of the world was ridiculous, worthy not even of a hearing. The Everlasting Nature of the Cross Paul was not alone in making the Cross central. Other New Testament writers had the same view. The Apostles preached the gospel of the Cross, as did all apostolic proclaimers. The writer of the Book of the Revelation—known as St. John the Divine—gives us the picture of Christ crucified and risen, as that of a Lamb-as-it-were-who-had-been-slain. This Lamb is seen in Chapter 5: as one who bears the marks of the crucifixion he had undergone, and yet who is forever alive and ruling all creation. The term ‘Lamb’ often appears in Revelation, and in 13:8 there is named a book which is ‘the book of life of the Lamb’. The names of those redeemed are written in this book. It existed ‘before the foundation of the world’. One possible translation is ‘the Lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world’. What we can be sure of was that the one we call ‘Christ’ was intended, in God’s plan, to be for ever the Lamb of God, who by his crucifixion had taken away the sins of the world. The early church saw Jesus as Lord over creation, over the nations, and this because of his crucifixion, to say nothing of his resurrection, for resurrection was the sign of his lordship over death, and so over sin and the powers of darkness. It can be shown from the Apostolic writings that the working power of the Cross can be known—and must be known—in the daily life of the believer in Christ. It is not a power which was once effective in the life of the person at his conversion, but which goes on being effective every day of his life here on earth. No Cross: No Christ Christ died to save men and women from the penalty, pollution and power of sin. He also died to save them, ultimately, from the very presence of sin. He died to save them from the powers of darkness, from the judgment of the law and so from the wrath of God—ultimate judgment. He died to save them from fleshly living, and worship of idols. If then they are living in sin, and so are under the power of evil—are living in fear of death and judgment—then they have not come under the power of Christ crucified. The death and resurrection of this Saviour and Lord has not yet liberated the person from these things. Those who are liberated live in love, joy and peace, no matter what the forces are that oppose him. If, then, a person shows no evidence of being liberated, then he/she cannot be knowing Christ crucified. What makes the matter difficult to assess is that there are many church people who seem to understand Christian doctrine and practice, and seek to live according to that knowledge, because it is what people do in their peer group. Having been brought up in their church they assume they are Christians, yet when the tests of knowing Christ crucified are applied it seems apparent that they do not live in Christ. They may know the form of the doctrine of the Cross, yet they do not live in the freedom-reality of the Cross. The statement, ‘No Cross: No Christ’ would appal them, but they may be trying to live according to a doctrine or a proposition, and not according to the living, indwelling Person of Christ. In order to understand the work and word of the Cross we will take one example, that of the tax gatherer who was a sinner but of whom Christ said, ‘He went down to his house justified’. We take this example because to believe in Christ’s work of the Cross is to be justified by that faith. The following is the text of Jesus’ words: He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and despised others: ‘Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, "God, I thank thee that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get." But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, "God, be merciful to me a sinner!" I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted’ (Luke 18:9–14). Jesus was trying to show that the Pharisees ‘who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and despised others’ had, in fact, missed the heart of the true faith. They were sure they were good people. We can likewise think this of ourselves. The tax gatherer was a Jew who had become what we call ‘filthy rich’, for he had worked for the occupation troops, the Romans, and had profited from taxing his fellow countrymen, often defrauding them. We will take it that he so loved riches that he was prepared to do anything to get money. This certainly could equally be said of many of the Pharisees of Jesus’ day. Jesus told the scribes that they ‘devour widow’s houses’, and it seems the Pharisees could be included in this judgment. This rich tax gatherer had come under condemnation of his own conscience. He had gone to the temple in a state of full repentance. It does not take much to understand his problem. He had accumulated guilt over a number of years. Something had happened to show him his terrible state. If he were not an excommunicated person then he could have gone with sacrifices and offered them for his sins, but being as a sinner or a Gentile, he could only stand in the court of sinners, without recourse to the altar. The Pharisee assumed he was a righteous man and stood in the court of worship, congratulating himself. It is said that he prayed thus with himself. He despised the tax gatherer for being a sinner, yet his own heart held no sense of sin. The tax gatherer was in a fearful state. He beat his breast, and this, when done sincerely, was a thing fearsome to behold. He was overwrought with the sinfulness of his sin. He cried out for mercy, and his words were, ‘Lord! Be propitious to me, a sinner!’ This gives us a clue: he required propitiation for his sins. He was addressing God as one Who provided propitiation where two things were present: (i) genuine repentance—that extraordinary change of mind in regard to one’s own sins, and God’s great grace; and (ii) the faith that God would somehow—without a temple sacrifice—work the propitiation which brought redemption from sin’s dreadful guilt. This takes us back to the sacrifices offered by Cain and Abel. Abel offered his sacrifice by faith—faith in a propitiation-making God—and Cain did not offer by faith. His faith was in himself and his act, whereas Abel’s was in God’s act. Abel was justified: Cain went on to further anger, and, finally, the murder of his justified brother. Abel’s faith was in the Cross, had he known it. The tax gatherer’s basis for justification was also in Christ’s self-sacrifice—had he known it. The Pharisee who trusted in himself that he was righteous went down to his house not acknowledging himself as a sinner. He was loveless. The tax gatherer went down to his house justified, filled with relief and love for God. This is an important matter. The Cross Is the Matter of Propitiation Out of Love In I John 4:9–10 the writer says, ‘In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation [propitiation] for our sins.’ A little later he adds, ‘We love because he first loved us’. He means that the result of Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice is that we love God and we love all humans. Love has come to us in Christ. Love would have come to the tax gatherer, but not to the Pharisee. The first person was in Christ; the second in himself and not in God. He was loveless: he despised others. Today let us test ourselves as to whether we are in Christ. Are we as the tax gatherer before conviction of his sin, that is, those who seek something of this world—even something quite religious—to be our main aim? It could be money, or power or position: it could be anything which has become an idol. If we are like that then we are have not been crucified with Christ—we are yet on our own. On the other hand, if we are self-righteous and despise others, then we are self-righteous and without Christ, in spite of the fact that we belong to the Christian constituency, and perhaps what we call ‘Bible-believing people’. The test is whether we know the matters of the Cross but lack the true relationship with Christ. We may have a Christless Cross, as also we may have a Crossless Christ. We have to look at these matters. A simple test is whether or not we love people. We do not mean ‘get along with people’, that is ‘make do with them’. Do we have a set of deep relationships? Are our churches places of mutual love and trust, so that our lives are lived in love, such love as we have seen was in the early church, manifesting itself in unity and in care for the poor and needy? If our churches are true families, without feud, or fight, or power struggle, then the power of the Cross is in our midst. Further, do we have a passion for Christ, a deep compassion for the lost of this world and a genuine love for all God’s people? Do we feel for those who are in sin and without Christ, and do we yearn to show them the one, true sacrifice which can liberate them from the guilts, fears and dreads which are theirs? We cannot have a Cross but not have Christ; nor can we claim to know Christ but yet not live the life of the Cross, with its freedom of forgiveness, justification and love. What, then, about ‘always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies’? This would mean we are so identified with Christ’s death that daily we show it to the world by our demeanour, by taking the persecution and suffering which goes from being one with him in his death. That is, we take the brunt of being disliked, hated and persecuted, as he was in the very hour of his death. We see no hope for mankind apart from that death. Is that how it is with us? Do we determine to know nothing but ‘Christ and him crucified’, which is the scandal to the Jew and foolishness to the intellectual? Are we willing to take the ignominy and the shame? Has, in fact, the gospel really penetrated to our hearts and gripped us so that we cannot but proclaim it? We repeat: ‘No Cross, No Christ’. Conclusion From Historical Reality— No Christ: then Nothing! Had there been no Cross, then there had been nothing in the world today which would be of any worth. There would be no Christ such as the one who has accomplished all things, accomplished so much even to the eyes of those without faith. History shows his effects. There would have been no resurrection if this one had evaded the Cross, for God would not have raised him. No Cross: no resurrection. There would have been no point even if He had raised him without the Cross. No Cross: no forgiveness. No forgiveness: no eternal life. There would have been no forgiveness in the world that would be of any account. So no Cross: no freedom of conscience, and so no true relationships. Nor would there have been justification. Nor total cleansing of the impure mind and spirit, and freedom from moral pollution. There would have been no remedy for human guilt and the impending judgment on all human sin and failure. No Cross: only the load of guilt, judgment and moral pollution to be borne for ever. There would have been no entrance into the Presence of the God, and the becoming sons of Him as our Father. There would have been no Shepherd to walk with us in life, and in the valley of the shadow of death, and to raise us from death. There would have been no Head of the Church, no Bridegroom of the Bride, and thus no bride. No Cross: no Bride, for she needed him give himself up for her. Had there been a Bride she would never have had the sign and proof of His love: so she would remain loveless. There would have been no hope of glory, firstly Christ for us, and then in us, and then with us. No Cross: no ascension; no Spirit; no indwelling Father, Son or Spirit. There would have been no pure worship. Romans 12:1–2 springs from the ‘mercies of God’. No Cross: no motivation to pure worship. No offering up of spiritual sacrifices (I Peter 2:4–5; Heb. 13:15). There would have been no impact in history on the various rising cultures, some too dreadful to name, all having fearful features. No Cross: no liberation from Man’s enemies anywhere. There would have been no defeat of Satan and no victory over him and all his evil hosts. No Cross: no true Kingdom of God, triumphant over all the kingdom of darkness. No Cross: no putting down of all enemies and ultimately destroying them. History has taught us that Christ has so many times tamed the cruellest of cultures, defeated the barbarians, gentled down the fierce hordes until they come under the reign of Christ and His love. No Cross: no person or nation would have been reconciled to God. We would have been left in ours sins, our guilt, our terror, our personal loneliness, and to the mercy of the many gods, and the tyranny of many cultures— even more than we are today. Nonson 2.13.01
|
|
17th February 2001, 06:49
|
|||
|
|||
|
Icons: The Controversy
Medieval Sourcebook: John of Damascus: In Defense of Icons, c. 730
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Iconoclastic controversy lasted from 726, when Emperor Leo III (717-741) began an attack on the use of religious images, until 843 when The Empress Theodora allowed their restoration. The two periods of Iconoclasm were separated by the reign of the iconodule Empress Irene, under whom the Second Council of Nicea 787 was held. Although politics, and especially the politics of church and state were involved, there were serious theological issues at stake. A number of defenses of Icons were made: based on the existence of Divinely approved images in nature and Scripture; based on the reality of the incarnation; and based on a Platonic metaphysics of ascending images which participated in the prototype. The first two defenses are here presented in the first reading; the Platonic defense in second. Both were written by the Icons' most distinguished proponent, St. John of Damascus (c.675-c.749), John was able to write freely since lived under Muslim rule outside the boundaries of the Byzantine emperor. In this century plus discussion of art, we find one of the most searching investigations into the nature of art in "western" culture before the Italian Renaissance. from On Holy Images (c. 730) Now, as we are talking of images and worship, let us analyse the exact meaning of each. An image is a likeness of the original with a certain difference, for it is not an exact reproduction of the original. Thus, the Son is the living, substantial, unchangeable Image of the invisible God, bearing in Himself the whole Father, being in all things equal to Him, differing only in being begotten by the Father, who is the Begetter; the Son is begotten. The Father does not proceed from the Son, but the Son from the Father. It is through the Son, though not after Him, that He is what He is, the Father who generates. In God, too, there are representations and images of His future acts,-that is to say, His counsel from all eternity, which is ever unchangeable. That which is divine is immutable; there is no change in Him, nor shadow of change. Blessed Denis, [note: the Pseudo-Dionysius] who has made divine things in God's presence his study, says that these representations and images arc marked out beforehand. In His counsels, God has noted and settled all that He would do, the unchanging future events before tbey came to pass. In the same way, a man who wished to build a house would first make and think out a plan. Again, visible things are images of invisible and intangible things, on which they throw a faint light. Holy Scripture clothes in figure God and the angels, and the same holy man (Blessed Denis) explains why. When sensible things sufficiently render what is beyond sense, and give a form to what is intangible, a medium would be reckoned imperfect according to our standard, if it did not fully represent material vision, or if it required effort of mind. If, therefore, Holy Scripture, providing for our need, ever putting before us what is intangible, clothes it in flesh, does it not make an image of what is thus invested with our nature, and brought to the level of our desires, yet invisible? A certain conception through the senses thus takes place in the brain, which was not there before, and is transmitted to the judicial faculty, and added to the mental store. Gregory, who is so eloquent about God, says that the mind, which is set upon getting beyond corporeal things, , is incapable of doing it. For the invisible things of God since the creation of the world are made visible through images. We see images in creation which remind us faintly of God, as when, for instance, we speak of the holy and adorable Trinity, imaged by the sun, or light, or burning rays, or by a running fountain, or a full river, or by the mind, speech, or the spirit within us, or by a rose tree, or a sprouting flower, or a sweet fragrance. Again, an image is expressive of something in the future, mystically shadowing forth what is to happen. For instance, the ark represents the image of Our Lady, Mother of God, so does the staff and the earthen jar. The serpent brings before us Him who vanquished on the Cross the bite of the original serpent; the sea, -water, and the cloud the grace of baptism. Again, things which have taken place are expressed by images for the remembrance either of a wonder, or an honour, or dishonour, or good or evil, to help those who look upon it in after times that we may avoid evils and imitate goodness. It is of two kinds, the written image in books, as when God had the law inscribed on tablets, and when He enjoined that the lives of holy men should be recorded and sensible memorials be preserved in remembrance; as, for instance, the earthen jar and the staff in the ark. So now we preserve in writing the images and the good deeds of the past. Either, therefore, take away images altogether and be out of harmony with God ,who made these regulations, or receive them with the language and in the manner which befits them. In speaking of the manner let us go into the question of worship. Worship is the symbol of veneration and of honour. Let us understand that there are different degrees of worship. First of all the worship of latreia, which we show to God, who alone by nature is worthy of worship. When, for the sake of God who is worshipful by nature, we honour His saints and servants, as Josue and Daniel worshipped an angel, and David His holy places, when be savs, "Let us go to the place where His feet have stood." Again, in His tabernacles, as when all the people of Israel adored in the tent, and standing round the temple in Jerusalem, fixing their gaze upon it from all sides, and worshipping from that day to this, or in the rulers established by Him, as Jacob rendered homage to Esau, his elder brother, and to Pharaoh, the divinely established ruler. Joseph was worshipped bv his brothers. I am aware that worship was based on honour, as in the case of Abraham and the sons of Emmor. Either, then, do awav with worship, or receive it altogether according to its proper measure. Answer me this question. Is there only one God? You answer, "Yes, there is only one Law-giver." Why, then, does He command contrary things? The cherubim are not outside of creation; why, then, does He allow cherubim carved by the hand of man to overshadow the mercy-scat? Is it not evident that as it is impossible to make an image of God, who is uncircumscribed and impassible, or of one like to God, creation should not be worshipped as God. He allows the image of the cherubim who are circumscribed, and prostrate in adoration before the divine throne, to be made, and thus prostrate to overshadow the mercy-seat. It was fitting that the image of the heavenly choirs should overshadow the divine mysteries. Would you say that the ark and staff and mercy-scat were not made? Are they not produced by the hand of man? Are they not due to what you call contemptible matter? What was the tabernacle itself? Was it not an image? Was it not a type and a figure? Hence the holy Apostle's words concerning the observances of the law, "Who serve unto the example and shadow, of heavenly things." As it was answered to Moses, when he was to finish the tabernacle: "See" (He says), "that thou make all things according to the pattern which was shown thee on the Mount." But the law ,-,,as not an image. It shrouded the image. In the words of the same Apostle, the law, contains the shadow of the goods to come, not the image of those things. For if the law should forbid images, and vet be itself a forerunner of images, what should we say? If the tabernacle 'was a figure, and the type of a type, why does the law not prohibit image-making? But this is not in the least the case. There is a time for everything. Of old, God the incorporeal and uncircumscribed was never depicted. Now, however, when God is seen clothed in flesh, and conversing with men, I make an image of the God whom I see. I do not worship matter, I worship the God of matter, who became matter for my sake, and deigned to inhabit matter, who worked out my salvation through matter. I will not cease from honouring that matter which works my salvation. I venerate it, though not as God. How could God be born out of lifeless things? And if God's body is God by union, it is immutable. The nature of God remains the same as before, the flesh created in time is quickened by, a logical and reasoning soul. I honour all matter besides, and venerate it. Through it, filled, as it were, me. Was not the with a divine power and grace, my salvation has come to thrice happy and thrice blessed wood of the Cross matter? Was not the sacred and holy mountain of Calvary matter? What of the life-giving rock, the Holy Sepulchre, the source of our resurrection: was it not matter? Is not the most holy book of the Gospels matter? Is not the blessed table matter which gives us the Bread of Life' Are not the gold and silver matter, out of which crosses and altar-plate and chalices are made? And before all these things, is not the body and blood of our Lord matter? Either do away with the veneration and worship due to all these things, or submit to the tradition of the Church in the worship of images, honouring God and His friends, and following in this the grace of the Holv Spirit. from St. John Damascene On Holy Images, trans. by Mary H. Allies (London, Thomas Baker, 1898), pp. 10-17. from The Fount of Wisdom But since some find fault with us for worshipping and honouring the image of our Saviour and that of our Lady, and those, too, of the rest of the saints and servants of Christ, let them remember that in the beginning God created man after His own image. On what grounds, then, do we shew reference to each other unless because we are made after God's image? For as Basil (the Great, c. 330-379), that much-versed expounder of divine things, says, the honour given to the image passes over to the prototype. Now a prototype is that which is imaged, from that which the derivative is obtained. WhN, was it that the Mosaic people honoured on all bands the tabernacle which bore an image and type of heavenlv things, or rather of the whole creation? Go d indeed said to Moses, "Look that thou make them after their pattern which was shewed thee in the mount." The Cherubim, too, which overshadow the mercy seat, are they not the work of men's bands? What, further, is the celebrated temple at Jerusalem? Is it not handmade and fashioned by the skill of men? Moreover the divine Scripture blames those -who worship graven images, but also those who sacrifice to demons. The Greeks sacrificed and the Jews also sacrificed: but the Greeks to demons and the Jews to God. And the sacrifice of the Greeks was rejected and condemncd, but the sacrifice of the just was very acceptable to God. For Noah sacrificed, and "God smelled a sweet savour", receiving the fragrance of the right choice and goodwill towards Him. And so the craven images of the Greeks, since then, were images of deities, were rejected and forbidden. But besides this who can make an imitation of the invisible, incorporeal, uncircumscribed, formless God? Therefore to give form to the Deity is the height of folly and impiety. And hence it is that in the Old Testament the use of images was not uncommon. But after God in His bowels of pity became in truth man for our salvation, not as He was seen by Abraham in the semblance of a man, nor as He was seen by the prophets, but in being truly man, and after He lived upon the earth and dwelt among men, worked miracles, suffered, was crucified, rose again and was taken back to Heaven, since all these things actually took place and were seen by men, they were written for the remembrance and instruction of us who were not alive at that time in order that though we saw not, we may still, hearing and believing, obtain the blessing of the Lord. But seeing that not every one has a knowledge of letters nor time for reading, the Fathers gave their sanction to depicting these events on images as being acts of great heroism, in order that they should form a concise memorial of them. Often, doubtless, when we have not the Lord's passion in mind and see the image of Christ's crucifixion, His saving passion is brought back to remembrance, and we fall down and worship not the material but that which is imaged: just as we do not worship the material of which the Gospels are made, nor the material of the Cross, but that which these typify. For wherein does the cross, that typifies the Lord, differ from a cross that does not do so? it is just the same also in the case of the Mother of the Lord. For the honour which we give to her is referred to Him Who was made of her incarnate. And similarly also the brave acts of holy men stir us up to be brave and to emulate and imitate their valor and to glorify God. For as we said, the honour that is given to the best of fellow-servants is a proof of good-will towards our common Lady, and the honour rendered to the image passes over to the prototype. But this is an unwritten tradition, just as is also the worshipping towards the East and the worship of the Cross, and very many other similar things. A certain tale, too, is told, how that when Augarus [ie. Abgar V (4BCE-50CE), King of Edessa and a reputed correspondent of Christ] was king over the city of the Edessenes, he sent a portrait painter to paint a likeness of the Lord, and when the painter could not paint because of the brightness that shone from His countenance, the Lord Himself put a garment over His own divine and life-giving face and impressed on it an image of Himself and sent this to Augarus, to satisfy thus his desire. Moreover that the Apostles handed down much that was unwritten, Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, tells us in these words: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and bold the traditions which ye have been taught of us, whether by word or by epistle." And to the Corinthians he writes, "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I have delivered them to you." trans S.D.F. Salmon in John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, in Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, (repr. Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1955), Vol IX, p. 88 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history. Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use. (c)Paul Halsall Feb 1996 halsall@murray.fordham.edu Nonson  2.16.01
|
 |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Linear Mode
