Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Clean and unclean


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#21 Guest_Leandros

Guest_Leandros
  • Guests

Posted 20 July 2005 - 11:03 AM

Sister Theopesta,

Gnosiology is a Greek word composed from two words: gnwsis + logos.

gnwsis means "knowledge" and logos means "discourse". So, gnosiology is the expression of knowledge. In this context, gnosiology can only present the "knowledge" of “beings” and can not present "knowledge" of “not beings”.

“Virtual reality” has nothing to do with the Gnosiology. For example, if I fantasize a "being" then, the expression of my experience about this non-real being is known as fantasiology (fantasy + logos); it is not Gnosiology.

Gnosiology is the study of knowledge, its origin, processes, and validity. Gnosiology is the expression of knowledge of reality. Gnosiology is the ontology of knowledge.

The philosophical meaning of Gnosiology is that of “theory of cognition”, which is a theory about subjective/dialectic realization of knowledge of reality. The “Gnosiology”, as it is used by Orthodox theologians, is profoundly different from its philosophical usage. The “gnosiology”, as it is used by Orthodox theologians, is a theory about relational realization of knowledge of ontological reality.

You can find an article about Faith And Science In Orthodox Gnosiology and Methodology by Father George Metallinos, Professor at the University of Athens.

As gnosiology is both "knowledge" and "discourse", it forces the Greek philosophy to find the "language" for the "discourse", because the aim of the philosophers was to “know” the “Cosmos”. In this context, the main issue for the philosophy is to express the “knowledge” using the method of “concept”, “judgement”, and “syllogism” with reference to the ideas of word, sentence and argument, of spoken and written language. In this effort philosophy is using a “systematic” method to organize knowledge and an “inventive” method to increase it. Classical Greek philosophy –and a big part of modern philosophy- is realizing gnosiology as a methodology for communicative expression of knowledge: “to experience a specific ‘reality’ of Cosmos and then to express this experience to others with the use of a common language”.

In Orthodox "gnosiology" the issue is to experience the "knowledge" through relation and then to "discourse" this experience also through relation. The Orthodox gnosiology is a two-folded realization: “to experience a specific relation and then to relate the experience with others in the same relation”.

So in this context, the orthodox “gnosiology” is a relational issue and the communication, as a common logical structured language/logic is not necessary. Orthodox “gnosiology” is not an issue of cognition, because cognition needs a structured data of “images”. Relation on the other hand is a stack of unstructured data which is consciously realized as knowledge of the otherness, with which we are related.

We are deceived to believe that a relation consists of a communication with a common language between the related parts, which defines it. In the experience of increment of our “knowledge” through a specific relation we are carried to believe that, in the course of this specific relation there is a transmission/communication of data between the related parts. We are used to believe that, this communicated data relates the individuality of each related part with the other part, which lacks the knowledge of “the unknown other”. The transmission of data within a relation needs a language (even a non verbal language can be used for this communication, signs and symbols can also serve this cause) that will provide to us the related information, coming from the related other. We think that, individuality is revealed through the relation as information, as knowledge which then it is possible to be transmitted by us to others. In this context, relations are thought to be personal “atomic” realities that are consumed subjectively as cognitional knowledge. This illusive realization of relation is refuted by Orthodox “gnosiology”.

The knowledge of Orthodox gnosiology is relational information that is so personal and exclusive that it could never be transmitted to others. Within the relation no communication of data are exchanged between the related parts. Each related part remains unable to “speak” about itself with the other part. “Self” is a reality and not an object. “Self” can exist only within the relation so there is nothing that is unknown to the related other. The other that seems to be unknown is already well known within the relation, or else the relation would have been a “virtual reality”, but the relation is an ontological reality simultaneously for the self and for the other.

For example, I am the husband of my wife and in our relation there is nothing that my wife is by herself, without me. If she would have tried to talk to me about herself, as “wife”, she would have nothing to tell me that I would have not already known. So in our relation there is no exchange of information, there is no communication. But, as neither could I as “husband” have known the reality of being the specific “husband” by me alone, nor my “wife” could have known the reality of being the specific “wife” by herself alone, we both know the other related person as “new information” beyond “self” as new knowledge that is provided neither from self awareness nor from communication with the other person.

In this context, I am in no condition to express the knowledge of my wife as the specific experience of the reality of our specific relation. There is no language to express the “information” of my wife, because when I am talking about her I must talk, at the same time, about me and vice-versa. The use of the language requires discoursing about one entity at a time, or else it will confuse the meaning of the words. For example I can not talk about a specific “wife” and to introduce a specific “husband”, because then I am talking about the “couple”. The gnosiology of my wife is expressed by two persons and can not be expressed by her alone, so she is as a specific “wife” a paradox of knowledge, because she is, actually, the specific “wife” in the most exclusive way that I have no knowledge at all of what this specific way of being “wife” is, as her husband. The presentation of our relation as it is realised by both of us is an abstract presentation of a couple, because it fails to present either me or her as the way of being the specific husband and as the way of being the specific wife.

Now, this is a significant problem because if I talk about my wife and at the same time I present her husband, the structured logic of language/communication fails. The third party fails to understand how my wife is a self-standing person, as the specific wife and at the same time she can not self-stand on her own. Through my presentation, the third party might know the abstract “knowledge” of being “wife” and being “husband” as structured images of cognition and logic. This is the knowledge of virtual reality of being “wife”. This is not the knowledge of being the specific wife that my wife is.

The language of communication consists of Pragmatics, Semantics, and Form that draw an “image” of reality. This image can be “described” to others as knowledge through contact/language. The image is a self-standing image, because it is presented as an already “seen” object.

The language of relation consists of verbal silence that draws an experience that can be related to others only through the same specific relation. Communication is absolutely useless in a relation. The moment that I discourse about the relation, I am already taken out of it and I am trying to “draw its image”. This makes the image to collapse, because it I can not draw the ontological image of the relation by drawing my part, because the image of the relation is two-folded. A specific relation is ontologically one, but it is realized in two distinct experiential experiences. We always experience only the one of the two experiences, because the related part’s experience is always absolutely non-experience-able, or else the relation is a self-illusion.

St Paul says: “And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father”. (Galatians 4:6) This is the model of Orthodox “gnosiology”: We are children of God, as long as our relation with God-Father is discoursed by the realization of the same Father of the Son, by the Spirit. Without the experience of the relation of the Father, the Son and the Spirit, in our heart, the reality of our relation with God is meaningless and absurd. The Orthodox gnosiology of God is the experiential knowledge of Holy Trinity Relation through the experience of the Son, in Spirit, before the Father. In this context, the “gnosiology” of our relation with God is a "silent cry". It is a silent relation because we can not call Him Father by our authority, and actually we do not. But at the same time the Spirit of the Genuine Son is crying “abba, Father” and He does this in our heart. So, the presence of the Spirit of the Only Son in our heart relates us to participate in His relation with the Father. The uncreated relation of the Son with his Father is related to us in the experience of our relation with Christ in His Spirit that He has sent to stay inside our hearts. The difference is made by the virtue of our freedom to accept in our hearts, or to close out, the Spirit of the Son.

According to Antony Bloom, an Orthodox Russian Bishop in UK, in the Church we live Christ’s Life: His Life is our life.

In Acts 2:32-33, St Peter on the day of Pentehost has addressed the people of Jerusalem by saying: “…This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.….” This verse of the Gospel is the definition of the Orthodox gnosiology.

May God bless us, all.


(Message edited by lpap on 20 July, 2005)


#22 Guest_nurse-aid

Guest_nurse-aid
  • Guests

Posted 20 July 2005 - 03:07 PM

A sacrifice to God is a broken spirit….
Broken and contrite heart God will not despise….

But I’m grand daughter of the traders…
My heart is full of mood to trade and get…
To sell and tricks, to want and dreaming…
To have what ever comes to mind and no regret…
Do not regret of jealous being, myself, my heart,
My hungry hands…
My heart which is polluted, by worldly dreaming,
by I want…and what I have to have…
My spirit is not broken; my heart is not contrite…
My sacrifice is not accepted….and what was that…
What was my sacrifice?
But Father I’m trying…to let it go my I want…
To let it go all my knowledge, my trading heart
and only then I may be broke…
And then I will become a beggar,
or simply one, alone in desert of existing me…
So empty and so boring, but then…at list without
those desires of to have, which used to burned me…
And then I’m being burn by Fire, by Sun, by Love, by only Him…
Me who is so empty and so hungry…without money and without
knowledge of the traders, who use to be a me…
And maybe then, when I’m so naked, and maybe this
WAS real me…and maybe only now I admitted…
that in the order of become myself and live…
I have to die in YOU…be broken,
but wonder is by this I’m so rich in YOU!


#23 Theopesta

Theopesta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 411 posts

Posted 15 August 2005 - 06:49 PM

in case of leprosy the leper will be clean when his case is totally leper all over his body (lev 12: 12, 13)

but in case of partial leper he will be "unclean" I read that:
the total case is not contagious, while the partial case is contagious.

the spritual comment on that is:

{he is clean." That is, the leprosy, instead of striking inwards, had worked itself out, typical of a man truly confessing his sin; then the effect only of the defilement remains. }

{Leprosy was "the outward and visible sign of the innermost spiritual corruption; a meet emblem in its small beginnings, its gradual spread, its internal disfigurement, its dissolution little by little of the whole body, of that which corrupts, degrades, and defiles man's inner nature, and renders him unmeet to enter the presence of a pure and holy God"}

{If the man was white all over, it was only the effect, as sin entirely confessed but no longer active; he was clean.}

the refrences:
1- Anthology of commentaries Electric Notes on Lev xiii: 2, 12, 13

2- Easton's Revised Bible Dictionary: leprosy.

3- concise Bible dictionary, leprosy

are any one has any more??????


#24 Theopesta

Theopesta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 411 posts

Posted 16 August 2005 - 06:40 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzaraas

Tzaraath (tzaraat, tsaraas, tsaraat; Hebrew öøòú) was an affliction mentioned in the Tanach and other Jewish sources, starting in Leviticus chapters 13–14.

Although the term is commonly mistranslated leprosy, tzaraath was not leprosy. It affected primarily the afflicted person's skin, but sometimes his clothes and/or house. It is traditionally believed to have come not through natural means but as a punishment for sin, and to have been cured not through natural means but through repentance and forgiveness

can I find any mind about that, many thanks

#25 Theopesta

Theopesta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 411 posts

Posted 19 August 2005 - 01:17 PM

Tzaraat or Leprosy? by: Rav Lynn Boleware
Congregation Beit Lechem

what Encyclopedia Encarta had to say about leprosy: "Leprosy is an ancient disease and is even mentioned in the "old" Testament. However, these Biblical descriptions do not resemble leprosy, as we know it today. It is likely that the term tzaraat referred to a number of different skin ailments that were considered to be punishment from G-d for sin and that marked the sufferer as unclean". I was surprised at this because this description of leprosy is almost exactly the same as the one given by our Sages and rabbis.

V’yikra 13 deals with the mitzvot [laws] of tzaraat [tza-ra’at]. For hundreds of years the Hebrew word tzaraat, x [ : r : c " , has been translated as leprosy and we were taught a person suspected of tzaraat had to be quarantined to prevent the spread of the disease. Once a kohen confirmed someone had tzaraat, he or she was known as metzora, [ r c M , and they were forced to live outside the city or camp. This certainly sounds like leprosy, but a closer examination of the Torah and some of the rabbinic commentaries reveal that the tzaraat of the Tanakh is quite a different disease from what we know as leprosy.

The Talmud teaches that if the symptoms of tzaraat appear on a newlywed or on someone during a festival season, the Kohen wasn’t examine the affliction or declare someone tamei [contaminated] so it wouldn’t interfere with the celebration. But, again, if the purpose of the mitzvot was to prevent the spread of leprosy, then on a honeymoon or during a feast when the streets were packed with thousands of pilgrims would be times when a quarantine was most needed.

So what is this strange disease that we traditionally call leprosy? Because of the way it’s treated and controlled in the Torah, the Sages teach that tzaraat is not a bodily disease like leprosy. Instead, they teach it is a physical manifestation of a spiritual condition; a punishment designed to call a person’s attention to sin in their life and draw them to teshuvah/repentance.

the quotation end

in christ

#26 Theopesta

Theopesta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 411 posts

Posted 19 August 2005 - 01:58 PM

Tzaraat or Leprosy? by: Rav Lynn Boleware
Congregation Beit Lechem Posted Image

a person afflicted with tzaraat is known as a metzora and the word metzora is a contraction of two Hebrew words, [ r a Y c A m , which mean "one who spreads slander".
From this the Sages teach that the primary cause of tzaraat was the sin of slander – gossiping and making derogatory remarks about other people.

But what makes slander so unique that it warrants its own punishment and warnings?

When someone slanders, or gossips, or makes derogatory remarks against someone else, they are actually trying to affirm their own greatness or self-righteousness. It’s their pride in their own selves talking. By pointing out the faults of others, they edify themselves. And this arrogance leads to slander and slander opens the door for all kinds of sins: bloodshed, murder, sexual immorality, pride, robbery and selfishness.

Adonai’s remedy for such sin was tzaraat. According to the Sages, tzaraat began as simple warning, calling a person to repentance, but if this failed, it worsened until the guilty party was driven from the camp and forced into isolation from society. There, alone with his thoughts, hopefully he would teshuvah – repent and turn back to Adonai.

#27 Theopesta

Theopesta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 411 posts

Posted 19 August 2005 - 05:31 PM

Tzaraat or Leprosy? by: Rav Lynn Boleware
Congregation Beit Lechem Posted Image

From arrogance to humility Being forced to live outside the camp served both a physical and a spiritual purpose.

Physically if prevented the spread of the disease to others, but spiritually, it gave the metzora time to reflect on his sins.

The haughtiness and arrogance that led him to slander and gossip about others had now brought him to a place were he was rejected and isolated by the very people he had slandered. Hopefully this would lead to repentance and the person could eventually regain his place among his people. If repentance did come and Adonai removed the disease, the metzora approached the priest and began a three-stage purification process before he could return to his place in society.

First:

he had to complete a ritual involving two healthy, kosher birds. One bird was sacrificed while the other was dipped in the first bird’s blood and turned loose over an open field.
Since you couldn’t catch the "bloodied" bird once it was released, it reminded the metzora he couldn’t undo the damage he had done by slandering someone else.

Secondly, the Kohen shaved all the hair from the outside of the metzora’s body. The Torah mentions three specific places to be shaved: the head, beard and eyebrows:

1- The head was shaved because it represented the haughtiness that led the metzora to consider himself better than the person he had slandered or gossiped about.

2- The beard was shaved because it framed the mouth that spoke the gossip and slander.

3- The eyebrows were shaved because they represent the trait of jealousy, literally called the "narrowness of the eye", which motivated him to destroy the reputation of others. [Remember in Hebrew, an "evil eye" meant someone that was stingy.]

Finally,after a one-week waiting period, he could bring the final offerings that would make him clean again and restore his place among the people.

#28 Theopesta

Theopesta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 411 posts

Posted 19 August 2005 - 07:45 PM

http://www.orthodox....-lepers.html#a2 Posted Image

Leprosy is a metaphor for our sins. These lepers were "afar off", not only because they had to stay away from the Jews, because of their uncleanness, but because we cannot approach God, being full of sins. A man who has sins is certainly afar off from God

#29 Theopesta

Theopesta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 411 posts

Posted 23 August 2005 - 11:37 AM

HAVE YOU EVER HUNGERED FOR WHOLENESS?
SERIES: JESUS, SAVIOR OF THE LOST
By Ron Ritchie Posted Image

In the Old Testament, leprosy was viewed not so much as a symbol of sin as it was the judgement of God for sin and its consequences; sin which produces uncleanness, separation, decay and, for most, a painful and untimely death.

Thus, leprosy was an outward sign of the death that sin produces in people's lives. When a person was cured it was seen as a symbol of the resurrection of that person from the dead and his reinstatement into the land of the living.

#30 Theopesta

Theopesta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 411 posts

Posted 23 August 2005 - 02:55 PM

Posted Image A study of the scriptures reveals many occasions where it was God's will that one of his children become sick and remain sick, to his honor and glory. Sickness, as well as healings, are used to carry out God's greater purposes on this earth within his plan of redemption.

(2CO xii: 9) "(AKJV) And he said to me, My grace is sufficient for you: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest on me."

#31 Theopesta

Theopesta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 411 posts

Posted 23 August 2005 - 03:20 PM

can I take the blessings of your enlightment comments about LEV xiii: 12, 13

some comments and Rabbic writting said it is the advanced case it is not contagious physically and spritually the leper become very humble this make him CLEAN in sight of GOD it is enough to him his crying about himself "unclean unclean"

some comment that it is anthor case when it is cover all the flesh

can I know your opinons

many thanks


#32 Theopesta

Theopesta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 411 posts

Posted 24 August 2005 - 07:47 PM

I find inthe catholic encylopedia about leprosy that:http://www.newadvent...then/09182a.htm

White formations covering the whole body are no sign of leprosy unless "live flesh" (ulceration) accompany them}

I try to study the pathology of the leprosy or hansen's disease and I find that it is differ from the "Tzaraat" which is mistranslated to leprosy.

no greek word to translate the hebrew they use the word lepra the english word leprosy refer to elephantiasis to greeks

may be I am mistaken

#33 Vasilis Kirikos

Vasilis Kirikos

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts

Posted 24 August 2005 - 09:55 PM

>

Re:"I try to study the pathology of the leprosy or hansen's disease and I find that it is differ from the "Tzaraat" which is mistranslated to leprosy."

Leprosy in modern terms is caused by the bacteria _Mycobacterium_ _leprae_; it is in the same genus of bacteria as _Mycobacterium_ _tuberculosis_ that causes "TB". Perhaps your search concerning this organism would be more productive if you used the modern genus and species name, _Mycobacterium_ _leprae_. Vasilis

> ]


#34 Theopesta

Theopesta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 411 posts

Posted 25 August 2005 - 12:50 AM

many thanks our REV.FATHER
I find this name in the researchs on the net


#35 Theopesta

Theopesta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 411 posts

Posted 26 August 2005 - 08:15 PM

Rabbi Edward Feinstein Divre Torah Archives
http://www.vbs.org/r...vre/tazriah.htm

As leprosy disfigures the human form, there are plagues that disfigure a culture's soul by stealing the depth and resonance of its words

#36 Theopesta

Theopesta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 411 posts

Posted 26 August 2005 - 09:39 PM

Dr. Meir Gruzman/Department of Talmud/ The Faculty of Jewish Studies/Bar-Ilan University
The Opinions of Our Sages on Leprosy as a Punishment - Extents and Sources

What is different about the leper that the Torah said that he should bring two birds (as a sacrifice) so that he may become pure? The Holy One Blessed be He said: He acted as a babbler, therefore let him offer a babbler, birds that babble, as a sacrifice (ibid.).

Why must he bring "cedar wood" (etz erez) as part of his purification sacrifice? Because he made himself haughty, like a cedar tree (by his talk), he was afflicted with leprosy.

And why "hyssop" (ezov)? Because among all the trees none is more lowly than the hyssop, and since he (the slanderer) has made himself lowly he will be cured by the use of the hyssop " (Tanchuma, Metzora 3)

#37 Marie+Duquette

Marie+Duquette

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 302 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 26 August 2005 - 10:06 PM

Theopesta,

Thank you for the reference to Rabbi Edward Feinstein's Archives. His sermon/article called the "Masterpiece" is well worth reading! It does exemplify the quote that you posted above:

"As leprosy disfigures the human form, there are plagues that disfigure a culture's soul by stealing the depth and resonance of its words."

Did you take this quote from Rabbi Feinstein? If not where from?

marie_duquette


#38 Theopesta

Theopesta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 411 posts

Posted 26 August 2005 - 11:17 PM

marie_duquette
I took this quotation from Rabbi Feinstein in his search in this site

http://www.vbs.org/r...vre/tazriah.htm


#39 Theopesta

Theopesta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 411 posts

Posted 30 August 2005 - 02:29 PM

REV xxii: 2

KJV) In the middle of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bore twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month

and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations"

#40 Theopesta

Theopesta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 411 posts

Posted 05 September 2005 - 12:22 AM

in the death uncleanness (Num 19) He that touches the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days He shall purify himself with water of seperation on the third day then the seventh day he shall not be clean.

to show that sanctification is progressive and incomplete till the arrival of the eternal Sabbath.

reference:
Jamieson & Fausset & Brown: A Commentary on number 19: 12

On the third day, to typify Christ's resurrection on that day, by which we are cleansed or sanctified.

reference:
Poole-Mathew: Pool's Commentary of the Bible on num 19: 12

what is the water of seperation or water of purification?

it is the water contain:
1- ashes of red heifer burn without the camp
2- cedar wood, and hyssop, and scarlet, and cast it into the middle of the burning of the heifer

this water used in the cermonial purification from death uncleanness
in CHRIST




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users